The Riddle of Epicurus

[Quantum Quack]

Christ wanted to get started when he was 12 years old, remember? His Mother told him "NO". It was only after She asked him to, that he re-commenced... he was even a smart-aleky son about it... remember what he replied when She told him at the Wedding of Cana to begin his Miracles?... "so you think it is finally the time for it", as though he had been somewhat recentful for having to wait 18 years.

Isn't it odd that Protestants do not see this... that Mary was so important to Jesus, and that his obedience to Her was absolute. I suppose it is because they hate Mary so much, they suppose Her Son must have hated Her too, and they think like you, that Christ could not begin because he could not begin... that He was the Son of God, but not quite yet...

I often wonder what Mary must have felt and thought when she saw her son put up on a cross and crucified. I wonder how she could reconcile her grief in knowing that God should have been a hell of lot smarter than to sacrifice his only son instead of doing somethng himself.

I wonder how Joseph felt and thought also.

"What futility, that God should choose such a terrible way to get his message across, surely he is capable of much smarter and effective ways of achieving his ambitions......"

 

[§outh§tar]

I often wonder what Mary must have felt and thought when she saw her son put up on a cross and crucified. I wonder how she could reconcile her grief in knowing that God should have been a hell of lot smarter than to sacrifice his only son instead of doing somethng himself.

I wonder how Joseph felt and thought also.

"What futility, that God should choose such a terrible way to get his message across, surely he is capable of much smarter and effective ways of achieving his ambitions......"

What a sadly ignorant comment.

That supposes God is a logician and everything He does must make sense to human beings. I suppose you were ignorant too of the description of God as being transcendent, a very quality which negates what you have said?

 

[Jenyar]

It also supposes that Jesus' sacrifice didn't make any sense, and was futile... Just another senseless death.

 

[Quantum Quack]

do you really believe that the sacrifice of Jesus was the best way to do what God wanted to do. Do you think that God was incapable of doing a better job of it?
After all given the limited audience etc he certainly doesn't think big hey?

Any way
happy New Year

 

[Jenyar]

You might find that "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise [and] the weak things of the world to shame the strong." Because even strong men and phlosophers die in shame, and their strengths helped them nothing.

So that no one may boast before him (1 Cor. 1:29).

 

[Quantum Quack]

well he certainly can't boast to himself...........

 

[cole grey]

I appreciate the effort shown in all the back and forth about unprovable theories, but i would like to say that the word "sin" has been misused many times here and should be translated "imperfect" as it is a word that originally described an arrow missing its target.

So, breaking God's (or nature's) laws would obviously fit into "sin", but so would many other things - false assumptions that had negative consequences, lack of ability or drive to alleviate the evil that is obviously present in our world, etc.
The second example (regarding evil) is actually a much bigger problem than the creation of the evil itself. Have you ever thought about how few people there are that want to commit murder compared to the people who would rather let others just go ahead and live? The question here is not "how many hitlers does it take to start a holocaust", but rather, how many people who would rather not have innocents murdered participate, or just look the other way?

Of course all humans are "sinful", because they are all imperfect. Thus, they don't always do good, sometimes they do evil.
Here is where it gets sticky - I would say that God created humans imperfect or they would have had to choose not to "sin" and eat the apple, "causing" all future generations to be born into sin, also known as imperfection. Therefore, the root cause of the evil in the world is God's creation of mankind as imperfect beings.
(Thinking ahead: God's creation of an imperfect being is not cause for thinking that God is not perfect, most things that have any value beyond their base mechanical purpose are "perfectly" imperfect, and in that lies their beauty, power, and transcendence.)

