Thanks

@Dulcet7 & Jesoul

Is this a discussion between you two or there is room for contribution from others.

Greetings to you, Joagbaje. As you can see, seyibrown is also a part of the conversation so it is is by no means private. Please feel free/

But i am sorry if you feel I have hijacked the thread ~ i did not mean to do that.

Oga Jo, please oh, na your thread now. Na you suppose give us orders self  please do contribute.

---

and oh Dulcet, I promise I have no ulterior motives. I just like to 'interview' people and understand how others approach a subject that is of great importance to me. You may notice I don't add too much of my own thots - because I am not interested in my own thots. So thanks for your patience!

Dulcet7:

I do not know about these claims. Can you please provide references that show the Bible saying it has an exclusive monopoly on truth? I guess it states it is the Word of God but does it say it (the Bible) is the only one?

  My bad, I should've been more clear.
Jesus said no one could get to the father except through Him. That's what I meant by a 'monopoly'. And going by your already expressed understanding on who Jesus is to Joagbaje, I already have an answer. Forgive the redundancy.

The Great Commission:
Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
There is nothing here about spreading knowledge of his death and resurrection but rather to teach them to observe the things he commanded (the things he taught us by his own exemplary lifestyle). This is the exact thing I already explained about the nature of the journey of salvation. Or maybe there is something I didn't understand about your question?

  Nah you did it good justice Dulcet .

-from your personal understanding, what do you think was the purpose (spiritual/physical) of Jesus dying and resurrecting?
the bible teaches His blood is what washes away sin and that His death was necessary, a propitiation. What are your thoughts?

Jesus never commanded anybody to convert to his religion but rather he taught us to live ~ in a way that pleases God and is in peace and love with men ~ and then commanded us to teach others too. The "religion" in all that Jesus taught was theism just like I advocate and likewise perceive - divine teachings about God, how he relates with us and how he expects us to relate with one another. A careful study of Jesus life can create a profuse spark of salvation in one who desires to live for God. As he himself said I am the way the Truth and the Life; I am the Door. He referred to his eternal identity ~ as the the epitome of love ~ as Sun of God ~ that identity is the final point for anyone on the journey of salvation.

Thanks!
-what is your approach/thoughts/understanding on the relevance of the OT? in regards to us, and in regards to Jesus as well?

Definitely a personified form of evil exists ~ and it is sufficient to call him the devil (as i said previously, words forms and ideas can hardly convey true spiritual meaning but we can manage). Just like perfection of love flows from God towards whoever desires to be filled by it, perfection of wickedness flows from an evil one (who we can call the devil) towards whoever desires [/b]to be refilled by it.

However I do not understand evil to be like the way many people see it. I see evil to be like friction. It is undesirable but NECESSARY because without friction there will be no motion. This is why even Jesus (Buddha too) had to be severely tempted by evil, and he experienced expressions of evil flowing towards him from outside-in, right from Herod's massacre straight to his own crucifixion. [b]My views on evil may be controversial so I think I need to cap it there.

 There's no level of controversy this section has not seen sir

 I don't think at the heart of your views, it is that drastically different from others. The bible does teach that persecution, trials (or for you -friction) is necessary to produce the kind of refined people God wants us to be. I am curious though, what is your take on spirits, demons, possession etc . . .

I believe teaching/tenet/belief/practice may be referred to as doctrine and yes I concede it is possible ~ absolutely speaking ~ for a doctrine to be wrong. This is because doctrines are dynamic in nature ~ ever changing ~ and whoever is the pointman of change can manipulate the doctrine to their taste. At that state, the doctrine is not much more different from the heart of that pointman. When I first said doctrines are not right or wrong, I confess I wasn't considering it absolutely.
I believe religious doctrines are of three types:
[list]
[li]the exoteric (commonly known) doctrines on relating with God[/li]
[li]the exoteric doctrines on laws, principles and conduct among men[/li]
[li]the esoteric (hidden) doctrines[/li]
[/list]

In each category it is possible for a man who has been placed in a key position to manipulate the religious adherents into unknowingly satisfying esoteric (secret) doctrines that he believes in by making them engage in some exoteric practices that have been extrapolated - or else to advance some personal vendetta. So the masses move along like pawns in a war front.

