Divine or Demonic?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I see where you have misinterpreted my intentions...

You did not start this thread based on nuance of a definition; you started it based on two words which are polar opposites: "divine" and "demonic."

I'm not trying to equate the two words, I'm trying to see where the line is that separates the two... As with everything polar opposite, that line is often depending on personal interpretation, yours is as valid as any ones.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

allow me to re-word.

Catholics do not Practice a Personal relationship with Christ , They believe there salvation is obtained through the Priest .

The Priest is there Conduit to Christ .

As someone who has experienced that personal relationship with Jesus, I doubt I could ever be a Catholic then. That's not something I would give up... for anyone.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Terpene

I'm not trying to equate the two words, I'm trying to see where the line is that separates the two... As with everything polar opposite, that line is often depending on personal interpretation, yours is as valid as any ones.

That is what I had hoped you were asking, and why I responded.

I will admit I often come across as confrontational when that is not my intent. That in itself lends support to your statement above; I may be many things, but socially adept is not one of them. For some reason, that is simply not something I can do well.

I have said many times that there is a fine line between idiot savant and genius... I honestly believe that. The key seems to be, in that case, how uniquely specialized the brain is in a specific area, often at the cost of the most basic abilities in others. Albert Einstein could barely tie his own shoes, and heavily relied on others for social instruction. But when it came to theoretical physics, he was, truly, a genius.

However, in the case of this thread, the two words you chose to find that fine line between do not have such a fine line. "Divine," again, is "of God" while "demonic" is a term generally used to indicate that which is against God. So, unless one believes that God is somehow schizophrenic, the fine line becomes a gulf. That's what I meant by polar opposites.

The closest I can come to a fine line would be the story of Lucifer. When the archangel Lucifer was created, he was the highest of the three archangels, the archangel of light, second only to God Himself. Then, Lucifer became corrupt and challenged God, in the process becoming the Devil, aka Satan (the enemy). So one could say in his attempt to achieve divinity, Lucifer became demonic. By trying to be God, Lucifer opposed God.

I will go back and address a couple misunderstandings in your earlier post, but I wanted to respond to this one first.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: LABTECH767

How am I to picture this?
The first to come must be the bad guy, while the second will be the savior?
Will the authorities be in accordance about the Antichrist?
Will some see the savior while some see the Antichrist?
Will this bring Christianity closer or drive them further apart?
What if the first is just waiting for the second to appear, so he can then pose as the savior?

There are so many ways to corrupt this prophecy, I’d rather stay clear of it and think for myself, which is the advice I got in this thread anyway.

There are no right answers to be found and all the answers given are man made, so nothing divine about any of it, just humans interpreting a book the best they currently can.

I think we are far from home and lost in Babylons fog, with no beacon to lead the way...

Thanks for the history lesson

The Devil is evil, God did not create him he CHOSE to come into being, God merely gave a being that he DID create free will and that being then chose to become the Devil so basically died and was replaced by a being that you could call the embodiment of Evil and to think itself better than it's creator.

The fact is Christ is Good, everyone will fear because NON of us are perfect but he comes to give us the truth, to set us free.

Who you then have to ask yourself is afraid of the truth, whom is so evil that they can NOT be forgiven and saved.

Here is a great little video if you interested in the differences in some of the faith's of Christendom, it ONE Kingdom and all Christians are brothers and sisters but we have more than one house if you like.


I will be happy to see my Lord though make no mistake I know I am imperfect so will likely feel shame, fear and dread but also HOPE and he will remake me into what and whom I was always meant to be, make me WHOLE and WELL and really myself, no more thought's that are not our own coming into our mind's we will have true free will but also be loved and love God since he is our source.

But to reference the bible once more there is the parable of the Wheat and Tares (weeds).

