The problem of death

[JDaniel]

And yet, strangely, it isnt. Look at the list of secular humanitarian organisations out there. The fact is most prisoners have a faith. Most abusers have a faith. Some of the worst atrocities against humanity in recent times have been committed by people of faith. And all those faiths assure their adherents there is an afterlife.

Sarah:

You are in the Nile, oops! sorry, in denial. You have not been around prisons at all. Prisoners claim adherence to that religion within which they were born. But, quickly admit, that early-on they lost any affinity with the religions of their parents, and did not adopt another one. They became truly secularized. To claim otherwise is sheer nonsense.

Disclaimer until I can get this into a signature - I recognise and appreciate the fantastic work that is also done by people of all faiths and various churches in the relief of human suffering. I am just addressing the point made that **many **would just think of themselves, and pointing out that is not what the evidence suggests to me,

I live in a relatively large city, and, in any direction around this city are quite a few other cities, of varying sizes. In each of all it is the Christian Churches that are carrying the brunt of the load of feeding the poor - and doing so even if the poor do not belong to, or attend, those, or any other, churches. And, even when the poor and downtrodden do get approved for food stamps, and other aid, it is the Church organizations that fill in the gaps before they are approved and if they are turned down! Debating against this is absurd.

and I am in no way conflating belief in god and an afterlife with people doing horrific things in this life. Again, on the point that it would be an enormous force for evil in the world, Im just pointing out that most crimes are committed by people who have some form of faith and a belief in the afterlife.

“Point out” what you will, but, saying that does not make it so. You are vastly incorrect.

Here are just a couple of thousands of websites reporting the corruption prevalent in the secular aid industry:

independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1443

independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1443

devex.com/en/blogs/the-development-newswire/does-aid-community-contribute-to-corruption?g=1

newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2005/09/05/red_cross_ceo_pulled_down_651957_salary_bush_strafes_new_orleans.htm

There are too many reports to list, so, above are just the first few I came across.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Me too - it’s a wonder I wasnt struck down there and then by lightening

I dont deny for one moment the incredible work churches do for the relief of human suffering. I also secretly admire the unflinching stance the catholic church takes for the protection of the unborn.

I also dont deny corruption. It goes on everywhere. The common denominator is people. Churches have had the same problems.

I maybe just have a bit more confidence in my secular humanitarian fellow man than you do

Sarah:

It might help me regard positively your statements, if, only if, you could show me the vast corruption going on in the churches that even comes close to the vast corruption going on in your precious secular organizations! And do you know what’s extraordinarily amazing, all of this is discoverable on the secular internet.

God bless,
jd

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Sarah:

You are in the Nile, oops! sorry, in denial. You have not been around prisons at all. Prisoners claim adherence to that religion within which they were born. But, quickly admit, that early-on they lost any affinity with the religions of their parents, and did not adopt another one. They became truly secularized. To claim otherwise is sheer nonsense.

And that is how effective religion as we know it is.

I live in a relatively large city, and, in any direction around this city are quite a few other cities, of varying sizes. In each of all it is the Christian Churches that are carrying the brunt of the load of feeding the poor - and doing so even if the poor do not belong to, or attend, those, or any other, churches. And, even when the poor and downtrodden do get approved for food stamps, and other aid, it is the Church organizations that fill in the gaps before they are approved and if they are turned down! Debating against this is absurd.

Yes, but you are debating religion against human nature. And again, it is churcheswhich would one turn to and by what agency of discrimination if one was so inclined? My sister is LDS and I’ve been with her to the local warehouse. I’ve never seen anything like it. So if we measure by “charity,” do they win?

“Point out” what you will, but, saying that does not make it so. You are vastly incorrect.

I’d like to see numbers on either side of this!

Here are just a couple of thousands of websites reporting the corruption prevalent in the secular aid industry:

I’m sure that that is just a good start. I wonder how many people in those organizations are religious? You keep touting religion as a remedy, but in fact goodness and religion have little if anything to do with one another, though good people, needing to rationalize, might subscribe to a religion a first step. Or they are born into it and it suffices, or they get secularized because the religion is an add-on, not an internal reality.

 

[JDaniel]

So how do people know that who haven’t been exposed to this way of thinking/believing? I’ve seen some figures on how many Catholics/Christians there are distributed over time and geography. Not many, really, since the taming of fire.