Letting people exist in their imperfections, causing themselves and others incredible amounts of pain, is no more "evil" than creating gravity, or allowing humans to create "time", which results in all kinds of terrible events. It is just the way things are...
Anyone who complains about God should first point at themselves since a few people, even in their their imperfect state, have shown that we could do a lot to help alleviate this suffering, and most of us (including myself) don't do a whole heck of alot.
Then, let's try to imagine what the world would be like if it weren't this way. Well, we don't really have any idea what things would or could be like because our minds operate under the constraints of our existence. If we were not "sinful" we wouldn't have to be having a discussion about God's existence, because we would be perfectly able to see (or to not see) God, or at least gather enough information to come to some conclusion. (maybe faith is somehow more "perfect" than "knowledge" anyway)

conclusion-
Evil is something humans do. Humans are something God does.
I am sure God has an explanation for all this, but I am pretty sure it will end up being our own fault somehow.
Which could be why we'll have to spend the rest of eternity in heaven while God answers all our silly questions in a way which will satisfy our tiny little minds.

p.s. please don't ask about satan, i haven't figured that one out yet...

 

[one_raven]

I have read and argued this point countless times (MANY of them here) so I have no desire to read through all six pages of re-hashed shit and the same arguments.

If that leaves me undeserving of an answer to this question, I understand.

Why the caveat?

Answer this riddle, and tr not to use the term "free will"

I happen to think that is the solution to the so-called "riddle".

If you really want my opinion, here it is.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And I think it to be a very valid opinion one_raven. [that doesn't make it the truth but certainly valid as an opinion all the same.]
In another thread I asked the question "Does God play Chess?" It was really a statement also as I pondered on the idea that God also has freewill which he has every right to excersise. It is possible if one extends their beliefs to allwo GOd full and unfetted freewill one muct alsio realise that his range of choices is considereably more that we have. To not interferre, to practice "the Prime directive" and take no action when watching people suffer terribly must stake awsome self restraint and disciplne. To allow people to consider him to be an idiot and a god lacking in intelligence yet do nothing to show tyhem as wrong also takes enourmous self discipline and yet appearing as apathetic or indifferent.

To say that God exists solely to serve humanity is an incredible inditement as to the freedom God has.
To say that God is unable to develop a self sustaining automatic system of evolution would not give him the credit he may deserve.
Now either God has free will or he doesn't.
I find it some times amazing how religions underestimate the object of their faith so chronically. That religion denigrates God to being some sort of distorted refelction of them selves.

The it is no wonder that evil is allowed to perpetuate simply because the example set by God in the bible seems to justify the existence of evil.
Afterall it is ok for God to nail someone to a cross to set an example afterall.......


I also would like to ask the questions:

Do you think God may have evolved since the bible was written?

Or do you think God is some how required to be the God of the bible of 2000 odd years ago?

 

[Lori_7]

I appreciate the effort shown in all the back and forth about unprovable theories, but i would like to say that the word "sin" has been misused many times here and should be translated "imperfect" as it is a word that originally described an arrow missing its target.

So, breaking God's (or nature's) laws would obviously fit into "sin", but so would many other things - false assumptions that had negative consequences, lack of ability or drive to alleviate the evil that is obviously present in our world, etc.
The second example (regarding evil) is actually a much bigger problem than the creation of the evil itself. Have you ever thought about how few people there are that want to commit murder compared to the people who would rather let others just go ahead and live? The question here is not "how many hitlers does it take to start a holocaust", but rather, how many people who would rather not have innocents murdered participate, or just look the other way?

Of course all humans are "sinful", because they are all imperfect. Thus, they don't always do good, sometimes they do evil.
Here is where it gets sticky - I would say that God created humans imperfect or they would have had to choose not to "sin" and eat the apple, "causing" all future generations to be born into sin, also known as imperfection. Therefore, the root cause of the evil in the world is God's creation of mankind as imperfect beings.
(Thinking ahead: God's creation of an imperfect being is not cause for thinking that God is not perfect, most things that have any value beyond their base mechanical purpose are "perfectly" imperfect, and in that lies their beauty, power, and transcendence.)