Not a problem sir. I knew you were speaking in more general terms and I understood what you meant. Your breakdown explanation is on point and answers more than satisfactorily. Thanks.

I believe the ultimate goal of mankind is to reunite with purpose of walking in love, whether its Christians or Muslims. I have not once read where Jesus condemned a [b]religion or another. Rather he condemned wrong motives and intentions, wrong hearts and deceptive manoeuvres.[/b]

I believe you are right here . . . I think in general, Jesus was not in the business of condemning particular actions, He focused so much on the heart and motives, rather than the ritualistic following of laws. I can think of nothing more liberating than the way Jesus set before us to follow.

JeSoul:

-from your personal understanding, what do you think was the purpose (spiritual/physical) of Jesus dying and resurrecting?
the bible teaches His blood is what washes away sin and that His death was necessary, a propitiation. What are your thoughts?

According to the Biblical accounts, Jesus died and resurrected. Jesus said he had to die ~ and in his conversation the purpose of this death was to prove the following: Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
Jesus himself never said his blood or his death was in order to save them (this story began after his death) BUT Jesus was prepared anyway to be killed by the people he loved, for the things he believed in ~ and for the good he was doing in people's lives. His death was thus representing the extent [/b]of his love for us. Then the resurrection on the other hand would have been necessary to prove that he was actually an innocent man.

[b]The many Pauline and Johanine accounts (their letters and gospels) in the Bible make attempts to draw parallels to the Old Testament practices of blood sacrifice and label it the "final sacrifice" that achieved what the blood of animals could not do but in my understanding its not in this sense ~ whereas the OT blood sacrifices were a religious rite, they were markedly different from the form of this sacrifice. The person who makes an OT sacrifice understands what he is doing and his own will is remorsefully brought into subjection in line with the poor animal that takes the blame. When we sacrificed Jesus, we did not understand what we were doing, we had no remorse (until the sacrifice had fully expiated) and our will was NOT brought in line with that of this scapegoat - the man Jesus.

But also, I do not know if the Biblical God really asked the Jews for those OT sacrifices on a regular basis ~ I have strong reason to think Leveticus and Deuteronomy are forgeries. As for references in Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, I believe these sacrifices were not regular but were on demand of their God for them to show their dedication. It wasn;t meant to be a continuous, regular affair. The continuous sacrifices of animals was introduced to control the people and to fleece them when they had to buy the sacrifice materials ~ the same thing Jesus drove them from the temple for (I believe, contrary to the popular opinion that they were selling at expensive prices - where did that thought even come from, it's not there anywhere?  ) ~ and nowhere will you read of Jesus doing a sacrifice for atonement for himself or his disciples. It was a corruption that had eaten into the Jewish religion.

That's according to Biblical accounts. But I believe the Bible is heavily symbolic and often we get too hung on the very words that are meant to guide us in truth. The Buddha likened some religious questions to a man shot with an arrow who looks around to see who shot him, then said the man will die with his injury as he is asking the not-so-important question instead of just treating himself. So I am not arguing whether the death and resurrection actually happened or not, because either way it is laced in eternal truth and serves as an example to show us that Perfect Love can never be put down.

I believe the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus is a symbolic example of trial by ordeal, as instituted by the Code of Hammurabi since 1700 B.C.
If anyone brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

An accusation was levelled against Jesus when he claimed to be the perfect embodiment of love. So symbolically, mankind subjected him to the Hammurabi code and he was crucified. If he never rose, then everything he ever taught and did supposedly as Perfect Love will become a joke. All mankind were His opponents ~ full of wordly desires ~ but represented by a quorum of Israelites ~ would have taken-possession of everything i.e. that would be the end and we would never hear of him again ~ perfect love will no longer be the walk of salvation. But Justice had to speak forth for Jesus so he escaped unhurt. In turn, we are now compelled to be crucified with Christ - putting our own worldly desires to death (just like how Hammurabi's Code would have made Jesus put us to death) and we are now also compelled to let him have our "houses and belongings" => THAT is what it means to give your life and all to Jesus - he will [b]own [/b]us and we have to let him own us by walking towards salvation in love. He is the victor of the Hammurabi Code concerning his own claims of being Perfect Love.
 