A man planted a Garden (God and his Children) and in the Night his ENEMY (The Devil whom died by choosing to become and be EVIL and AGAINST GOD and even to try to destroy God's creation and steal Gods throne to be worshipped as if HE were God which he is NOT) came and planted weeds among the wheat so as to destroy the wheat (To destroy God's Children - us) but God did not come and tear down the garden instead he said let them grow to full fruit then separate them, put my Children in my house (the Wheat in the Barn) and the Enemy's Children into the fire (Which is were the Devil is going as well), why did he do this, well to destroy his children simply because the Devil corrupted was not what God wanted and also the children that come out of this will be stronger for it, they have had to compete with the devils weeds.

So even though the Devil saw HIS as disposable and intended for them to be destroyed using them merely to destroy God's Crop in fact they too should thank God for not destroying them outright then at that time and if in the unlikely event THEY too have free will then they can choose to be good and worship God not the devil (you will know them by there fruit).

God is Good and he is Just, he is also almighty, the only point to make as well is he KNEW all this was going to happen but he also knows were he is taking us and were we will be in the end and what we will become, his will be done, remember Jesus passion in the Garden he did not want to be scourged and crucified even though he knew he would rise, the scourging along would have killed you or me.

He also said no one has seen the Father (God) not even the Angels in heaven except the son (Jesus - Yeshua) and so remember when the Devil tempted him in the desert he did not know whom Jesus really was or likely he would have fled in terror but the Devil was once an Angel before he CHOSE to become the Devil.

You have the power to choose but not always, God knows when we can and can not and he is merciful, the Devil is not and will enslave (possess) corrupt and destroy to achieve his goals.

But our God is real, no matter how unfair, how cruel and how much we lose in this world there is nothing the devil can do to us that God can not undo or make better we will simply be tried like fine metal through the furnace and come out of it stronger and more pure.

a reply to: Terpene

Hmmm, I thought the definition is in the bible, but now it seems only trough interpretation, which undoubtedly is based on human understanding on a word that goes far beyond human understanding.

There is always some interpretation. The Bible was not written in English; the Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew (a form of Aramaic), while the New Testament was written in ancient Greek. As not many people speak those particular languages, the Bible has been translated through the ages into languages that people do speak.

And yes, that translation is of man and is imperfect.

The oldest of the accepted English translations is the King James Version (KLV), but even it is filled with inaccuracies. One that I like to point out is Exodus 22:18

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

That particular verse was used to great shame during the Salem Witch Trials, and even today many think it means "You must kill all witches." It doesn't; that is a mistranslation. What it means, in the language of ancient Hebrew, is that one shall not assist someone who practices communion with the dead in profiting... one could say that in today's vernacular as "do not pay money to use the Psychic Hotline"... a much different meaning than "kill all witches."

Luckily, there are some scholars throughout history who have faithfully given us aids to assist in this interpretation. I personally use Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. It was developed by James Strong a couple centuries ago. He correlated the Bible with the original scrolls and created a dictionary of sorts that defined each word translated, gave examples of their usage at the time the scrolls were written, listed any etymology of the word, and listed how each original word had been interpreted in the KJV. His Concordance has become the gold standard for Biblical research materials, and thanks to him, an average person like myself can now examine the Bible in the light of the way it was written instead of how it was interpreted.

That is different from what I explained about your source. In that case, we have a scholar who has been loose with the actual word translated, does not have a long-term track record of accuracy, and has projected a wide-ranging opinion based on a single word used. Can I say he is "wrong"? Not really. But I can say that his work does not inspire confidence in his accuracy. His opinion smacks of one which has an internal bias and, more importantly, contradicts other areas of the Bible.

Because I listen to all I can't listen to any?

You misunderstand.

You said you did not want to listen to "God's children" for information. But all are God's children! If you refuse to listen to anyone who is a child of God, there is no one left to listen to.

You might as well say you will only wash using something that is not wet... then you will never wash. To wash indicates the use of water, and by definition all water is wet.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Terpene
Firstly, the power of the Vatican was a late development. Its historic powers have always been overstated, mainly by their own publicists.

Secondly, the answer to your main question is that individual judgement needs the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That's what "the gift of discenment of spirits" means. It is the ability to tell what comes from the Spirit of God and what doesn't.

