Who is responsible?

[Peds nurse]

Imagine that a car manufacturing company, made the standard cars that we all drive today. It is equipped with a manual that tells the driver how to use the car efficiently. Although the car is equipped to engage in speeds of 120 miles per hour, the manual cautions the driver of the hazards of driving at such speeds.

Question for debate. Should the manufacturing company be held liable for people getting into accidents and sometimes causing death by driving at speeds not recommended?

I think we can translate this to the spiritual realm. Why should God be held accountable for people who make faulty decisions with their life, sometimes hurting or killing others?

[William]

[Replying to post 87 by shnarkle]

Mainstream Christianity seems to be pointing out that the world we live in is a mess because we made some mistakes, and I think Truscott is saying effectively the same thing. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's saying that the world we live in today is a sort of detention; a remedial life 101 for dunderheads who are too stupid to figure things out the first time.

Even my theology states that the universe is a prison set up to detain an Entity which had explored the path of pure evil and required a means in which to reintegrate which is why this universe exists. We are in it because we are aspects of that Entities {The Universal Entity [UE]} consciousness...collectively, we are the UE, shattered into fragments and scattered throughout the space-time prison which contains us.

The idea is to reintegrate and the process is slow but sure.

This is where the member and my theologies part company. The member's idea of GOD is that GOD only has a small amount of patience and that most will fail to reintegrate and will be consigned to an eternity of fiery torment for believing the "blasphemy" that all who have fallen will eventual reintegrate with the GOD-head, with First Source Consciousness.

But don't take my word for it. You can search the members posts and read for yourself - which I suggest is the better way forward than waiting for the member to get back to you.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 87 by shnarkle]

Mainstream Christianity seems to be pointing out that the world we live in is a mess because we made some mistakes, and I think Truscott is saying effectively the same thing. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's saying that the world we live in today is a sort of detention; a remedial life 101 for dunderheads who are too stupid to figure things out the first time.

Even my theology states that the universe is a prison set up to detain an Entity which had explored the path of pure evil and required a means in which to reintegrate which is why this universe exists. We are in it because we are aspects of that Entities {The Universal Entity [UE]} consciousness...collectively, we are the UE, shattered into fragments and scattered throughout the space-time prison which contains us.

The idea is to reintegrate and the process is slow but sure.

This is where the member and my theologies part company. The member's idea of GOD is that GOD only has a small amount of patience and that most will fail to reintegrate and will be consigned to an eternity of fiery torment for believing the "blasphemy" that all who have fallen will eventual reintegrate with the GOD-head, with First Source Consciousness.

But don't take my word for it. You can search the members posts and read for yourself - which I suggest is the better way forward than waiting for the member to get back to you.

I've never heard of this "first source" before, but it does sound a like other stuff I've looked at in the past. Kabbalah to name just one example.

[William]

[Replying to post 92 by shnarkle]

I've never heard of this "first source" before, but it does sound a like other stuff I've looked at in the past. Kabbalah to name just one example.

Essentially IT is the reason all that is, exists. The First Cause. No doubt there are other 'names' for FS, but the UE is simply an aspect of FSConsciousness, not FS Itself, and therein the OAR (Organised Abrahamic religions)as well as other religions conflate and confuse their idea of GOD with FS.

The Earth Entity is the most likely source of some of the stories which come through in the writ of the religions of the world, but the EE is not FS.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by Peds nurse]

The one and only purpose for Creation, is to provide us with the free will to make moral choices. The choices are ours, not God's, because God shared that free will with us, to exercise in this universe, in this life. This is a test.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by Peds nurse]

The one and only purpose for Creation, is to provide us with the free will to make moral choices. The choices are ours, not God's, because God shared that free will with us, to exercise in this universe, in this life. This is a test.

So it sounds like you're saying that God shared his free will with us, is that right? if that's the case, then wouldn't it necessarily follow that God has a free will to choose between good and evil? For some reason that doesn't sound right to me. It seems more likely that God would share his will with us, which is the path to freedom; while the choice to do otherwise is a free choice, it isn't a choice that leads to freedom. So God shares a will that can't be free to do evil, yet allows the free choice to do evil according to one's own will. That isn't something God gives. It seems to me that the test is only among those who see it as a test while those who see it as a "no-brainer" aren't tested at all. For some they see a choice, while others see no choice at all. Both have been given a will, but not all feel any need to make the wrong choice. Those who do are the one's conducting the test, not God

A god that is omniscient needs no tests.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by Peds nurse]

The one and only purpose for Creation, is to provide us with the free will to make moral choices. The choices are ours, not God's, because God shared that free will with us, to exercise in this universe, in this life. This is a test.