RF:

Have you visited this website?

adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

So that kind of pictures a dynamic I really don’t understand. I DO understand that we are all made in the image and likeness of God, but that as well is not necessarily a ready bit of information outside Christendom in its broadest sense. What I am convinced of is that anyone looking at the stary sky, a maimed battle victim, a newborn baby, or who considers their life beyond the thickness of a piece of paper in depth does ask themselves the Big Questions. And maybe to some extent their faith, whatever it might be, may be of help.

Now, this would start a great new topic.

But ultimately, what is efficacious, within OR without a religious context, is a transformation in the realm of awareness. There are evidences of this everywhere. So one has to ask, “If, without respect to religion as a factor either adding to or subtracting from the result, how is it that there occurs in every human condition throughout history, spontaneous awakenings to a very similar explication of phenomenon and hierarchy of events?” Would that not encourage looking for some commonality in the very nature of humans that is hard wired before the acquisition of a parochial religion?

Except, then we would have to throw out part or all of Christ. He is God, after all, which means that He should be allowed to have His desires and have them fulfilled, don’t you think?

Accounting for the obvious necessity that a person will try to express their experience in the language of the paradigm, there are things that people go through that are considered “spiritual” which are astonishingly similar. That is out there for everyone to look at. So instead of wrangling dogmas and intellectual assertions in the realm where these things don’t happen, how about getting on finding a common language to talk about these things do we aren’t slamming or discounting folks with what might be exactly our own experience in another mode of discursive exegesis?

Believe it or not, your not the first one to ask that question. Again, why would Jesus specifically desire to start and specific Church and hand the reins over to Peter?

Right now, go back in these forums and I will bet that you find people of every description and background who reports some form of such a happening. For my part, I’m way more invested in saying, “OK, whats the same about these?” than saying “That can’t be right because you aren’t my religion!”

If that is being said by Catholics, those so-called Catholics are wrong. God can and does give wake-up calls to anyone. But, he still didn’t want them out there in space forming more and more new and more improved religions. Look what Islam has done: removed Christ and the promise of salvation and replaced it with another way to get to paradise: blow up things and kill people. That said, I do recognize that the terrible stuff is being performed by the radicals. But, even the non-radicals are afraid to confront them. I am certain that the radicals are the chagrin of the moderates. That is the reason for such as the Magisterium.

If you know anything about human psychology, you will also know that most religion is assimilated in the formative years when the mind is in a learning trance. So family and culture have great bearing here. But God, or the Invisible, or Mind, or Whatever is Universally True and the actual fundamental relationship we have to THAT is also Universally true. So why are we bickering over cultural particulars, and even sacred dogmas that can yet be read to fit this model instead of discovering how we are already experientially open in the same way and only linguistically opposed?

We aren’t.

Death and the process of dying may very well include a process of recapitulation. And just go to any hospice and ask the workers there about how people die. What they think and what ceremonies are offered them are different. But what they do is the same. Think about that and what it might mean.

Good point. But, Catholicism does not teach that non-Catholics cannot be part of the pre-determined. The question is: that errant beliefs dispose men more often to soul-corruptive activities that they cannot otherwise have forgiven. Christ gave the keys and the power to bind and loose directly to St. Peter, in Gethsemane. He did not do that nonchalantly: it had to really have real meaning? The Catholic Church is the only place where there exist forms of “recapitulation” that Christ directly initiated in instituting His Church. And, He didn’t do that nonchalantly either. The Catholic Church is all about using its special gifts to pull the goats through the right door, to make them sheep.

God bless,
jd

 

[Ranklyfrank]

RF:Have you visited this website?

Not only visited, but used it and similar ones as source material.

Now, this would start a great new topic.

Be my guest! Let me know. You are pretty sharp, it ought to be good.

Except, then we would have to throw out part or all of Christ. He is God, after all, which means that He should be allowed to have His desires and have them fulfilled, don’t you think?

Wow. No. Not at all. Au contraire.

Believe it or not, your not the first one to ask that question. Again, why would Jesus specifically desire to start and specific Church and hand the reins over to Peter?

Of course I’m not the first. And it is asked specifically because the interpretation you state is problematic and counterproductive or that pie chart would be way different. Christianity might not even be on it, while the significance of Jesus would be vastly increased and more fully understood.