Letting people exist in their imperfections, causing themselves and others incredible amounts of pain, is no more "evil" than creating gravity, or allowing humans to create "time", which results in all kinds of terrible events. It is just the way things are...
Anyone who complains about God should first point at themselves since a few people, even in their their imperfect state, have shown that we could do a lot to help alleviate this suffering, and most of us (including myself) don't do a whole heck of alot.
Then, let's try to imagine what the world would be like if it weren't this way. Well, we don't really have any idea what things would or could be like because our minds operate under the constraints of our existence. If we were not "sinful" we wouldn't have to be having a discussion about God's existence, because we would be perfectly able to see (or to not see) God, or at least gather enough information to come to some conclusion. (maybe faith is somehow more "perfect" than "knowledge" anyway)

conclusion-
Evil is something humans do. Humans are something God does.
I am sure God has an explanation for all this, but I am pretty sure it will end up being our own fault somehow.
Which could be why we'll have to spend the rest of eternity in heaven while God answers all our silly questions in a way which will satisfy our tiny little minds.

p.s. please don't ask about satan, i haven't figured that one out yet...

yummy, yum, yum.

scooby snacks for me!

*a big lick up the cheek*,

Lori

 

[Lori_7]

I have read and argued this point countless times (MANY of them here) so I have no desire to read through all six pages of re-hashed shit and the same arguments.

If that leaves me undeserving of an answer to this question, I understand.

Why the caveat?


I happen to think that is the solution to the so-called "riddle".

If you really want my opinion, here it is.

You're smart...very objective...seemingly open-minded and relatively unbiased. I like that. But dude...your avatar is freaking me out.

Love nuggets,

Lori

 

[one_raven]

Thanks, Lori.
I chose that picture for a few reasons.
That picture is his LIFE magazine cover, and I guess it's a bit of a comment on a nation that would put him (Charlie Manson, for those of you that aren't aware) on the cover of their most widely read (at the time) news magazine and turn him into a celebrity.
It's an event that marks what I really see (though some may disagree) as the point when this country's morbid obsession with celebrity simply for the sake of celebrity reached a sad point of no return.

Another reason is one thing about him that has fascinated my curiocity (not really about him but the whole series of events) was his claim to be the second coming of Christ.
Now, I don't believe him, I think he's simply an insane, derranged man that was undeservedly vaulted to celebrity status, but since I was a kid one question has always hovered around my mind, "What if?" I think mainly because I think it would make a great story.
The other curiosity for me was how people reacted to his claim. I don't think they rejected it because he got people to murder for him, but simply because he claimed it to be so. Anyone who claims to be Christ is laughed at, ridiculed and out-right rejected (usually locked-up) regardless of their actions. So it brings another question to my mind, "What would Christ have to do to convince people, if it is even possible?"
I can't help but imagine him coming back (not that I necessarily even believe in Christ myself) as the long -awaited return of the king, and him laughed at and institutionalized.
Hell, he could even be in a mental ward as we speak.

Anyway, the short of it (even though it's a bit late for that now ) is that I am endlessly fascinated by people's reaction to him specifically and "potential saviors" in general.

 

[Leo Volont]

Thanks, Lori.
I chose that picture for a few reasons.
That picture is his LIFE magazine cover, and I guess it's a bit of a comment on a nation that would put him (Charlie Manson, for those of you that aren't aware) on the cover of their most widely read (at the time) news magazine and turn him into a celebrity.

But you are providing just one more instance of contributing to that celebrity, no?

Old Charlie had a rare and dangerous talent -- he could get people to absolutely obey him even to the point of murder. Do you realize how much power can be gotten from such absolute obedience? Stalin did not have any more adherents that Old Charlie. It only takes a few, and if everybody knows they are out there, then everyone else soon falls in line. But what did Old Charlie do with his virtual omnipotence? He killed a few silly Hollywood second rate Movie Stars. But still, we are left with the fact that there were almost a dozen people willing to obey every whim and command of Old Charlie, no matter what. And this is in a World where most of us can't get others to agree which Restaurant to go to or which Movie to see. So we must all concede that Old Charlie had something weird and strange going for him.