So it sounds like you're saying that God shared his free will with us, is that right? if that's the case, then wouldn't it necessarily follow that God has a free will to choose between good and evil? For some reason that doesn't sound right to me. It seems more likely that God would share his will with us, which is the path to freedom; while the choice to do otherwise is a free choice, it isn't a choice that leads to freedom. So God shares a will that can't be free to do evil, yet allows the free choice to do evil according to one's own will. That isn't something God gives. It seems to me that the test is only among those who see it as a test while those who see it as a "no-brainer" aren't tested at all. For some they see a choice, while others see no choice at all. Both have been given a will, but not all feel any need to make the wrong choice. Those who do are the one's conducting the test, not God

A god that is omniscient needs no tests.

Ostensibly, God had free will before It shared it with us. God could have chosen to do evil then, say, creating us all in Hell, but It didn't--passing It's own test. And what reason would God have for giving us free will except to see how we would use it? And we don't have to know we're being tested, just choose between not killing our neighbor, raping his wife and taking his things....or not. We inherently know that stuff is evil, but evil people can ignore the guilt.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 78 by shnarkle]

Psychologists aren't gods, but we have been assured that God is! Why can't he get it right immediately the first time, every time?!

Good question. I've never really thought about it until now. You're asking some really good questions and its getting me to think about what's really going on. As little my familiarity with Truscott's position is, there's something about it that kind of makes sense and now that you mention it, I can see some similarities between what he's saying and what mainstream Christianity is saying. Mainstream Christianity seems to be pointing out that the world we live in is a mess because we made some mistakes, and I think Truscott is saying effectively the same thing. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's saying that the world we live in today is a sort of detention; a remedial life 101 for dunderheads who are too stupid to figure things out the first time.

No need for correction at all. We had a misalignment of what the person wanted with what GOD wanted...conflicting desires. Yes the sinful elect refused to accept that the evil of the reprobate necessitated hell, a lesson they learn by experience here which finally aligns all of us with GOD.

So your question got me to thinking that what's really going on is that it isn't that God got it wrong the first time,

TSGracchus' question: " Why can't he get it right immediately the first time, every time?! ?" is wrongly asked as it is based upon a false premise that HE 'got something wrong the first time.' as you suggest.

To fulfill HIS purpose of a true marriage with us HE had to give us a free will including the option of rejecting HIS proposal. Then we all responded to HIS proposal, some accepting, some rejecting. The fact that some rejected HIM was within what HE wanted as HE just wanted us to choose. HE HOPED we'd all accept but HE only wanted us to choose. There is no room in this scenario for "getting something wrong the first time!"

but he's just not wasting his time with a bunch of idiots that are too stupid to figure things out the first time. He's perfectly content to let us all wallow around in this big pile of exquisite and precious swine excrement to our heart's content until some, like the prodigal son; get the idea that perhaps there's more to life than lounging in this muck.

A bit better than that in that Christian doctrine includes predestination of our lives (not fates) a predetermination of our lives (not fates) that not only perfectly follows our sinful desires to expose them to our eyes, that is, our wallowing is not aimless, but brings HIS sinful elect to holiness the best and fastest method available.

Again, I'm not speaking for anyone else, and I'm in no way attempting to convince you otherwise, but just going by what you're posting, I don't have a problem with letting those who "sinned terribly" suffer for their sins, especially if that's what they want to do. My guess is that Truscott's theories require that those who "sinned terribly" knew what they were doing and sinned of their own free volition.

I actually do not think I read the post you are responding to, Ive been travelling for two days and out of touch but this is where the 'find new posts' sent me, sigh.

We certainly knew what was in store for us IF YWHW PROVED HE WAS OUR GOD, but by rejecting that premise fully or or paying it lip service til we were safe from hell we were able to go with our own desires and not pay YHWH too much attention.

But having to live with and endure the suffering of our evil is not the point of life which is that it is only by suffering our evils and seeing the horror for ourselves are we willing to repent and seek our saviour...otherwise this world of suffering would never have happened. So to blame GOD for the suffering on earth when it could have all been ended before it started by the elect not following the reprobate into sin misses the mark. WE all know that seeing the world through rose coloured glasses refers to our defining reality from our own emotionalism but there is also an opposite pov to the rose coloured glasses that causes everything to be a reason to charge GOD with injustice or incompetence also due to emotionalism.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by Peds nurse]

The one and only purpose for Creation, is to provide us with the free will to make moral choices. The choices are ours, not God's, because God shared that free will with us, to exercise in this universe, in this life. This is a test.

