Too much guilt is bad for you. He knows we're morally disabled, it's not something to worry about.
The God pill
- Thread starter Roosh
- Start date
@Sosa
I assume you have read The Book of Giants? The first, the second, and the third? It is apostasy that they are considered apocryphal, for they were canonical to Yeshua.
Shemyazah was not banished by GOD... The Left Hand of The Lord imposed eternal exile upon Himself and His cohort - 200 beneath him, a thousand beneath each of Those - in an attempt to save mankind from itself.
Shemyazah gave us knowledge of the stars. We used it to plot, we enslaved ourselves to Signs. He gave us knowledge of herbs and roots. We made poisons and intoxicants. He gave us the Mask, the persona induced in ritual. We made mascara and blush and lipstick and all other frivolities.
Azazel - He who hates us most - gave us metallurgy to conquer the field, the forest, the mountain. We made weapons to conquer each other.
They hate us because we have failed.
And that hate, that roiling rage, it has been bubbling and boiling for Millennia. For more than Ten Thousand years. Many of that cohort have fallen into madness. Yet they all serve the Lord still - how else could they be rebuked, chided, commanded by Yeshua?
This is all apostasy though. The ramblings of mad men.
@InfoWarrior
Apologies to Sosa for butting in.
Few know that Satan is not a name. It’s an office, a rank. Some of those who have held it were tormented by that responsibility. Others, such as SAM - The Desolation of GOD, He Who Sits in the Seventh Heaven - have reveled in it.
Satan. Devil. Ba’al. Even Lucifer. All of these are titles. While we are irreverent to the power of the Name in this day and age it was considered blasphemy in the past. A remnant of this tradition can still be seen here and there, when coyly referring to G-d.
I assume you have read The Book of Giants? The first, the second, and the third? It is apostasy that they are considered apocryphal, for they were canonical to Yeshua.
Shemyazah was not banished by GOD... The Left Hand of The Lord imposed eternal exile upon Himself and His cohort - 200 beneath him, a thousand beneath each of Those - in an attempt to save mankind from itself.
Shemyazah gave us knowledge of the stars. We used it to plot, we enslaved ourselves to Signs. He gave us knowledge of herbs and roots. We made poisons and intoxicants. He gave us the Mask, the persona induced in ritual. We made mascara and blush and lipstick and all other frivolities.
Azazel - He who hates us most - gave us metallurgy to conquer the field, the forest, the mountain. We made weapons to conquer each other.
They hate us because we have failed.
And that hate, that roiling rage, it has been bubbling and boiling for Millennia. For more than Ten Thousand years. Many of that cohort have fallen into madness. Yet they all serve the Lord still - how else could they be rebuked, chided, commanded by Yeshua?
This is all apostasy though. The ramblings of mad men.
@InfoWarrior
Apologies to Sosa for butting in.
Few know that Satan is not a name. It’s an office, a rank. Some of those who have held it were tormented by that responsibility. Others, such as SAM - The Desolation of GOD, He Who Sits in the Seventh Heaven - have reveled in it.
Satan. Devil. Ba’al. Even Lucifer. All of these are titles. While we are irreverent to the power of the Name in this day and age it was considered blasphemy in the past. A remnant of this tradition can still be seen here and there, when coyly referring to G-d.
@Leonard D Neubache
Same thing here when I asked for help with temptation. I am like why am I doing this? I cannot enjoy this at all.
And there are other coincidence's that seem to shame me for my vice.
Or that access to said vice if I fail often enough will entirely disappear.
Same thing here when I asked for help with temptation. I am like why am I doing this? I cannot enjoy this at all.
And there are other coincidence's that seem to shame me for my vice.
Or that access to said vice if I fail often enough will entirely disappear.
Ah yes, the counsel of God. Some of these members have gone their own way. But they are permitted, at times, to do things.
Fortunately for us, He has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. And because the spirits went astray, those that rebelled, they of course hate that we are given the ability to repent and share with Christ that which belongs to Him.
Which is everything.
Fortunately for us, He has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. And because the spirits went astray, those that rebelled, they of course hate that we are given the ability to repent and share with Christ that which belongs to Him.
Which is everything.
Catholics/Orthodox have chanting monks.
Evangelicals have worship music.
Protestants got the hymns though.