If that is being said by Catholics, those so-called Catholics are wrong. God can and does give wake-up calls to anyone. But, he still didn’t want them out there in space forming more and more new and more improved religions. Look what Islam has done: removed Christ and the promise of salvation and replaced it with another way to get to paradise: blow up things and kill people. That said, I do recognize that the terrible stuff is being performed by the radicals. But, even the non-radicals are afraid to confront them. I am certain that the radicals are the chagrin of the moderates. That is the reason for such as the Magisterium.

Hey, there’s a great idea: we can ask that every spiritual insight come with a disclaimer that says “Not to be construed as giving permission to go off on your own. Meant only and solely/soul-ly as a confirmation and affirmation of the Catholic Faith.” And what would be wrong with an improved religion? As for Islam, you might have fun reading T.E Lawrence’s biography and get a slightly more useful look at that and what happened. Their faith got into the hands of a sect, as did ours.

We aren’t.

Nuf said.

Good point. But, Catholicism does not teach that non-Catholics cannot be part of the pre-determined. The question is: that errant beliefs dispose men more often to soul-corruptive activities that they cannot otherwise have forgiven. Christ gave the keys and the power to bind and loose directly to St. Peter, in Gethsemane. He did not do that nonchalantly: it had to really have real meaning? The Catholic Church is the only place where there exist forms of “recapitulation” that Christ directly initiated in instituting His Church. And, He didn’t do that nonchalantly either. The Catholic Church is all about using its special gifts to pull the goats through the right door, to make them sheep.

Is that why so many of so many faiths are secularized sheeple? And please don’t go “anti Catholic” about this. Unlike what seems to be the usual practice of translating “religion” to mean “Christianity,” I actually mean “religion.” And again, I am profoundly convinced that the incident used as proof that Jesus allegedly formed the Church is not that at all. For you it is a foundational stone. For me it is something rather different.

 

[JDaniel]

And that is how effective religion as we know it is.Yes, but you are debating religion against human nature.

Rf:

Yes, I am. Without the Churches, there would only be the secular (for the vast part). Often, it takes the Churches to instill, by whatever means (without sin or direct coercion), a sense of the “good” into otherwise secular human natures. If you lived in Florida, I could show you one of many examples that might restore a bit of your lost esteem for Catholicism.

A couple of Sundays ago, our Parrish Priest mentioned, during Mass, that our own food pantry was empty. Before Sunday evening it was almost full. Each Catholic Church has its own aid ministry, besides its proportionate contributive funding of the central agency in our city. The current state of our National economy is not helping.

Now, you might ask, “What happened?” Well, the answer is a bit complicated. You see, going to Church on Sundays, participating voluntarily in ministries is, and has always been, a matter of “habit.” You heard me correctly! It is far too easy for people to fall out of the habit of giving and participating. Furthermore, the natural occurrence of this is much greater for those who find themselves having to move, in our increasingly mobile society. It’s not that their natures are evil, although I’m sure the devil is in the details here too, but rather in the constant confrontation humans are subjected to at almost every moment to attend to something else. Unless we are one of those great people who are completely taken over by their religiosity, the rest of us need constant tweaking.

And again, it is churcheswhich one would turn to and by what agency of discrimination if one was so inclined?

I can’t answer your question. I can only answer based upon what I’ve “seen” as differences between my church and others. I know little about the inner-workings of the LDS churches. There are people, in these forums, that can intimately describe their experiences, from their POV’s as converts. We even have an atheist or two that can talk to you about LDS inside. And, a couple of them are, IMHO, intellectuals. (I count them as friends - even though I’m still angry with one of them. But, I’ll get over it. They are each charitable men, so they can’t be all bad!)

My sister is LDS and I’ve been with her to the local warehouse. I’ve never seen anything like it. So if we measure by “charity,” do they win?

I’m not sure what you want me to respond to.

I’d like to see numbers on either side of this! I’m sure that that is just a good start. I wonder how many people in those organizations are religious?

I’ll think there are many. But, I’ll bet they don’t make policy.

You keep touting religion as a remedy, but in fact goodness and religion have little if anything to do with one another, though good people, needing to rationalize, might subscribe to a religion a first step.