Or maybe his secret was simply in how to recruit the most impressionable idiots, but even that shows a great deal of insight into character. So it really is difficult to entirely dismiss Old Charlie's bazzaar accomplishments.

 

[Leo Volont]

"What would Christ have to do to convince people, if it is even possible?"

Well, we have enough documentation for that sort of thing. The Catholic Church likes to keep Christ front and center, but there have been several times in their History when they have had very powerful Christ-Like Celebrities -- Bernard of Clairvaux, Vincent Ferrer, and even Anthony of Padua. What made them popular Saints even during their lifetimes? Miracles and plenty of them.

Francis of Paola in Southern Italy had a fascinating career. He put together a plan to have the strictest ascetic sect in the Church, providing the least food, the least sleep.. the least of everything. But because of his numerous miracles of every kind -- healing, levitating, modifying matter, raising things from the dead... all on a daily basis -- people were beating down his doors to join his Brotherhood.

But it was as nothing compared to Vincent Ferrer. He toured Southern Europe with a troupe of 10,000 flagellents. In each town he visited he would completely empty the hospitals with healings. He was a little old man, but would address the crowds, speaking only Castilian Spanish, and yet everyone in crowds of over 100,000 people would understand him distinctly in their own language. People would have thought he was certainly Christ come again, and he could only dissuade them by claiming to be the Angel of Judgment from Revelation Chapter 14.

We know that Bernard was able to exercise an incredible authority throughout Europe. He was quite the Peace Maker. he would walk into local Civil Wars and arbitrate, and nobody would even contemplate the bare possibility of not doing exactly what he recommended. It was Bernard who was able to put together the 2nd Crusade. it was ostensibly a 'failure', but it did send 90% of the Norman Invaders out of Europe where they got killed and were not able to come back to be a pain in everybody else's backsides.

Then we have the Story of Bernard and Abellarde, who was the foremost Philosopher and Intellectual of his time. Abellarde wanted to use Reason to justify Faith, but Bernard warned that to subject Mystery to Reason would be to open a door that would not be so easily shut. The Pope, who had been a brother recruited by Bernard, asked Bernard to debate Abellarde, and Bernard objected that this was exactly what he was against... people arguing over the Faith, but the Pope insisted. So they met at Paris and Abellarde spilled out his very sensible Argument. It was Bernard's turn and Bernard simply caught Abellarde's eye. Instantly Abellarde understood. He recanted and and resigned his Chair of Philosphy at the Sarbonne and went off to retirement at a secluded Monastery.

Anthony of Padua was also rife with the ordinary miracles but seemed to specialize in 'animal tricks'. He once preached to the Fish as a few members of a lakeside audience turned away from him. He said, "Okay, People don't want to listen... so I'll preach to the fish". and instantly all these fish heads popped out of the water and the fish were jumping just next to shore. The people were mesmerized by it, and then when Anthony finished his Mass and crossed himself, the fish instantly dispersed as though on signal. Then, from town to town he would find horse and mule owners who would bet Anthony that their horses and mules were not more Religiously wise than they were. The contest was for the horse or mule to chose between Anthony's God and the owners hey and oats. The Owners would starve their animals for days, and then show up in the town square, where, without ever having met Anthony, the Horse or Mule would actually lift up a hoof and 'cross' itself, and then genuflect, and then take a Consecrated Host from Anthony, all while ignoring the hey and oats and the lamentations of their owners. Anthony became wildly popular. And he tried to keep it secret, but he was caught levitating a few times (he didn't want to be known to be able to do something that even Christ was not known for).

Anyway, if the Second Coming of Christ were to arrive, He would only have to pick up where Bernard, Ferrer, Francis and Anthony left off. People would be just as impressed now, as they were then for the Saints.