Had to look up the Ebenezer reference. Anyone already know it?
Evangelicals have worship music.
Protestants got the hymns though.
Had to look up the Ebenezer reference. Anyone already know it?
Lazuli Waves
Woodpecker
How does one know if it is God speaking to him or a trick of Satan making him think it's God.
Delete
@Lazuli Wave
Compare to scripture. Plus when God does directly speak. You will absolutely know it is him. Totally obvious with no hint of vagueness.
Also it only takes one wrong prediction to discredit a prophet completely.(Deuteronomy 18:21-22)
Every prediction will come true.
Compare to scripture. Plus when God does directly speak. You will absolutely know it is him. Totally obvious with no hint of vagueness.
Also it only takes one wrong prediction to discredit a prophet completely.(Deuteronomy 18:21-22)
Every prediction will come true.
I moved from the bible belt back to the midwest and have started attending a democratic leaning church. Today was a sermon about "our migrant savior"
It is just veiled propaganda and hardly a church.
My original plan was to leave, another option is stay to oppose it until they kick me out. I'll pray about it and see what path is laid out for me.
It is just veiled propaganda and hardly a church.
My original plan was to leave, another option is stay to oppose it until they kick me out. I'll pray about it and see what path is laid out for me.
Douglas Quaid
Kingfisher
I'm from Chicago and the churches there are a joke. Full of rainbow flags and looney lefties.
debeguiled said:
Charismatics doing a pretty good cover of this song. Hearing this version is how I found out about this song. Thought it seemed a bit different from a lot of the other Bethel songs I've heard - later found out it's an old English hymn from the 18th century.
Roosh said:
I think that if God does speak. One will know its him definitely. If its mistakable in any way or contrary to scripture in any way. Its from Satan.
Many of the dreams of Jesus by Muslims for example had this feature. This unmistakability.
Why God seems silent. And potential self-deception that could occur:
Our Priest was explaining to us that many holy people and Saints have gone through 'Dry Periods' in Prayer. This could be described as a time when we are praying but are not feeling a connection, or we don't seem to be receiving answers. He described this in many ways as a test of faith and that we must continue to pray even in these periods.
I found this very interesting. Yes, if your prayer life is stagnant you might need to double down, or switch things up, but also remember that this could very well be a test of faith. Our prayers are still being heard.
With humility I can say that one time when praying I feel like I received a sign or signal. I wasn't requesting a signal but was praying directly about something then it "popped into place" almost immediately so to speak. I immediately felt a kind of fear, and guilt for having perhaps needed this sign for my faith. Hard to explain, and I suppose just about anything can be chalked up to a coincidence if we try hard enough. So we can accept these signs humbly but our Faith shouldn't be dependant on constant connection and signs, or we could go searching for false signals.
Rooshs' comments ring true also that we should be very weary of accepting signals too quickly, that they could be trickery of the devil. I would add that our minds are darkened by sin so we can not always interpret things correctly. So we have to resolve that whatever our next action is, that it will be in line with Gods plan and proper Church teaching.
I found this very interesting. Yes, if your prayer life is stagnant you might need to double down, or switch things up, but also remember that this could very well be a test of faith. Our prayers are still being heard.
With humility I can say that one time when praying I feel like I received a sign or signal. I wasn't requesting a signal but was praying directly about something then it "popped into place" almost immediately so to speak. I immediately felt a kind of fear, and guilt for having perhaps needed this sign for my faith. Hard to explain, and I suppose just about anything can be chalked up to a coincidence if we try hard enough. So we can accept these signs humbly but our Faith shouldn't be dependant on constant connection and signs, or we could go searching for false signals.
Rooshs' comments ring true also that we should be very weary of accepting signals too quickly, that they could be trickery of the devil. I would add that our minds are darkened by sin so we can not always interpret things correctly. So we have to resolve that whatever our next action is, that it will be in line with Gods plan and proper Church teaching.
infowarrior1 said:
I don't agree. Satan has had thousands of years of experience with humans to trick them. If you think it's unmistakable then it's your pride speaking, and almost certainly you're being deceived. Look at how monks receive visions (they are very cautious) to understand this point.
Strictly speaking, we shouldn't need to receive constant guidance from God. He's given us more than enough information to know right from wrong at this point.
