sin eaters

[KitNyx]

I for one, must stand with Jenyar. It is a testiment to Jenyar's kindness and integrity that he/she continue's to share his/her feelings and ideas with us even though he/she is more often than not ridiculed and admonished. Why would Jenyar continue to post if he/she did not care about our us? I am fairly certain Jenyar knows he/she is not going to convert most of us. In my opinion, Jenyar is attempting to learn from what we know and share the knowledge he/she has. For this I am greatly appreciative. Jenyar is pushing nothing on me that I can not choose to block.

As for Jenyar being defensive...I am really surprised that he/she even continues to share with us when most of us are as rude and obnoxious as we are (myself at times included). I do not blame Jenyar for being defensive.

MedicineWoman, perhaps you have better vision than I, but I cannot even tell whether Jenyar is male or female from here, much less the color or potency of his/her aura. This site should be about the honing of ideas and beliefs, not about personal attacks. It would have made more sense to me if you would have actually defined the type of person you were refering to when you made this statement,"They seek you out like a bad virus. They're everywhere. Their only goal in life is to find spiritual people to devour their soul. A good example on sciforums is Jenyar." instead of giving and example meant to be a subversive attack. I see this as unnecessarily provoking. I assure you that if we amassed all of the information we have on Jenyar's opinions and beliefs, we would not even scratch the surface of WHO Jenyar really is. In fact, if your statement is true about "these parasitic souls searching out spiritual people",then your need to bait Jenyar might be construed as a covert form of seeking him out...

I imagine you are wondering how I can stick up for Jenyar when I obviously disagree with his beliefs. I tend to disagree with the Bible and hence any beliefs based upon it. I can not find any logic in these beliefs, but I also know that I do not contain all of the facts. Having no faith, I find ABSOLUTE faith in any belief (including science) as misguided. No one knows all, and if given a different set of fact, most people would see a different idea of reason then what they currently have. So, although I find religion illogical I can at least admit that I might be wrong. One of the tenets I live by - implausability is not proof of impossibility.

Anyway, I am not sure Jenyar approves of my support, and I'm sure I have already pissed off the rest of you with my condescending tone and preachy speech, so I will shut up and close down. I just needed to express my feelings on personal attacks.

- KitNyx

 

[Flores]

Few corrections

Originally posted by Jenyar
I did not appoint the messenger king - He was simply crucified as one. But I do believe in the purity and power of his message

Please change to:
"I do believe in the purity and power of THE message, and not HIS message". Jesus never claimed that he is the owner of the message. He was only delivering a load that didn't belong to him from the first place. Jesus is not the theif you portray him to be.

Originally posted by Jenyar
- it has made a difference in many lives. True wisdom only comes from actually serving God, and that is my priority. I'm constantly freeing myself from indoctrination and surroundings, but I don't deny my responsibility towards it. The love I experience in my life is a direct result of living in such a society, and all the suffering I have experienced stand in direct opposition of this love. I can't stop loving God - it is not in my power.

I find that very admirable.....to love god. But love is such a limited meaning word that is used for a son/duaghter/wife/parents, and I need something more powerful to describe my relation to god. Something that I can't just use or share with anybody else even a husband. Believe and worship is more adequate terms to me when referring to god. For example, not a true example, I love my son so much and he is a drunk...I love him to the extent of sacrificing myself in his place, but I don't believe or worship him, that's reserved only for god.

 

[Jenyar]

KitNyx, thanks for the reasonable words. It says a lot about your character to be able to separate a person from his opinion. A good friend is one who can oppose your opinions diametrically, yet still be at your side when people turn against you. Ring my bell if you ever need a soundboard.

Flores,

"I do believe in the purity and power of THE message, and not HIS message". Jesus never claimed that he is the owner of the message. He was only delivering a load that didn't belong to him from the first place. Jesus is not the theif you portray him to be.

Objection noted, and I prefer your version. Whoever Jesus was, He never promoted himself - always God.