 

[cole grey]

to Leo,

Let me say I appreciate the very interesting historical anecdotes you posted.
It is cool that some people take the time to look into the things most people would not.

I was however concerned with the post from page 5 of this discussion where you seem to say that Paul (credited with writing a good chunk of the New testament) was a fraud and protestants are devoid of contact with the holy spirit.
Wow! that is some real exclusionary sH*#.
It is bad enough to have even most christians excluded from acceptance by their God according to most "religious" people, due to lack of faith, or sin, or whatever. But when branches of the same root get into disparaging each other, it is sad.

First of all, the gifts of the spirit are not just the things that make up a good magic show. Love, patience, self-control, and even faith itself, are gifts from God.
Maybe the followers of Paul got more of those and the catholics got more cool magic tricks. It is certain the catholics commited more heartless, terrible, monstrous acts in the name of God than the protestants did. Although the protestants did try to catch up in the witch-burning game...

I guess I just think it is sad that someone who has an interest in reading about works of the spirit would try to be divisive instead of instructive and loving.
Oh well, nobody's perfect.

If I read that post wrongly and what I perceived was not your intent, please forgive my mistake. Nobody's perfect.

 

[cole grey]

also, to Q.Q. who asks:

---- Do you think God may have evolved since the bible was written?
Or do you think God is some how required to be the God of the bible of 2000 odd years ago? ----

I hope our perception of God has evolved and will continue to, even if God doesn't need to evolve. Hopefully we can figure out the things in the bible (and elsewhere) people have been misreading for the last 2000 years that have caused so many problems.

 

[duendy]

From the bits i've read of Leo's it seems to me he is living in his world of catholiks and protestants. and obviously siding with the former, accuses anyone to give a differnt view to his as being a protestant, and secualr protestant etc....as long as 'protestant' is ad-fixed

What he doesn't understand is that i am j'accusing BOTH catholiism and protestantism, and hitting them with the same broom!

one can see, even from a preliminary elementary glance at their story that protest-anism was an emergence in protest at the corruption of the Catholic church......and in doing so, their own religion lost much of the coulur and exuberance of Catholic ritual....yet deeper insight can see that the latters colour and exuberance was all show. and it had ruthlessly persecuted people, especially pagans, and hereitcs etc (which to this day it has never apologized for)...and the protestant religion is part of the grin work ethic trap of industrially fascist ideologies which fue//fool Western culture, and ruthlessly exploit most of the the rest of the 'un-develop-ed' world

We in the UK know all too well what can happen when the cathlics and the proddys go at each other....like Northern Ireland...?!

so the authentic explorer looks through this superficial rivalry to the REAL roots, which is the patriarchy!....the invention of a perfect 'he-God' and the rules which create pseudo-order

 

[cole grey]

Duendy, you have pointed out a good response to Q.Q.'s question about God evolving.
Nobody who is informed and rational believes in a big man in the sky with a white beard anymore. Maybe God took on the appearance of a man to communicate with the ancient patriarchs, (but then again, appeared as some sort of fire to Moses), so even the patriarchs should have a hard time deciding what he/it is really like.
In the Bible, God is represented with feminine aspects too.
Also, a belief that God is strictly female, should be just as spurious to the modern mind.

 

[cole grey]

Leo,
after reading some of your posts, I conclude that you waste a lot of your knowledge and obvious literary talent when you try to make such a stretch as calling Paul the antichrist, or protestantism a continuation of barbarism.
Although I would like to believe George bush responded to the pope in the way you ascribe to him, I couldn't find that quote anywhere, so your source is suspect to me, until that quote is shown from some ostensibly "reliable" source.
I think it was just a mistake putting quotes around it, and was just your interpretation of what was going on in his mind which is probably pretty accurate. But if you hold to it it as an actual quote, and the quote isn't real, it makes your presentation of other supposedly factual information (histrory for example) suspect to me as well, which probably isn't fair since it seems to be well researched. My point is, you could be more careful with where you point your pen, er, cursor.