So it sounds like you're saying that God shared his free will with us, is that right? if that's the case, then wouldn't it necessarily follow that God has a free will to choose between good and evil? For some reason that doesn't sound right to me. It seems more likely that God would share his will with us, which is the path to freedom; while the choice to do otherwise is a free choice, it isn't a choice that leads to freedom. So God shares a will that can't be free to do evil, yet allows the free choice to do evil according to one's own will. That isn't something God gives. It seems to me that the test is only among those who see it as a test while those who see it as a "no-brainer" aren't tested at all. For some they see a choice, while others see no choice at all. Both have been given a will, but not all feel any need to make the wrong choice. Those who do are the one's conducting the test, not God

A god that is omniscient needs no tests.

Ostensibly, God had free will before It shared it with us.

So you continue to assert.

God could have chosen to do evil then, say, creating us all in Hell, but It didn't--passing It's own test.

So there is a standard higher than your god. This would make this standard god, while your so-called god is subject to it.

And what reason would God have for giving us free will except to see how we would use it?

Thus proving that your god is also not omniscient. This doesn't sound like much of a god to begin with.

And we don't have to know we're being tested, just choose between not killing our neighbor, raping his wife and taking his things....or not. We inherently know that stuff is evil, but evil people can ignore the guilt.

Killing one's neighbor, raping his wife, and taking his things are perfectly rational things to do. There is nothing unnusual about doing any of those things, and history is a potent reminder of this fact. You can slap some label to it and call it whatever you want, but a god who doesn't know what you're doing and is subject to some higher standard isn't going to matter to those who are doing perfectly rational and reasonable things to their neighbors.

Given that the standard of rationality is superior to your god's ignorance, it isn't evil at all, and countless hordes of raping stealing murdering guilt free vandals are a testiment to this fact

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 36 by ttruscott]

The evil men do is to open the ears of those who can hear the difference between the sinful people of the kingdom from the people of the evil one to cause repentance and acceptance of the judgement.

The rest of your post made sense, but I got stuck and had to read this last sentence a few times. I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying here. If I read it correctly, you're saying that the sinful people of the kingdom are distinguished from the people of the evil one, and this distinction causes repentance by those who are able to distinguish between the two? Are you saying that they accept that they are judged as righteous, or condemned?

What category do these witnesses fall into? Is it one or the other, or possible to be from either category?

My statement "hear the difference between the sinful people of the kingdom from the people of the evil one" refers back to how the parable of the good seed ends: Matt 13:47... Whoever has ears, let them hear. which was seldom used and seems to mean: This is really really important! Get this one right!!!

And context seems to point to the important thing being the difference between the sinful but good seed and the sinful but evil tares.

you're saying that the sinful people of the kingdom are distinguished from the people of the evil one

-- Yes. Matt 13:36-40.

I'm saying it is the evil men do that convinces those who can repent, the sinful but god seed, to repent, Evil to those unable to repent has no effect upon them.

Are you saying that they accept that they are judged as righteous, or condemned?

After having their eyes opened to their guilt, they understand that their own disciplinary chastisements are just and the banishment of the people of the evil one is necessary and just. It seems to me that the tares never accept their evil or explain it away as "GOD did this to me!" or anything but their own guilt for their own choices.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 36 by ttruscott]

I wrote post 36 on the day I started packing for holidays. I got busy and now I'm settled. The game is again afoot!

Mr. ttruscott, you did not address the post. You did not respond to the question.

I most certainly did. That you missed it as relevant aligns with your definition of your reality and your emotional animosity against my reality but if you want to talk to me it is better to drop your insistence I am wrong until you understand what I wrote.

TSGracchus wrote:
"If I, having the knowledge and power to stop it, allow my children to be tortured, mutilated, molested, marketed and killed, am I blameless because it was not me but another of my children who committed the deed?"

You merely accused me of being a sinner, a personal attack.

Only sinners are born on earth. is no slur on you but refers to the fact that suffering is part and parcel of everyone's experience of a life as a sinful person, ie, no one is innocent! Everyone suffers means everyone deserves suffering because they chose evil...that is Christianity.

As for stopping the suffering, why would HE do that ? when it is the only way to get through to the sinful elect that they indeed are guilty and must repent and become holy. HIS love for them does not get them to repent. The abstract knowledge that HE claims they are sinners does not get them to repent. ONLY having their eyes opened to their evil by them seeing the suffering they cause their loved ones gets people to repent.

The abstract knowledge that HE claims the tares are eternally sinful does not get the sinful elect to repudiate their friendly relations with them. ONLY having their eyes opened to their evil by them seeing the suffering the tares cause everyone gets the sinful elect to repudiate them, trusting in GOD that HIS method of banishment to the outer darkness is an absolute necessity.

Without allowing people to feel the suffering of evil, it would last forever.

You went on and on with pietistic preaching but did not answer the question. Essentially your response was, "Believe as I believe or go to hell." That is very Christian of you.

That you reject my explanation for the need for suffering on earth because it sounds preachy is very anti-Christian of you...