Predestination Theology

[William]

I don't think the false predestination god should be the one to define that seeing how he is willing to torture people eternally for conditions that he placed on them. The false predestination god is a sicko.

Q:1 Is there a "True Predestination God?"

Q2: Even if hellish experiences exist for individuals, does this mean that the god is "a sicko"?

Or

Q:2.1 Is the god only a "Sicko" if those hellish experiences last forever for said individuals?

[William]

Second, where does this doctrine even come from?

It is not a "Doctrine". It is simply information gathered from a variety of doctrines and other sources...

......so it's based on other doctrines but its not a doctrine....ok

I'm curious if you vetted these other 'sources'. Can you name any of these 'sources'?

Sure. Do you wish to vet them as well?

[tam]

Peace to you William,

[Replying to tam in post #74]

Indeed, I have shown in my own arguments that while suffering can and does occur, it is because Souls create these experiences for themselves. [re afterlife/next phase of experience]

You've said that, William. You have not shown it.

Well in regard to any theology on afterlife activity, who has shown anything Tammy?

If one has not shown it, then one should not say that one has shown it. The point is that there is no reason to accept these things that you have said.

My use of the word was re 'shown in argument' - as in 'no one has rebutted said argument by showing in their own counter-argument that my argument is incorrect.

I don't think that is true. I am sure your argument has been rebutted with at least the same amount of evidence that you present for your argument. Even if what you said was true, if you do not provide support for your claims (claims you are not even sure are true, as you have said to me on previous occasions), then there is just no reason to even entertain them. In this case, your claims about the 'afterlife' (or rather, these are claims that you have said other people made), are not what Christ teaches and are, in fact, the opposite of what He teaches. But we have been through this before, so I would just refer you back to any number of those previous discussions.



Peace again to you.

[William]

Peace to you William,

[Replying to tam in post #74]

Indeed, I have shown in my own arguments that while suffering can and does occur, it is because Souls create these experiences for themselves. [re afterlife/next phase of experience]

You've said that, William. You have not shown it.

Well in regard to any theology on afterlife activity, who has shown anything Tammy?

If one has not shown it, then one should not say that one has shown it.

One can show the horse the water...

The point is that there is no reason to accept these things that you have said.

The horse can choose to drink the water or not...

My use of the word was re 'shown in argument' - as in 'no one has rebutted said argument by showing in their own counter-argument that my argument is incorrect.

I don't think that is true.

But can you show that this is not true? [Thinking it is not true is different from showing it is not true...]

I am sure your argument has been rebutted with at least the same amount of evidence that you present for your argument.

Then show what this rebuttal is that you seem to be sure about Tammy.

Even if what you said was true, if you do not provide support for your claims (claims you are not even sure are true, as you have said to me on previous occasions), then there is just no reason to even entertain them. In this case, your claims about the 'afterlife' (or rather, these are claims that you have said other people made), are not what Christ teaches and are, in fact, the opposite of what He teaches. But we have been through this before, so I would just refer you back to any number of those previous discussions.

As I have stated since then Tammy, when it comes to the matter of claims etc which you speak of, how we appear to interpret biblical [and all other information] differently from one another has to do with how we each self identify. As long as you continue to self identify as the flesh [human instrument] you will be unable to accept how I interpret the bible [and all other information]

That which is flesh is flesh - that which is Spirit is Spirit. Which do you think you are? Which do you think represents your true self? Why do you think that your way of self identifying is the true way?

[2timothy316]

Second, where does this doctrine even come from?

It is not a "Doctrine". It is simply information gathered from a variety of doctrines and other sources...

......so it's based on other doctrines but its not a doctrine....ok

I'm curious if you vetted these other 'sources'. Can you name any of these 'sources'?

Sure. Do you wish to vet them as well?

A list of doctrines and other sources would be nice.

[William]

Second, where does this doctrine even come from?

It is not a "Doctrine". It is simply information gathered from a variety of doctrines and other sources...

......so it's based on other doctrines but its not a doctrine....ok

I'm curious if you vetted these other 'sources'. Can you name any of these 'sources'?

Sure. Do you wish to vet them as well?

A list of doctrines and other sources would be nice.

Yes -I suppose that it would. But why would I go to the trouble of gathering these? [ I ask myself]

So before I do, can you explain to me what you understand in regard to what I wrote and quote as follows;

So yes - much of the information regarding my "doctrine" as you referred to it - does come from the Bible itself...and is interpreted in the manner that it is, based upon the revelation that the one interpreting it, understands [himself] to being a Spirit and all Spirit is sourced with The Creator and are aspects of The Creator and therefore imperishable...have always existed and ever will exist.

One can only [and therefore will only] interpret the bible [and all else] in relation to how they identify their self. If one thinks of oneself as the flesh, one will only ever interpret the world through the understanding of that self identification. [1 John 3:1]

Strange the information might be - true it is nonetheless.
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

So therein, my question to you is Q: "Do you think of yourself as the flesh [human instrument]?"

And if your answer to that question is "Yes", then no amount of information I link you to will be of any use to you as it will be interpreted by the flesh you self identify with through those filters which accompany such beliefs.

And in that, you will reject the information...

Do you understand what I am saying here?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you William,

[Replying to tam in post #74]

Indeed, I have shown in my own arguments that while suffering can and does occur, it is because Souls create these experiences for themselves. [re afterlife/next phase of experience]

You've said that, William. You have not shown it.

Well in regard to any theology on afterlife activity, who has shown anything Tammy?

If one has not shown it, then one should not say that one has shown it.