I find that very admirable.....to love god. But love is such a limited meaning word that is used for a son/duaghter/wife/parents, and I need something more powerful to describe my relation to god. Something that I can't just use or share with anybody else even a husband. Believe and worship is more adequate terms to me when referring to god. For example, not a true example, I love my son so much and he is a drunk...I love him to the extent of sacrificing myself in his place, but I don't believe or worship him, that's reserved only for god.

Also agreed. As I said before, "Father" only describes a certain, small part of God, and how He loves us. There are often times when I can share pain, doubt or confusion with God when nobody else are there to hear or listen. Or when everybody else would reject me, I know He will welcome me. It's just a small part - but no less significant for that.

 

[GodLied]

Jenyar, an empath eats souls of others. A soul might be refered as a spirit. By eating souls, an empath cannot be empty spiritually unless they digest souls and expel the waste products. Nothing ever stated empaths expel the souls they eat; so, they contain spirits of those whose souls they ate. Therefore, an empath that ate at least one soul is not spiritually empty.

Religion, some get into it for money, some for power, others for engrained beliefs. Those who get into it for money might make millions--billions if they are great at their trade. In the case of televangelists, millions are made. In the case of Catholicism, the church pays court costs for pedophile priests praying on altar boys. In the case of saints that help unwanted people like the lepers in Hawaii, religion is practiced by engrained beliefs. There are examples of people in religion for money, power, and engrained beliefs.

An expert decision maker capable of influencing executors to execute the expert's decisions as if those decisions were the executor's decisions, might succeed in organized religion. Courses in applied psychology help one fathom the basics of people programming. Actual implementation of people programming is where one learns from mistakes and modifies methods.

An example of a good programmer is one who might successfully be a "Don Juan." Such a person is able to perform better than the statistical average in terms of companionship skills. I think there was once a study that 5% of people will sleep with a person who just asks them to sleep with them. A Don Juan will be able to sleep with significantly more than 5% of people randomly selected from a diverse socio-economic background. Subjects with certain backgrounds such as religion and/or marriage might take 6 months to program. Religion is a highly variable variable: some religions promote extramarital sex. That is why the subjects have to be randomly selected from a diverse socio-economic background: an unexperienced programmer might look like a "Don Juan" if all subjects are nymphomaniac swingers. Similarly, an experienced programmer might strike out with 100 homosexuals averse to heterosexual interaction.

Jenyar, you made a comment of poor becoming poorer and rich becoming richer. Wealth in life is not based on money and taxable assets. Wealth in life is based on quintessential contentment. For example, a spoiled brat of a billionaire who is perpetually subjected to parental neglect is wealthy fiscally but not personally. On a personal basis, the subject is poor. In contrast a nomad child with parental interaction is landless and essentially fiscally poor while that same child is personally wealthier than the spoiled billionare brat.

Recruiting may be active or passive. Active involves seeking prospects. Passive involves letting prospects chose to recruit themselves. By establishing a presence, potential prospects produce an opinion in regards to the positions posed. Depending on a number of factors, some people recruit themselves. Examples are images of Madonna and a lot of girls dressing like Madonna. Other examples are images of athletes and kids with pipe dreams of being in a particular athletic profession: not every kid with a desire to be in the athletic professions can be in the athletic professions simultaneously.

A passive recuiter performs a role. That role forms a model of behavior. Some people chose to recuit themselves into that role. Just by performing a visible job, one might passively recruit others.

Have a great Day!

GodLied.

Originally posted by Jenyar
...

....
They weren't "recruiting converts", but everybody knew they weren't doing what they did for personal gain. These are just personal examples. ....

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by GodLied
Jenyar, an empath eats souls of others. A soul might be refered as a spirit. By eating souls, an empath cannot be empty spiritually unless they digest souls and expel the waste products. Nothing ever stated empaths expel the souls they eat; so, they contain spirits of those whose souls they ate. Therefore, an empath that ate at least one soul is not spiritually empty.

You are confusing something substantial like food with something spiritual. From your perspective, a person would only have space for one soul (if he has no soul of his own, which sort of contradicts the concept of 'soul'), and would be "full" afterwards. We're not talking about a biological function here.