JeSoul:

-what is your approach/thoughts/understanding on the relevance of the OT? in regards to us, and in regards to Jesus as well?

With regards to Jesus, the OT (Old Testament) forms a foundation that he built upon ~ to show a more excellent way that actually works. As he said, he didn't come to erase or replace it but to build on it. In regards to us, I believe the OT is a resource to see how Jesus saw the religion of his day and how he related to that religion, THEN compare that to how people generally practice or practiced religion in our day and KNOW how we will also relate to it. Just like Jesus, we are not meant to erase or replace religions like Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and so on but rather we are to build on them with Perfect Love.

JeSoul:

 I don't think at the heart of your views, it is that drastically different from others. The bible does teach that persecution, trials (or for you -friction) is necessary to produce the kind of refined people God wants us to be. I am curious though, what is your take on spirits, demons, possession etc . . .

I do not know too much about spirits. However I believe spirits almost certainly exist but I believe they are not legally meant to continuously operate in the physical realms - and only at such intersections of the two realms as God allows. Men can also operate on such intersections by using their spiritual counterparts to carry out the functions in a form of "remote control" - this is what happens in prayer I believe. As for possession (by spirits), I believe what really happens is that the spirit bullies/influences/domineers (with the person's permission or not) the person's spiritual counterpart and the person experiences the wickedness in this realm. Sometimes the spirit would have stopped the bullying but this person will still carry the influence around ~ like a sour taste that lingers in one's mouth after eating lemons and already spitting the offender out.

wow Dulcet, that is an eye-ful .

Dulcet7:

According to the Biblical accounts, Jesus died and resurrected. Jesus said he had to die ~ and in his conversation the purpose of this death was to prove the following: Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
Jesus himself never said his blood or his death was in order to save them (this story began after his death) BUT Jesus was prepared anyway to be killed by the people he loved, for the things he believed in ~ and for the good he was doing in people's lives. His death was thus representing the extent [/b]of his love for us. Then the resurrection on the other hand would have been necessary to prove that he was actually an innocent man.

[b]The many Pauline and Johanine accounts (their letters and gospels) in the Bible make attempts to draw parallels to the Old Testament practices of blood sacrifice and label it the "final sacrifice" that achieved what the blood of animals could not do but in my understanding its not in this sense ~ whereas the OT blood sacrifices were a religious rite, they were markedly different from the form of this sacrifice. The person who makes an OT sacrifice understands what he is doing and his own will is remorsefully brought into subjection in line with the poor animal that takes the blame. When we sacrificed Jesus, we did not understand what we were doing, we had no remorse (until the sacrifice had fully expiated) and our will was NOT brought in line with that of this scapegoat - the man Jesus.

But also, I do not know if the Biblical God really asked the Jews for those OT sacrifices on a regular basis ~ I have strong reason to think Leveticus and Deuteronomy are forgeries. As for references in Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, I believe these sacrifices were not regular but were on demand of their God for them to show their dedication. It wasn;t meant to be a continuous, regular affair. The continuous sacrifices of animals was introduced to control the people and to fleece them when they had to buy the sacrifice materials ~ the same thing Jesus drove them from the temple for (I believe, contrary to the popular opinion that they were selling at expensive prices - where did that thought even come from, it's not there anywhere?  ) ~ and nowhere will you read of Jesus doing a sacrifice for atonement for himself or his disciples. It was a corruption that had eaten into the Jewish religion.

That's according to Biblical accounts. But I believe the Bible is heavily symbolic and often we get too hung on the very words that are meant to guide us in truth. The Buddha likened some religious questions to a man shot with an arrow who looks around to see who shot him, then said the man will die with his injury as he is asking the not-so-important question instead of just treating himself. So I am not arguing whether the death and resurrection actually happened or not, because either way it is laced in eternal truth and serves as an example to show us that Perfect Love can never be put down.