Then there is this quote from one of your posts:
--- Originality is the fetish of secular humanists. This is why in modern western culture good music, good art, good literature is all abandoned in the pursuit of an originality that is rarely equal to what it displaces.----

Well said (x2).

When you make a point that is true, you show your true intelligence. Maybe you could channel your energies into more productive arguments. I'm sure you could think of something.

 

[Lori_7]

Thanks, Lori.
I chose that picture for a few reasons.
That picture is his LIFE magazine cover, and I guess it's a bit of a comment on a nation that would put him (Charlie Manson, for those of you that aren't aware) on the cover of their most widely read (at the time) news magazine and turn him into a celebrity.
It's an event that marks what I really see (though some may disagree) as the point when this country's morbid obsession with celebrity simply for the sake of celebrity reached a sad point of no return.

I suppose that ironically, that's the same reason that I was disturbed to see the pic used as an avatar.

Another reason is one thing about him that has fascinated my curiocity (not really about him but the whole series of events) was his claim to be the second coming of Christ.
Now, I don't believe him, I think he's simply an insane, derranged man that was undeservedly vaulted to celebrity status, but since I was a kid one question has always hovered around my mind, "What if?" I think mainly because I think it would make a great story.

Well, I would suppose that there was definitely a spiritual influence involved with Manson and his claims and his resulting ability to convince/coerce others. I've said it before on this board, that just as I have heard the voice of the Holy Spirit speak to me, I know that there are others who hear voices as well...it's just that only One such voice is Holy. Demonic spirits influence and communicate with people as well...interact with them...impart knowledge to them...lie to them. It's strange, I was just talking about Manson not too long ago with someone...I can't remember who it was...but they were telling me that the reason that he was so convincing to his followers is because he knew things about them that he should have had no way of knowing. There was no explanation other than a spiritual one to account for the personal and private information that he had about his followers. It freaked these people out to the point where they were convinced that he had "spiritual powers"...and I suppose they thought that if he was correct regarding the information that he told them about themselves and other things/happenings, that he was also correct in his claims to be the second coming.

I'm sure that Manson actually thought that he was the second coming...I'm sure that he believed the voices in his head. Demons are very deceptive...after all, it's their whole purpose or intention...to deceive...and they are very powerful and convincing in their manifestations. Telepathic communication not being the only way in which they can interact or influence. They can possess people who are willing and/or preferrably heavily drugged to the point of an extreme reduction of will or consciousness. And they can also possess the bodies of animals with relative ease. I've had them interact with me a couple of times. Back in the spring of last year...while I was knee-deep in "my miracle". I could certainly tell that they didn't like what was happening to me...involving me...and so they were trying to scare me...and did a real good job for a minute...until God showed me that I had nothing to fear, as He was with me. If He is with me who can be against me? But in the process, my ex-husband...who hears voices in his head and has for years...convincing him of a conspiracy against him...making him suicidal...and landing him in the psychiatric hospital on three occasions now. Anyway, they used him to communicate to me...they spoke through him. He called me on the phone one day...drunk and stoned as hell and as usual...and told me things about what I was going through that he had absolutely no way of knowing...no way at all. The tone of his voice was even different...he didn't sound like himself...and he didn't remember the conversation at a later date. This actually happened several times...but one time in particular, the things that he said regarding my miracle...things he knew...it scared me so bad. I've never been so scared in 37 years of life. I wasn't shaking, I was practically convulsing.

He also called me one time and left a message on my machine. When I played the message, there were two voices on the tape. His was in the background, and there was another non-human sounding voice in the foreground. It wasn't the tv or stereo...he was alone at the time and at home. It was an evil hissing almost synthesized sounding voice. I couldn't make out what it was saying, though I recognized that it was saying something. I got the creeps and deleted it almost immediately. I later regreted deleting it.