Religion, some get into it for money, some for power, others for engrained beliefs. Those who get into it for money might make millions--billions if they are great at their trade. In the case of televangelists, millions are made. In the case of Catholicism, the church pays court costs for pedophile priests praying on altar boys. In the case of saints that help unwanted people like the lepers in Hawaii, religion is practiced by engrained beliefs. There are examples of people in religion for money, power, and engrained beliefs.

Just like there are similar examples from every activity man has ever practised. Religion as institution has no special place in the human nature, maybe just a unique one that singles it out for controversy. Politics, the justice system, the medical profession (I'm thinking of plastic surgeons in particular), all these have similar vices and virtues.

An expert decision maker capable of influencing executors to execute the expert's decisions as if those decisions were the executor's decisions, might succeed in organized religion. Courses in applied psychology help one fathom the basics of people programming. Actual implementation of people programming is where one learns from mistakes and modifies methods.

A skill available to anyone, practised by few. People are more unpredictable than you suppose them to be. It's just as hard for your average pastor to make any difference in society than for your average politician. Even if he took a "course in applied psychology", you would not change your opinion about Bush or his opinions, for example. In that respect, the church has the "disadvantage" of having their manifest already written for them and any personal agendas are easily exposed. It's also a bit presumptious to assume you are part of an intelligent elite who are able to see through "organized" religion while the majority of the world are weak-willed or ignorant simpletons uncritical of suggestion.

... Subjects with certain backgrounds such as religion and/or marriage might take 6 months to program. Religion is a highly variable variable: some religions promote extramarital sex. That is why the subjects have to be randomly selected from a diverse socio-economic background: an unexperienced programmer might look like a "Don Juan" if all subjects are nymphomaniac swingers. Similarly, an experienced programmer might strike out with 100 homosexuals averse to heterosexual interaction.

THis sounds more like conspiracy theory than academic information. It makes sense in principle, but once again your a "robotizing" all sane people, and blaming only religion for taking advantage of suggestible people who would be equally suggestable to any other kind of misuse of power.

Jenyar, you made a comment of poor becoming poorer and rich becoming richer. Wealth in life is not based on money and taxable assets. Wealth in life is based on quintessential contentment. For example, a spoiled brat of a billionaire who is perpetually subjected to parental neglect is wealthy fiscally but not personally. On a personal basis, the subject is poor. In contrast a nomad child with parental interaction is landless and essentially fiscally poor while that same child is personally wealthier than the spoiled billionare brat.

No offense, but you are living in a first world country. I get where you're coming from, but that's the sanitized version. When 70%+ of a country is living below the breadline, most people are generally poor both spiritually and economically. The rich have the luxury of religions, politics and electric fences. Someone who doesn't know where her next meal will come from might not give or receive much love. Which brings me to your next point:

Recruiting may be active or passive. Active involves seeking prospects. Passive involves letting prospects chose to recruit themselves. By establishing a presence, potential prospects produce an opinion in regards to the positions posed. Depending on a number of factors, some people recruit themselves. Examples are images of Madonna and a lot of girls dressing like Madonna. Other examples are images of athletes and kids with pipe dreams of being in a particular athletic profession: not every kid with a desire to be in the athletic professions can be in the athletic professions simultaneously.

If Christians act according to the faith they profess whereever they go, and go places others would shun, it is no wonder that they are feeding a spiritual hunger as well as a biological one. Food support comes and goes. Someone with love stays and loves. A person with no regard to spiritual needs will consider his duty done after he made his contribution, but someone who sees them as a priority would not leave until people felt cared for. Mind you, forcing your religion down someone's throat is like spiritual rape. What you call passive recruiting give a person the opportunity to decide for himself whether his help comes from the heart or the hand. From God or man.

A passive recuiter performs a role. That role forms a model of behavior. Some people chose to recuit themselves into that role. Just by performing a visible job, one might passively recruit others.