I believe the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus is a symbolic example of trial by ordeal, as instituted by the Code of Hammurabi since 1700 B.C.
If anyone brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

An accusation was levelled against Jesus when he claimed to be the perfect embodiment of love. So symbolically, mankind subjected him to the Hammurabi code and he was crucified. If he never rose, then everything he ever taught and did supposedly as Perfect Love will become a joke. All mankind were His opponents ~ full of wordly desires ~ but represented by a quorum of Israelites ~ would have taken-possession of everything i.e. that would be the end and we would never hear of him again ~ perfect love will no longer be the walk of salvation. But Justice had to speak forth for Jesus so he escaped unhurt. In turn, we are now compelled to be crucified with Christ - putting our own worldly desires to death (just like how Hammurabi's Code would have made Jesus put us to death) and we are now also compelled to let him have our "houses and belongings" => THAT is what it means to give your life and all to Jesus - he will [b]own [/b]us and we have to let him own us by walking towards salvation in love. He is the victor of the Hammurabi Code concerning his own claims of being Perfect Love.

  Thank you very much for taking the time out to share your understanding. It is not too different from what I imagined would be your view. As a christian I obviously differ with you on obvious points, but I can certainly understand how you've reached the conclusions you have.

I like that Bhuddha quote part. It reminds me of a fella here called imhotep (you will really like him ), he posted this quote that really had an impact on me a long while back

A religious belief is a signpost pointing the way to Truth.
When you cling to the signpost you are prevented from moving towards the Truth because you think you have it already.

With regards to Jesus, the OT (Old Testament) forms a foundation that he built upon ~ to show a more excellent way that actually works. As he said, he didn't come to erase or replace it but to build on it. In regards to us, I believe the OT is a resource to see how Jesus saw the religion of his day and how he related to that religion, THEN compare that to how people generally practice or practiced religion in our day and KNOW how we will also relate to it. Just like Jesus, we are not meant to erase or replace religions like Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and so on but rather we are to build on them with Perfect Love.

Understood. Thanks!

I do not know too much about spirits. However I believe spirits almost certainly exist but I believe they are not legally meant to continuously operate in the physical realms - and only at such intersections of the two realms as God allows. Men can also operate on such intersections by using their spiritual counterparts to carry out the functions in a form of "remote control" - this is what happens in prayer I believe. As for possession (by spirits), I believe what really happens is that the spirit bullies/influences/domineers (with the person's permission or not) the person's spiritual counterpart and the person experiences the wickedness in this realm. Sometimes the spirit would have stopped the bullying but this person will still carry the influence around ~ like a sour taste that lingers in one's mouth after eating lemons and already spitting the offender out.

Thanks.
  - I have just one more question (for now )

Where you are now/what you believe about God and faith, how did you arrive here? study, personal reflection, meditation, influence from others etc. Thanks!

ps. I'm not usually online over the weekends so forgive if I don't respond sooner. But I really appreciate your taking the time to answer my bugging questions. Godbless and have a fantastic weekend.

Thanks Jesoul. Years ago, I grew up with fanatical Christian views : meaning I always found a way to explain away all the inconsistencies that continually surfaced in my views : most of them based on various concepts of Christianity today and how they all claimed to have a monopoly on truth. I was also told that any study of other theology will damage my faith (I think that is a control measure used in religions).

Eventually I delved into church history and saw that the 'Christian' view has never actually been uniform since Christ. I saw that everyone seemed to have their own religion formed from Christ's teachings and all called themselves Christians. All claimed to be correct. Fortunately for some like Tertullian, their views were canonized and we believe them today and label others heretic. Even the canonized gospels were pushing various agenda: Luke's own provided background for his friend Paul's already written epistles, Matthew made his own stress the fact that being Christian doesnt mean you shouldnt be under Jewish law (opposed to Paul), John arose to infuse beliefs that Jesus pre-existed etc. They were selected anyway.

After a lot of study in religious comparative theology, I decided to be sincere in my search and not suddenly tend towards agnosticism like most in my shoes do, but to drop all the religious views which are obviously all biased (in my opinion), embrace the true teachings of Christ and to meditate for myself. Surprisingly, everything seemed to start springing out at me. All the views you see on this thread and others are exclusively mine. I dont think you will find them elsewhere. Thanks and have a great weekend, you too.