As long as the Christian is on the alert to resist any obvious opposition to Christ, the need to identify any specific "antichrist" is less important. If there is someone dominating the world and using that power in the persecution of the church, the fact will be obvious enough. The issue will not be identifyong the antichrist, but responding in the right way (.e. with persevering faith).

a reply to: TheRedneck

You said you did not want to listen to "God's children" for information.

I completely misused the word detrimental and have to apologize for it. I wanted to say, "it is essential to listen to his children".

So much for calling a cat a tree and the inevitable difficulties to communicate.

a reply to: DISRAELI

There are things that do not come from the spirit of god? Where do they come from?

a reply to: Terpene

Ah, no problem then.

I have heard many refer to only followers of Christ as "children of God," so I took it as that was what you meant. In reality, the Bible says that all are God's children. It's just that, as so many children do to their human parents, a child can still disavow their Father. It doesn't change who we are, of course, but we can still disavow the truth. We were given free will, unlike the angels.

I will disagree on that point with LABTECH767 above: Lucifer was not given free will. He was an archangel, and as such a slave to God, if you will. He took free will; he was not given it. As such, Lucifer cannot be forgiven. Man, who was given free will, can be forgiven.

But that price for forgiveness is high: death. That's where Jesus comes in, and why His immaculate conception is so important. All men inherit the sins of their fathers upon birth, so Jesus could not be sinless at birth unless he was born without the aid of a man. He then had to lead a sinless existence (which He did) and was slain in place of the rest of us to pay that price for forgiveness. Jesus was literally a sacrificial lamb in that sense. That is the only way anyone can be forgiven by God; the only other way is death of both the body and the spirit (which sort of negates the whole purpose of forgiveness).

The body will die; it is mortal. The spirit need not die; it can be forgiven.

I urge you to read the Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) with the following in mind: when Jesus speaks of Himself as "the Son of Man" He is referring to His physical body. When He speaks of Himself as "the Son of God" He is referring to His spirit. That cleared up a lot for me.

I'll also add this: when reading, do not canonize Jesus as some sort of immaculate saint. Many do that, and it can take away the reality of what is being written about. For instance, take the time Jesus calmed the winds recanted in Mark 4:37-40:

And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full.

And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?

And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?

Now, many will read that as Jesus solemnly rising from his slumber and simply taking control over the elements as only Jesus can do. But I see more in that passage. I see Jesus, tired from a day of teaching the multitudes, sleeping peacefully until His disciples awakened Him. Jesus was the Son of God, but He was also a man, and His body became tired as any man's body does. He had spent many months training His disciples in faith, but when He really needed some shut-eye, what do they do? They wake Him at the first sign of trouble.

So I see Jesus getting up, likely a bit cranky at being awakened, coming up to the deck and seeing it full of water, and simply doing what He had been teaching His disciples to do for the past few months. Then He turns to them, still a bit cranky, and says (translated into today's vernacular), "You woke me up for this? You couldn't handle this little problem? Haven't you been listening to me?"

We as a society have come to feel that anything written in Old English must be somehow mystic and filled with some deeper, mysterious intent. but the truth is that, when the KJV was penned, it was penned in the common language of the time. Normal people used words like "verily" or "thee" or "thou." That was the whole purpose of the translation. Over time, English has changed and today that vernacular of the times seems strange to us... but it wasn't anything strange back then. It was just the way people talked.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: DISRAELI

There are things that do not come from the spirit of god? Where do they come from?

There is the human mind, for a start.
I don't make a big issue out of demonic inspirations, but in theory that's another possibility.

a reply to: DISRAELI

There is the human mind, for a start.

A very powerful start... are you saying the human mind is comparable to god, as it can create something from nothing?

a reply to: Terpene
No, I'm saying that the human mind is capable of putting forward ideas which don't come from God.
I thought that's what we were talking about.

a reply to: DISRAELI



How can anything not come from God?

doesn't that imply another creator?

a reply to: Terpene

How can anything not come from God?

doesn't that imply another creator?