There was also this cat...my neighbor's cat...that slept in a tree one night in my backyard. I'm pretty sure that it was the same night that I received the terrifying phone call from my ex. This tree is a mulberry, and it's branches canopy over the middle of my yard. The cat laid all night in one that was in direct view of my second story bedroom window. I remember seeing it when I had gotten home that night...walked right under it while coming in from my garage...and thinking it very strange. See, my dog had chased that poor little thing up a tree twice before, and it had been scared to death. It cried and cried while it was stuck up there both times until it finally and most apprehensively found it's way down. So to see it just calmly and quietly laying up there, with no dog in sight, and watching me, was weird...really weird. And it stayed there all night. And the weirdest thing was that every time I looked at it...from my bed, in the dark, out the window, and approximately forty feet away into the back yard...it would move. Every time I looked at it...even just to glance at it...it would get up and reposition itself. It freaked the shit out of me.

Also during that time, I kept hurting myself...like stubbing my toe, or running my shin into the coffee table. I'm usually a clutz, but this was noticably more often and more painful. And so I'm standing in my closet this one afternoon...rearranging my clothes...winter to summer changeout...and out of nowhere my head goes slamming into my closet shelf. I had been standing still...trying to decide how to organize it all. It's not like I lost my balance or ran into it...I wasn't even close to it. I swear it was as if some invisible hand came along and shoved my head right into it. The next day I slammed my finger in my car door at the gas station and that was it...I f'ing went off...at God. Yelling at Him about "how can you let this shit happen to me?...and you're supposed to protect me...you're my Father and it says in the Bible that you don't want me to be hurt"...and so I ended up praying for His protection and got it. Sometimes God allows things to happen to me so that I will pray for something in particular that He wants me to pray for...that I need to pray for...and then I pray and He acts upon the prayer. It's kind of cool actually.

And then there is also demonic interaction that happens in the spiritual realm...as with lucid dreaming, astral projection, and alien abduction. I've never experienced this myself, and am no expert, but I do know from hearing testimony of those who have experienced, that one's body can be left asleep/paralyzed, while their spirit goes elsewhere and interacts with deceptive/demonic spirits/beings. Astral projection could explain how Manson was able to collect personal information about his followers without their knowledge or consent...or information about other things...that would have convinced them that he was the Christ.

Anyway, with any kind of spiritual influence and/or interaction/communication, there are resulting manifestations in the physical realm. This is what the Bible refers to as "fruit of the spirit". And it says that the identity of the spirit is made obvious by it's fruit...a good spirit yielding good fruit and a bad spirit yielding bad fruit. I think that in the case of my ex-husband, and Manson, the fruit is obvious...as it also is with myself and in contrast.

The other curiosity for me was how people reacted to his claim. I don't think they rejected it because he got people to murder for him, but simply because he claimed it to be so. Anyone who claims to be Christ is laughed at, ridiculed and out-right rejected (usually locked-up) regardless of their actions. So it brings another question to my mind, "What would Christ have to do to convince people, if it is even possible?"
I can't help but imagine him coming back (not that I necessarily even believe in Christ myself) as the long -awaited return of the king, and him laughed at and institutionalized.
Hell, he could even be in a mental ward as we speak.

Anyway, the short of it (even though it's a bit late for that now ) is that I am endlessly fascinated by people's reaction to him specifically and "potential saviors" in general.

Shit, I'm ridiculed, rejected, and have my sanity questioned simply because I claim to know Him...to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit...to have experienced this miracle because of Him.

They killed him the first time, but the second time is going to be very different. No humble beginnings with a virgin birth in a manger...He's already lived that life...He's already conquered death. This time He will come with the armies of heaven to make war against and capture the antichrist and the false prophet at armeggedon. It says in the Bible something like just as lightning strikes in the east and is shown in the west so will be His second coming...that the whole world will see His return, and that the whole world will know who it is that they are seeing. Sounds like circumstances will be most different then, and that His identity will be obvious.

Love,

Lori