One can show the horse the water...

Has nothing to do with what I said, William. But you have not led anyone to water. The One who gives us water (the water of life) is Christ. I go where He leads.

The point is that there is no reason to accept these things that you have said.

The horse can choose to drink the water or not...

See above.

My use of the word was re 'shown in argument' - as in 'no one has rebutted said argument by showing in their own counter-argument that my argument is incorrect.

I don't think that is true.

But can you show that this is not true? [Thinking it is not true is different from showing it is not true...]

That was not the extent of what I said. See below:

I am sure your argument has been rebutted with at least the same amount of evidence that you present for your argument.

Then show what this rebuttal is that you seem to be sure about Tammy.

Since you have presented no evidence for your claims - other than what you claim other people have claimed - then any rebuttal would do. Regardless, even just in our conversations, your argument has been rebutted. And the fact that even you do not know if your claims are true or not, William, does not inspire much confidence in any evidence you might be basing your belief upon.

Even if what you said was true, if you do not provide support for your claims (claims you are not even sure are true, as you have said to me on previous occasions), then there is just no reason to even entertain them. In this case, your claims about the 'afterlife' (or rather, these are claims that you have said other people made), are not what Christ teaches and are, in fact, the opposite of what He teaches. But we have been through this before, so I would just refer you back to any number of those previous discussions.

As I have stated since then Tammy, when it comes to the matter of claims etc which you speak of, how we appear to interpret biblical [and all other information] differently from one another has to do with how we each self identify.

This is just another claim, William, with nothing to support it.

As long as you continue to self identify as the flesh [human instrument] you will be unable to accept how I interpret the bible [and all other information]

I am unable and unwilling to accept what you claim because what you claim is not what Christ teaches and is in fact the opposite of what Christ teaches; and I am going to remain in Him and listen to His word, hold all things up to Him (the Light). As stated in this thread and in all of those previous discussions.

That which is flesh is flesh - that which is Spirit is Spirit. Which do you think you are? Which do you think represents your true self? Why do you think that your way of self identifying is the true way?

I am spirit within this vessel (treasure within clay vessels). Doesn't change the reasons that I do not accept your claims/interpretations. See above (and any number of previous discussions) for those reasons.



Peace again to you.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #127]

I am spirit within this vessel (treasure within clay vessels).

And what is "Spirit" as you understand it Tammy? I understand it [in relation to the "clay vessels"] as "particles of The Creator Spirit."

Is that not how you see yourself? Is that not what Jesus has taught you to see yourself as being?

[2timothy316]

Second, where does this doctrine even come from?

It is not a "Doctrine". It is simply information gathered from a variety of doctrines and other sources...

......so it's based on other doctrines but its not a doctrine....ok

I'm curious if you vetted these other 'sources'. Can you name any of these 'sources'?

Sure. Do you wish to vet them as well?

A list of doctrines and other sources would be nice.

Yes -I suppose that it would. But why would I go to the trouble of gathering these? [ I ask myself]

So before I do, can you explain to me what you understand in regard to what I wrote and quote as follows;

So yes - much of the information regarding my "doctrine" as you referred to it - does come from the Bible itself...and is interpreted in the manner that it is, based upon the revelation that the one interpreting it, understands [himself] to being a Spirit and all Spirit is sourced with The Creator and are aspects of The Creator and therefore imperishable...have always existed and ever will exist.

One can only [and therefore will only] interpret the bible [and all else] in relation to how they identify their self. If one thinks of oneself as the flesh, one will only ever interpret the world through the understanding of that self identification. [1 John 3:1]

Strange the information might be - true it is nonetheless.
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

So therein, my question to you is Q: "Do you think of yourself as the flesh [human instrument]?"

And if your answer to that question is "Yes", then no amount of information I link you to will be of any use to you as it will be interpreted by the flesh you self identify with through those filters which accompany such beliefs.

And in that, you will reject the information...

Do you understand what I am saying here?

Why are you setting your sources up for failure? Are you ashamed of your sources? I never ever withhold a source of truth from a person based on some sort of conditions! Why are you telling me what I will reject? Do you already know what and why a source is shady?

If you withhold your sources you will not be the first. You would have been the first to actually reveal their sources. But instead it seems like so many others, you're not going to do it either. So many when asked what is their source they say, Jesus or God or the Spirit. Then when asked what is the source of the information people that are normally very talkative become very silent or extremely vague talking about dreams or feelings.

[William]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #129]

Why are you telling me what I will reject?

Because I already know what you accept as "Truth" and have explained why you accept what you do is 'the truth'... why do you self identify as being the flesh?

The source I have chosen to use is related to my knowing that you believe that source to be true [the Bible] so why is there a reason you need access to those other things? How do you think having access to those other things are going to help you understand, when quite obviously you only understand the bible from the perspective of self identifying with the flesh?

[tam]

Peace again to you.

[Replying to tam in post #127]

I am spirit within this vessel (treasure within clay vessels).

And what is "Spirit" as you understand it Tammy? I understand it [in relation to the "clay vessels"] as "particles of The Creator Spirit."

Is that not how you see yourself? Is that not what Jesus has taught you to see yourself as being?

Since I have no idea what you mean when you say that - except that you seem to think everyone is a kind of avatar of the Creator (which is not what Christ teaches) - I cannot say that I see myself as you describe. Regardless, the point is moot because it is not the reason - despite your claim - that I do not accept the claims you make about 'afterlifes'. It just sounds like a convenient excuse being used to dismiss the reasons I (and others) do not accept the claims you are making.