I’m not so sure of that. When I was bad, I was irreligious. When I came back, the Grace the God bestowed upon me was a kind of mystical experience in itself. You might be interested in this: since I’ve come back and since I am much more deeply involved, I am sure that occasionally I see bits and pieces of Angels as they move around me. When I am not so good, they are not there. Now, I would prefer that you treat this as you would any unverifiable fancy: that doesn’t bother me at all. If you get really into being for God, I believe you will then, and only then, experience what I experience. (Then, remember we had this conversation.)

Or they are born into it and it suffices, or they get secularized because the religion is an add-on, not an internal reality.

No question. I have recently been accused of creating a new word: “dys-religious.” To me, that is the antithesis of “religious.” The word, “irreligious” is, to me, not an antithesis so much as it is a word after the sense of the word, “amoral.” An honest ignorant can be irreligious. But, to be dys-religious is to actively will it.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Not only visited, but used it and similar ones as source material. Be my guest! Let me know.

RF:

I will let you know.

Wow. No. Not at all. Au contraire.

What are you au contrairing?

Of course I’m not the first. And it is asked specifically because the interpretation you state is problematic and counterproductive or that pie chart would be way different. Christianity might not even be on it, while the significance of Jesus would be vastly increased and more fully understood.

Remember, the Catholic Church does not enforce adherence with guns. We know that the notion of pre-determinism is here a factor - much to my chagrin. The devil is effective.

Hey, there’s a great idea: we can ask that every spiritual insight come with a disclaimer that says “Not to be construed as giving permission to go off on your own. Meant only and solely/soul-ly as a confirmation and affirmation of the Catholic Faith.”

I like it. But, that’s a tad bit more in-your-face than we are, as you well know.

And what would be wrong with an improved religion?

Well, for one thing, it would admit that Jesus did not keep His word, or, was unable to keep it.

As for Islam, you might have fun reading T.E Lawrence’s biography and get a slightly more useful look at that and what happened. Their faith got into the hands of a sect, as did ours.

I’ve heard this before. It’s interesting but, being able to read, and, of course, being an ex-English teacher (as well as biology and zoology), has helped me to understand the idiom. When I read about some of that stuff, I go back and read the parts pointed out, and look up the Hebrew, or Greek, or Aramaic (or, Latin) to determine how our translation comports with them. To date, I am not really impressed by any of the assertions you are referring to.

Nuf said.Is that why so many of so many faiths are secularized sheeple? And please don’t go “anti Catholic” about this. Unlike what seems to be the usual practice of translating “religion” to mean “Christianity,” I actually mean “religion.”

Well, Christ is the Shepherd.

And again, I am profoundly convinced that the incident used as proof that Jesus allegedly formed the Church is not that at all. For you it is a foundational stone. For me it is something rather different.

I think the exact opposite. I cannot understand why God would make it so difficult and ambiguous from the very start. I can’t even imagine that God would want to blast into oblivion the vastly largest population of his created souls, in that way, and speak to us, in the Bible, as he has. I can’t imagine why He would carry on a name change, for Peter, from Simeon to Simeon-Cephas to Cephas, and then, commission Cephas (Peter, ‘rock’), in Gethsemane, unless He wanted to be perfectly unclear. Why would He leave that most important activity to ever be, after the Creation, to confusion? God would then be senseless (unless He was pointing to the ground). I would be very confused also, as to why Jesus had indicated elsewhere that He wanted his church unified. I have read many of the histories, secular and religious. I have read some of Joseph Smith’s stuff, too, which put me in mind of Eckankar, and, another I’d rather not mention.

God bless,
jd

 

[Ranklyfrank]

RF:I will let you know.

Thanks

What are you au contrairing?

JD~~Except, then we would have to throw out part or all of Christ. He is God, after all, which means that He should be allowed to have His desires and have them fulfilled, don’t you think?

How could the Christ or God be thrown out? And what you perceive as “His desires,” etc are your interpretations you accepted on third party say so, true or not. Likely true, but way misinterpreted.

Remember, the Catholic Church does not enforce adherence with guns. We know that the notion of pre-determinism is here a factor - much to my chagrin. The devil is effective.

I know a little about the devil. Again, different than commonly thought. And as what the Jesuit said is true-- “Give me a child for his first seven years and I will have them for life”–like any other system relying on hypnotics you don’t need guns.

I like it. But, that’s a tad bit more in-your-face than we are, as you well know.