In this sense, most everybody are 'passive recruiters'. You are setting an example to people who know you, whether intentionally or not. People can look at your life and very quickly learn what you approve of and what you don't, whether you are sincere and honest, or a fraud. Children look up to parents, and when their parents are no more than children themselves, they look elsewhere. You never know who you influence by your behaviour. Someone who believes in God should be aware that his responsibility towards society is part of who he is - selfishness is not supposed to be your natural position, because it's socially destructive.

 

[Crushing Belial]

Jesus is (the) sin eater

 

[GodLied]

Do not confuse my wording. Jenyar, a person that has an out of body experience during the consumption process of sin eating can be spiritually empty at the time of consumption, contain the soul consumed, then let their own soul rejoin their carcass to share it with the soul consumed.


...

Persuasion might be performed by anyone. Some are better at it than others. Those good at it might realize that they can control actions of others while others think they are acting independently. A good book on the topic is "How to win friends and influence people."

Misuse of power is based on perspective. In the absence of knowledge of the power, misuse cannot be identified. With the knowledge of the power, misuse is based on perspective of the observer.

All conscious organisms are not robots; however, conscious organisms with logical brains can be programmable. Those who have learning disabilities which prevent logical processing of data so that one can provide inputs with consistent outputs, programming is impossible.


....

Jenyar, you know nothing of parenting and mother/child bonding. For an observation of family values, buy a dog and a bitch. Have a litter of pups. Buy from the pet store a baby animal that is not a dog. That animal can be a pig, a cat, or anything else that will not be squished from the puppies while suckling from mommy. The non-dog infant will become adopted by the bitch as its own. As that non-dog grows it considers the dogs as family and vice versa. Depending on the non-dog animal, the dogs protect it and it protects the dogs. The non-dog animal learns from its parents and its siblings given the opportunity to be raised with them.

After experiencing relationships as they relate to animals, reanalyze your devaluing parents based on age of parents.

Family values are not based on race, religion, or age. Family values are based on respect. When you learn that you will become a better person.

GodLied.

 

[Jenyar]

I don't have any experience with sin eaters or out of body experiences, so I won't comment on those. If it is anything more mysterious that simple empathy, I'm out of my league. I know what empathy is like, and there is space for a million people within one person. You only need to be able to identify yourself within another person to show true empathy.

After experiencing relationships as they relate to animals, reanalyze your devaluing parents based on age of parents.

Family values are not based on race, religion, or age. Family values are based on respect. When you learn that you will become a better person.

Keep in mind that I'm the one who believes "honour thy parents" is a moral obligation. And I'm the one willing to go out on a limb to defend it as a reality based on experience. Trust me, I have no intention of "devaluing" parents based on anything. I just think it is something that should be done consciously, and not just be left to nature for establishing a bonding. The natural bond between parents and children is rarely strong enough to enforce respect - it has to be an act of will.

 

[GodLied]

OOBE, respect

Jenyar, OOBE are simple. Relax, transmit your consciousness outside your body, observe the contents of something you were not precognizant about; wake up, see if you were dreaming. Some OOBE are actually dreams. Others are bonafide OOBE where one transmits one's consciousness from one's body to a point outside of the range on one's sesnses. With experience one might be able to expand upon the concept and modify objects by their transmitted consciousness. Once learned, one becomes telekinetic.

Respect is mutual. Disrespect is also mutual. If a parent (dis-)respects their children, their children will (dis-)respect them. People have the free will to chose their course of action. Dysfunctional families chose disrespect and functional families chose respect as a value defining their actions.

Respect as a value makes friends out of those dysfunctional with others.

GodLied.

Originally posted by Jenyar
I don't have any experience with sin eaters or out of body experiences, so I won't comment on those. If it is anything more mysterious that simple empathy, I'm out of my league. I know what empathy is like, and there is space for a million people within one person. You only need to be able to identify yourself within another person to show true empathy.