But, we are weak and pathetic, so of course we need God constantly, and for that I feel ashamed needing his service all the time. The silver lining is that God feels proud when we come to him in desperation and shame, and is happy to help his pathetic subjects, because he loves the faithful no matter how great or weak they are. I believe this is what is meant by, "God is glorified in our weakness."
But, we are weak and pathetic, so of course we need God constantly, and for that I feel ashamed needing his service all the time. The silver lining is that God feels proud when we come to him in desperation and shame, and is happy to help his pathetic subjects, because he loves the faithful no matter how great or weak they are. I believe this is what is meant by, "God is glorified in our weakness."
@Roosh
Okay. What about checking it against scripture? Is that a reliable way to tell?
I cite Jesus in his wilderness testing. As well versed enough in the scriptures he was able to counter all the lies of Satan.
Okay. What about checking it against scripture? Is that a reliable way to tell?
I cite Jesus in his wilderness testing. As well versed enough in the scriptures he was able to counter all the lies of Satan.
All of the Church's most damaging heretics were well-versed in Scripture and, like the Devil in that passage you just cited, were able to quote it easily. St. Vincent of Lerins writes in his Commonitory (a short excellent work) that this is one of the reasons Tradition is so important, in this particular case his three qualities for discerning truth from falsehood:
1. Antiquity (has it always been believed?)
2. Universality (has it been believed everywhere?)
3. Consensus (has it been believed by most or all of the Church's recognized champions?)
So if you have some kind of insight into the Scriptures, it's wise to check it against these three concepts - which you can only do by reading the Fathers or summaries of their work on various topics. If your insight into Scripture is something nobody's ever thought of before, and which was not shared everywhere, always, by all, then it's very possible that what you're reading isn't there (and if it is there in letter, then not there in spirit).
This is not necessarily to say that everything that can ever be understood about the Scriptures has already been understood, written down, and taught. But rather that whatever you believe you've found should not violate the boundaries laid down by the Church over time:
"Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set." Proverbs 22:28
This Rule is used not just for us, but also for the sayings of the Fathers. They are not infallible, and many of them held personal opinions which were not shared by the Church as a whole, always, everywhere. For example, both St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Symeon the New Theologian had opinions which were not accepted by the rest of the Church (St. Augustine took predestination a bit too far, and St. Symeon believed that anyone could forgive the sins of others, ordained or not, as long as they'd had a profound personal experience of the Holy Spirit). Yet despite their own offbeat opinions on certain topics, they were canonized by the Church for how much they got right and the examples they set with how they lived.
St. Vincent likens the growth of the Church to the growth of a human body. You grow over time, into a new and bigger form, but according to the pattern which was always contained in the very beginning. If your fingers grow longer, that's probably fine. If you grow a new finger, it probably isn't.
1. Antiquity (has it always been believed?)
2. Universality (has it been believed everywhere?)
3. Consensus (has it been believed by most or all of the Church's recognized champions?)
So if you have some kind of insight into the Scriptures, it's wise to check it against these three concepts - which you can only do by reading the Fathers or summaries of their work on various topics. If your insight into Scripture is something nobody's ever thought of before, and which was not shared everywhere, always, by all, then it's very possible that what you're reading isn't there (and if it is there in letter, then not there in spirit).
This is not necessarily to say that everything that can ever be understood about the Scriptures has already been understood, written down, and taught. But rather that whatever you believe you've found should not violate the boundaries laid down by the Church over time:
"Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set." Proverbs 22:28
This Rule is used not just for us, but also for the sayings of the Fathers. They are not infallible, and many of them held personal opinions which were not shared by the Church as a whole, always, everywhere. For example, both St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Symeon the New Theologian had opinions which were not accepted by the rest of the Church (St. Augustine took predestination a bit too far, and St. Symeon believed that anyone could forgive the sins of others, ordained or not, as long as they'd had a profound personal experience of the Holy Spirit). Yet despite their own offbeat opinions on certain topics, they were canonized by the Church for how much they got right and the examples they set with how they lived.
St. Vincent likens the growth of the Church to the growth of a human body. You grow over time, into a new and bigger form, but according to the pattern which was always contained in the very beginning. If your fingers grow longer, that's probably fine. If you grow a new finger, it probably isn't.