I thought you wold like that disclaimer idea. but I doubt that the Magesterium has a monopoly on God’s Word. They put it into books and render it, well, not useful.

Well, for one thing, it would admit that Jesus did not keep His word, or, was unable to keep it.

Not at all. It would mean that we used the brain God gave us, and the heart. It would be a living experience instead of a religion “about.”

I’ve heard this before. It’s interesting but, being able to read, and, of course, being an ex-English teacher (as well as biology and zoology), has helped me to understand the idiom. When I read about some of that stuff, I go back and read the parts pointed out, and look up the Hebrew, or Greek, or Aramaic (or, Latin) to determine how our translation comports with them. To date, I am not really impressed by any of the assertions you are referring to.

As expected. How could you be?

Well, Christ is the Shepherd.

That’s worth a book; I won’t even start here.

I think the exact opposite. I cannot understand why God would make it so difficult and ambiguous from the very start. I can’t even imagine that God would want to blast into oblivion the vastly largest population of his created souls, in that way, and speak to us, in the Bible, as he has. I can’t imagine why He would carry on a name change, for Peter, from Simeon to Simeon-Cephas to Cephas, and then, commission Cephas (Peter, ‘rock’), in Gethsemane, unless He wanted to be perfectly unclear. Why would He leave that most important activity to ever be, after the Creation, to confusion? God would then be senseless (unless He was pointing to the ground). I would be very confused also, as to why Jesus had indicated elsewhere that He wanted his church unified. I have read many of the histories, secular and religious. I have read some of Joseph Smith’s stuff, too, which put me in mind of Eckankar, and, another I’d rather not mention.

If I’m reading you correctly–it’s a bit hard here, you are usually very clear, something I admire–but to me the answer is obvious. It couldn’t be, when I was practicing, but now it is. You can only see the box when you step outside it.

Good call on the JS/Eck connection. Never thought of that one.

 

[Cato_Minor]

Nope.

You assume that everybody cares deeply about making a difference for good. Doubtful.

ISTM that if it were proven that there was nothing beyond our natural life, that you would see a massive explosion of corruption, venality and carnality as the masses struggled to “grab the gusto” as much as possible before the darkness fell.

And also a huge amount of cruelty toward those at the edges of life: the disabled, the old, infants, etc, since if they have no enduring value, why sacrifice in any way for such persons?

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

I don’t believe that there is any life or existence after death but none of the above ‘options’ you list appeal to me nor to others like me that I know. What do you base the above assertion on?

 

[Ranklyfrank]

I don’t believe that there is any life or existence after death but none of the above ‘options’ you list appeal to me nor to others like me that I know. What do you base the above assertion on?

Perhaps you might enjoy “the Death Delusion” to be found at bardcan.wordpress.com For some reason my posted links don’t work right; best you type it in your search box, or cut and paste.

Care to say what a stoic-pantheist might be, especially relative to this thread?

And welcome!

 

[Cato_Minor]

Perhaps you might enjoy “the Death Delusion” to be found at bardcan.wordpress.com For some reason my posted links don’t work right; best you type it in your search box, or cut and paste.

Care to say what a stoic-pantheist might be, especially relative to this thread?

And welcome!

A Stoic is someone who follows the ancient Greek and Roman ethical school of Stoicism. On the ‘God’ question we range from atheists to pantheists (believing god and nature to be one and the same thing - entirely identical). It is a rational philosophy.

On the question of existence after death Stoics are either agnostic on the question or reject the possibility outright, but this makes no difference to the proper Stoic outlook on death which is on of indifference. It is not the length of life that matters but rather how well that life is lived.

The goal of life is eudaemonia and this is best achieved by living consistently in agreement with nature, by living virtuously, and by paying heed only to those things that one can affect oneself (think on the ‘Serenity Prayer’).

Essentially, Stoicism claims that if you want a life of ‘happiness’ than the Stoic life will deliver that.

Needless to say the above is quite brief.

 

[momor]

I think the far more interesting question is what would life be like if we knew there was no existence after death.

Much of life and society as we know it has been infused and shaped by the religions of the world and belief in God (or Higher Being) and life after death and that how we live on Earth determines how we will live after death, e.g., Christian reward/punishment, kharmic energy, reincarnation, etc. Thereby providing a great deal of motivation to live in harmony with others as most religions have taught. Perhaps atheists forget to attribute the goodness inside them to being steeped in religious attitudes/laws that make up the fabric of the world around them. And no matter how committed an atheist might be that there is no God, I don’t think you can discount that there are effects on them from living in societies where they encounter the issue daily. It’s almost a certainty that there exists at least some kernal of doubt in each one.