Keep in mind that I'm the one who believes "honour thy parents" is a moral obligation. And I'm the one willing to go out on a limb to defend it as a reality based on experience. Trust me, I have no intention of "devaluing" parents based on anything. I just think it is something that should be done consciously, and not just be left to nature for establishing a bonding. The natural bond between parents and children is rarely strong enough to enforce respect - it has to be an act of will.

 

[OverTheStars]

christianity is original. baptist, methodist, presbyterian, sin eaters, are all man-made. they change it from the original to fit it into their own beliefs, or way of life. sin eaters are unnecessary, and in my opinion, so are preists. i'm sure many catholics would disagree with me on this, but you can ask god yourself for forgiveness, you dont need a preist to do it for you, being a christian is about having a personal relationship with god. and you can still be a christian even if you dont go to church. kinda reminds me of the native americans, their beliefs are different than that of pagans and supports god because they believe in the creator, and they used nature to praise god, or creator. pagans like to worship nature.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by OverTheStars
christianity is original. baptist, methodist, presbyterian, sin eaters, are all man-made.
----------
M*W: "Christianity is original." Wasn't xianity based on pagan beliefs? Then it's not original. However, I understand what you meant.
----------
they change it from the original to fit it into their own beliefs, or way of life. sin eaters are unnecessary, and in my opinion, so are preists. i'm sure many catholics would disagree with me on this, but you can ask god yourself for forgiveness, you dont need a preist to do it for you, being a christian is about having a personal relationship with god.
----------
M*W: You're right. You DON'T need ANYONE (priest, pastor, rabbi, Jesus) to intercede between YOU and your CREATOR.
----------
and you can still be a christian even if you dont go to church. kinda reminds me of the native americans, their beliefs are different than that of pagans and supports god because they believe in the creator, and they used nature to praise god, or creator. pagans like to worship nature.
----------
M*W: There is a lot of truth to what Native Americans believe and worship. They know the source of all and they try to live it. There's a lot we could learn from them.

 

[GodLied]

<body bgcolor=green>Every religion has its defining characteristics. Christianity by far is not based on an original idea. Historical studies show people around the world who presented themselves as a god, a child of a god, or a messiah of sorts. See religious history before claiming Xianity is some original religion. Keep in mind many religions predate Xianity and that some of Xianity stories existed in texts predating Xian characters.

GodLied.

Originally posted by OverTheStars
christianity is original. baptist, methodist, presbyterian, sin eaters, are all man-made. they change it from the original to fit it into their own beliefs, or way of life. sin eaters are unnecessary, and in my opinion, so are preists. i'm sure many catholics would disagree with me on this, but you can ask god yourself for forgiveness, you dont need a preist to do it for you, being a christian is about having a personal relationship with god. and you can still be a christian even if you dont go to church. kinda reminds me of the native americans, their beliefs are different than that of pagans and supports god because they believe in the creator, and they used nature to praise god, or creator. pagans like to worship nature.

 

[OverTheStars]

before christianity, or christ, there was just god, judaism(is that spelled right?), jews. they would have to sacrifice animals usually calfs(ehh is that spelled right??)or lambs to clean themselves of sin. and according to the bible not too long after adam and eve popped out of eden people started worshipping themselves, or nature or made up gods. i can't prove the bible absolutely correct and true, but i have faith that most of the things said in there are true, but i do know there is a possibility that someone could have changed or screwed up on one of the millions of translations of the bible. i have poor sentence structure. there is a post somewhere here in sciforums that has a few pages on proofs of how the bible is true and whatnot, i'm kinda busy that's why none of you most likely are falling asleep reading this, i lost my track of thought, someone inspire me. i'm sorry.

 

[GodLied]

<onmouseover statusbar="God lied in the Holy Bible.">If you find the Holy Bible to be true, eat white sap green leaf plants because God said it is food. If you find the OT to be true, let your single male friend rape the woman he chooses to marry. If you find the Holy Bible to be true, kill any child that verbally or physically abuses its parents.</onmouseover>

OverTheStars, your conceptions on God are empty.

Have a Good Day!

GodLied.