The Bible directly asserts a second class of "creators."

Genesis 1:26-28

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

God created man in His image, meaning man was to be like God. We all know God is a spirit and man lives in a physical body, so the likeness was obviously not physical. Man was created, therefore, in God's spiritual image.

God is a Creator. Man, too, must then be a creator.

Man is not God; man cannot do what God does. But man can still create. The Jewish (earliest version of the Abrahamic religions) definition of the Sabbath forbids any work, defined by any action that leads to creation... cooking even falls into this category, because the act of cooking creates something that did not exist prior in its present form.

So man can create, but his creation ability is lesser than God's. God is the Creator; man is a lesser creator in God's image, but is not God.

Another aspect of that is free will. God has free will, and so do we. We can accept or deny God. However, we will bear the consequences of that free will.

Yet another point in that passage is that God went to great length to list all these things than man has dominion over... the fish, the animals, the insects, the plants... pretty much everything on the planet, right? So why not just say "everything on earth"? Because God did not give man dominion over one thing, one item that was purposely left out of that list: each other. So anyone who tries to take control over others is going against God.

And what, in this evil world, do men crave more than anything else? Control over other people.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Terpene
The story of Eden indicates that the decision to "eat of the fruit" did not come from God, which is why he objected to it. So, yes, there is a sense in which thoughts can come from someone other than God.

Do you intend now to take the discussion down to quibblings about the meaning of words for the sake of scoring factitious debating points?

The topic of your thread, as defined in the opening post, was how the antichrist is to be identified. If you are tempted into taking your own thread off-topic, I won't be following you.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The topic of your thread, as defined in the opening post, was how the antichrist is to be identified. If you are tempted into taking your own thread off-topic, I won't be following you.

Everyone decides for himself, how to identify the antichrist. That's basically what I got...

So, yes, there is a sense in which thoughts can come from someone other than God.

The topic of my thread was more along the lines of how do we know if it is somone other than God, or even more adequately, if it is God?

The story of Eden indicates that the decision to "eat of the fruit" did not come from God, which is why he objected to it

The fruit from the tree of good and evil it was, wasn't it? I heard an interpretation that through this we learned to discern between good and evil.

Why would God not want us to learn that?

Maybe he knew that we would start to distrust his creation in it's fullness, and we would start to attribiute good and evil to things, that all come from his creation, and consequently we would never be able to appreciate his creation in it's fullness.

All that crap in his name when all he wanted was a quiet little garden with some cool dudes.

So here we are me trying to find out where people think the line between good and evil is drawn.

That fruit must have tasted so good, seems like an addiction.

a reply to: Terpene

The topic of my thread was more along the lines of how do we know if it is somone other than God, or even more adequately, if it is God?

For that, one needs the gift of discernment. To turn a phrase, "with man this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

Even then it is not always an easy thing to do to discern the source. I still sometimes have to sit and think/pray to understand where information comes from. For someone who does not know Jesus (and therefore cannot communicate directly with God) it would be pretty much an uneducated guess.

The fruit from the tree of good and evil it was, wasn't it? I heard an interpretation that through this we learned to discern between good and evil.

Why would God not want us to learn that?

Who said He didn't?

Maybe we just weren't ready. Maybe by eating of the fruit too soon, we caused all the sin and evil in this world to come to pass. Maybe, possibly, probably... no one, I think, really knows why except God. And for me at least, He hasn't deemed it proper to share that information with me yet. No matter; I trust Him.

When that day comes that I get to meet Him face to face, like Adam and Eve were able to do, that will be one of the first questions (right after "why did You create broccoli? Ewww...").

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

For that, one needs the gift of discernment.

Discernment of good and evil acquired trough the eating from the tree?
(tldr to prevent accusations of thread drifting good and evil might be placeholders for divine and demonic)

Maybe we just weren't ready

That's kind of one of these points I can't wrap my head arround...

If discernment between good and evil is important to differentiate what comes from God and what not.
Why hold that knowledge back?

Would you hold knowledge back that helps your kid live happy with his father?