I think if we had always as humans known there was no God and no life after death we would act entirely selfishly. Society might never have evolved beyond the level of small tribes who banded together for purely practical reasons. I doubt that any altruistic tendencies or traits such as tolerance needed to build societies would have developed. We would be as base at our core as animals are. It is the spiritual which lifts us above the animals, not just intelligence and reason.

 

[ADouglass]

I think if people believed in an afterlife, but like the question has been asked, didn’t know what that afterlife consisted of, then I think a rational person would devote one’s entire life to finding out what the afterlife is. Then Pascal’s wager would come to mind, but in this form: I better find out what the consequences in the afterlife for me would be, depending on how I act and what I believe. Since it might be the case that my afterlife would be much better if I was a moral person, it would be wise to be as moral as possible. But what morality to choose? How about the strictest morality known to man: the one that each and every Catholic is commanded to obey.

 

[Curious_Seed]

How might our world look different if everyone was certain life continued after death-just that one belief alone?

If by the world you mean mankind, there is already some strong evidence of how different it would be should life after death be certain.

For thousands of years humanity’s behavior has not altered much. Would being able to live double one’s lifespan affect that? Quadrupling of it? Probably not.

I think the world would look much as it does now, regardless of an individual’s lifespan, even an infinite one.

However, humanity transformed by God; well now, voila la difference!

 

[Ranklyfrank]

However, humanity transformed by God; well now, voila la difference!

So exactly what, in practice, does that mean?

 

[4Horsemen]

I think if people believed in an afterlife, but like the question has been asked, didn’t know what that afterlife consisted of, then I think a rational person would devote one’s entire life to finding out what the afterlife is. Then Pascal’s wager would come to mind, but in this form: I better find out what the consequences in the afterlife for me would be, depending on how I act and what I believe. Since it might be the case that my afterlife would be much better if I was a moral person, it would be wise to be as moral as possible. But what morality to choose? How about the strictest morality known to man: the one that each and every Catholic is commanded to obey.

Very succinctly said! A sensible person would use reason to choose the desirable life which is the most moral, which, as you said is to be found in Catholic thinking.

 

[4Horsemen]

If by the world you mean mankind, there is already some strong evidence of how different it would be should life after death be certain.

For thousands of years humanity’s behavior has not altered much. Would being able to live double one’s lifespan affect that? Quadrupling of it? Probably not.

I think the world would look much as it does now, regardless of an individual’s lifespan, even an infinite one.

However, humanity transformed by God; well now, voila la difference!

God gives us reason to live, and death is “swallowed up in victory.” I agree that without God in the equation of life, people wouldn’t have anything outside their own little egos to live for. They would inevitably die in their sins.

 

[4Horsemen]

So exactly what, in practice, does that mean?

As Scripture reads, “In God we live and move and have our being.” If we were to die knowing that there is an afterlife (but not the idea of heaven as understood by Christianity), what would there be to look forward to except “the same, the same?” Christians know the afterlife consists of an eternity in heaven and enjoying the Beatific Vision and whatever else God has prepared for those who love Him.

All of his children, Christian and non-Christian are given to know various truths through reason. But Christians are supplied with the fullness of faith through Revelation, so that death loses its sting.

We can’t just walk through life and enter death’s door to another type of earthly existence. Somewhere in our heart of hearts, we know that judgment awaits along with reward and punishment.

Even non-Christian faiths have their own ideas of reward and punishment.

 

[GEddie]

As Scripture reads, “In God we live and move and have our being.” If we were to die knowing that there is an afterlife (but not the idea of heaven as understood by Christianity), what would there be to look forward to except “the same, the same?”

Or, worse, a diminished existence similar to Greek Hades.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JDaniel]

How could the Christ or God be thrown out? And what you perceive as “His desires,” etc are your interpretations you accepted on third party say so, true or not. Likely true, but way misinterpreted.

RF:

You have intimated this more than once, herein. Now, if you will, kind Sir, please explain how we have misinterpreted? Correct us.

God bless,
jd