Originally posted by OverTheStars
before christianity, or christ, there was just god, judaism(is that spelled right?), jews. they would have to sacrifice animals usually calfs(ehh is that spelled right??)or lambs to clean themselves of sin. and according to the bible not too long after adam and eve popped out of eden people started worshipping themselves, or nature or made up gods. i can't prove the bible absolutely correct and true, but i have faith that most of the things said in there are true, but i do know there is a possibility that someone could have changed or screwed up on one of the millions of translations of the bible. i have poor sentence structure. there is a post somewhere here in sciforums that has a few pages on proofs of how the bible is true and whatnot, i'm kinda busy that's why none of you most likely are falling asleep reading this, i lost my track of thought, someone inspire me. i'm sorry.

 

[OverTheStars]

if you would have listened to what i said before, things were different in the world thousands of years ago. if you're going to name things from the bible to prove how wrong the bible is, and how much of a liar god is, then read the bible carefully instead of reading every other line.
adam and eve lived in eden at the time god said that they could eat from any tree. the garden of eden was different than the rest of the world, it was a secluded place. read genesis 3:17-18. adam and eve could eat any fruit of any tree except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. any fruit, not plant.
they also lived longer. adam lived for 930 years. the years went down, maybe because there were more bacteria and toxins. if adam and eve were to live in the garden of eden without sinning against god, they would have been immortal.
are your misconceptions of god your own stupidity or are you being an idiot on purpose?

 

[GodLied]

Read your Bible.

OverTheStars, read your Holy Bible. Before God made Adam and Eve, he made all green plants and seeded fuits. When he made them, he declared them food. Go to an adult education center if you need assistance with your reading comprehension.

Furthermore, read you Holy Bible before spattering falsehoods as truths. God did not say Adam and Eve may eat from any tree. God said Adam and Eve may not eat from the Tree of Life.

When you graduate from Bible school or get a certificate for reading comprehension, repost your apology to this thread.

GodLied.

Originally posted by OverTheStars
... read the bible carefully instead of reading every other line.
adam and eve lived in eden at the time god said that they could eat from any tree. ...

 

[Jenyar]

Re: Read your Bible.

Originally posted by GodLied
OverTheStars, read your Holy Bible. Before God made Adam and Eve, he made all green plants and seeded fuits. When he made them, he declared them food. Go to an adult education center if you need assistance with your reading comprehension.

Furthermore, read you Holy Bible before spattering falsehoods as truths. God did not say Adam and Eve may eat from any tree. God said Adam and Eve may not eat from the Tree of Life.

So God said both "all fruit" and "except that fruit"? Don't deny it - that's what you say above.

Why should we choose one and you don't have to?

 

[OverTheStars]

godlied:Furthermore, read you Holy Bible before spattering falsehoods as truths. God did not say Adam and Eve may eat from any tree. God said Adam and Eve may not eat from the Tree of Life.

i've already posted that adam and eve could eat the fruit from any tree except from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. read my last post.

godlied:Before God made Adam and Eve, he made all green plants and seeded fuits. When he made them, he declared them food.

food for what was on earth at the time:animals. he didn't make adam and eve yet, it wasn't for them. and again, the garden of eden was different from the rest of the world.

 

[GodLied]

Food and restricted food

Although fruit from the Tree of Life was an edible item, it was a restricted fruit. Clearly, in some cultures certain foods were restricted foods. An example would be fish farmed in ponds by alii in Hawaii. The alii were the only ones allowed to eat fish grown in those ponds; however, those fish were food. Similarly, the fruit from the Tree of Life is an edible item that God restricted from Adam and Eve's diet.

If you do not like God's imposition of restrictions on Adam and Eve's diet, complain to God.

If you do not believe me, read your Holy Bible.

GodLied.

Originally posted by Jenyar
So God said both "all fruit" and "except that fruit"? Don't deny it - that's what you say above.

Why should we choose one and you don't have to?

 

[GodLied]

People are animals.

People are animals.

Godlied.

Originally posted by OverTheStars
....food for what was on earth at the time:animals. ...