If he was a wise parent which I think he was, he would have taught his children everything that is important to know for them to live happily in his garden.

I had a garden once and I only warned the kids about the poisonous and the hallucinogenic ones.

Actually it makes a whole lot of sense when you think of it that way.
the tree in question is obviously not poisonous as we are still alive and the chance to go back exists.

hallucinogenics can give you very profound knowledge but if your mind isn't settled it can do great harm and cause lots of turmoil.
addiction is much more propable to develop in young age too.

The thing is an addict would do everything to justify his addiction...

If my kid would become addicted to a plant in my garden i specifically warned him about, started to beave like a dick towards others, I would definetly throw him out if he can't transmute the learned, and ditch his addiction.

He could do whatever he wants, only when he proves that he will not need that plant again he will be alowed back...

I think humans behave like addicts when it comes to everything polar opposite, they cant help themselves but to attribute good and evil to it...

Idk, I used to go to church on Saturdays, instead of the Day of the Lord, while staying home watching an listening cartoons on the DOTL.

Does that make me a terrible person...yes, yes it does.

a reply to: Terpene

Discernment of good and evil acquired trough the eating from the tree?

That happened at least 6000 years ago. Do you believe that a 6000 year old ancestor eating fruit would cause you or I to still have some in our belly?

IN any case, there is a difference between discernment and knowledge. It is actually the same difference as exists between science and religion. Science is a search for knowledge; religion is a search for wisdom... or, one could say, discernment.

That's kind of one of these points I can't wrap my head arround...

Maybe there are some things we simply are not supposed to understand... for now. You liken our relationship with God to that of a father and child, and I believe that is a very apt comparison. But consider this: if I enjoyed hunting, would it be prudent of me to give my child a deer rifle at age 2 and let him go hunting with me? I daresay no one would agree with that statement. Would I give a three year old child a motorcycle so he could ride with me? Certainly not! As parents, we must understand when our children are ready to grow and advance, and until that time, protect them even if doing so seems wrong to them at the time.

There is also the concept of free will to be considered. A few years ago, I acquired a new dog; we use a good dog to protect the birds we raise here. A good dog, to us, has two major requirements: do not attack the birds, and stay close to home (mainly off the road so they don't get hit by a truck). Other than that, they have 16 acres to play in, and really, since there are no fences in the mountain, more than that.

Now, it would be easy to simply put the dog in a cage to make sure he didn't attack the chickens or get in the road. But then, he wouldn't be a good dog... his lack of chasing chickens and getting in the road would not be of his doing, and he wouldn't be free to do his job of protecting the birds. Even though he couldn't violate my rules, he would still be useless t me. I can't put up a few miles of fence through wilderness, either financially or physically, and even if I could it would harm the natural beauty of the land and artificially disrupt the wildlife. No, I need my dog to roam free, but also to obey those two rules while roaming free.

I have to let him choose to follow my rules. If he chooses to not follow my rules, well, I have to get a different dog.

Had God not planted a tree in the Garden of Eden that was forbidden, Adam would not have had free will. He would have been in a type of cage, unable to make that choice to disobey God. There had to be something Adam could do to displease God, else Adam was not really pleasing God. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was the test... and Adam failed.

We know a little about that tree and its fruit, as the account is not censored in Genesis. We may not know the "how" or "why" but we know the "what." For me, that is enough. I could have demanded that God show me everything and answer every question before I would follow Jesus, demanded that He prove Himself to my satisfaction, but would that really be following Him? Or would it be more following me and my own understanding? There are many things I do not understand in the Bible, many I probably will never understand in this life. I can choose, thanks to that free will, to accept those things on faith or to reject God through an absence of faith. I choose the former. I will trust God.

And that is what it all comes down to. Does one trust God; does one have faith to say "OK, God, you're in control. I'm going to watch and just do whatever I can"? Or does one demand that God reveal all to their satisfaction before they will follow Him?

God is in charge of my life... and I think that has worked out pretty well for me.

TheRedneck