According to the Biblical accounts, Jesus died and resurrected. Jesus said he had to die ~ and in his conversation the purpose of this death was to prove the following: Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
Jesus himself never said his blood or his death was in order to save them (this story began after his death) BUT Jesus was prepared anyway to be killed by the people he loved, for the things he believed in ~ and for the good he was doing in people's lives. His death was thus representing the extent of his love for us. Then the resurrection on the other hand would have been necessary to prove that he was actually an innocent man.

The many Pauline and Johanine accounts (their letters and gospels) in the Bible make attempts to draw parallels to the Old Testament practices of blood sacrifice and label it the "final sacrifice" that achieved what the blood of animals could not do but in my understanding its not in this sense ~ whereas the OT blood sacrifices were a religious rite, they were markedly different from the form of this sacrifice. The person who makes an OT sacrifice understands what he is doing and his own will is remorsefully brought into subjection in line with the poor animal that takes the blame. When we sacrificed Jesus, we did not understand what we were doing, we had no remorse (until the sacrifice had fully expiated) and our will was NOT brought in line with that of this scapegoat - the man Jesus.

[b]John 10:11-18 (King James Version)

11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

What exactly was the good shepherd doing for his sheep here?

John 10:17-18 (King James Version)

17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

On the Code of Hammurabi, does one whose innocence is proven under this code have 'the power to lay down their life and take it up again'? WE ALL have the POWER to DIE for any people/cause of our choice but we CANNOT CLAIM THE POWER TO RESURRECT, CAN WE? Why was JESUS different? Why could he give his life and ressurrect? Could you possibly explain why Jesus was able to make such a claim, and what you think the relevance of this scripture is in relation to the first! If Jesus death was ONLY to prove his LOVE FOR FRIENDS, shouldn't he have stayed dead? If he WAS RAISED UP to show that he was unjustly killed, why didn't he continue living amongst the people like Lazarus did after having been raised up from the dead?
[/b]

@seyibrown: Hello Seyi. I wish you well. Please note that I have an intuition that I will not answer all the questions you are asking (though you say you are still editing).

seyibrown: 11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
What exactly was the good shepherd doing for his sheep here?

I think I already answered this. Please read through my response to Jesoul, your answer is there

BUT Jesus was prepared anyway to be killed by the people he loved, for the things he believed in ~ and for the good he was doing in people's lives. His death was thus representing the extent of his love for us.

That is what the shepherd does by laying down his life for the sheep. He does not deliberately go into a lion's jaws so that the sheep will be saved. The death of a shepherd in protecting his sheep happens because [/b]he loves the sheep (to show the extent of his love and care) and not that he tends to commit a suicide so that the sheep will be saved. Yet, I repeat, Jesus has not said ~ even here ~ that this death is what [b]saves [/i]the sheep. As I asked in another thread too, what exactly did Jesus say was the criteria for going to [i]hell? This is also different from what churches teach today.

seyibrown: On the Code of Hammurabi, does one whose innocence is proven under this code have 'the power to lay down their life and take it up again'?

No, but see again: it is the accused who leaps into the river by himself, meaning that the accuser LAID down his life and if he is innocent, he will pick it up again. Where the power comes from in the Hammurabi codes is not clearly defined - whether its the accused who does it of their own power, or maybe its the deity of the accused, or pure chance. But the understanding is that Justice will not keep quiet and one way or the other, the innocent one will not sink in the river. One may say Jesus said that because he was Perfect Love and he knew he would be discharged and acquitted of the crucifixion - and not condemned ~ because Perfect Love can never be put down.

If anyone brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

As I said before, this is my understanding after careful meditation and a lot of theological study. I do not think you have to believe them. Two women in turn ~ Ileke-Idi and Jesoul ~ have asked me some questions on these threads and so I have answered them. I have no intentions to [i]convert (better put : divert)[/i]any, and please only accept my perceptions if they sit well with your own convictions.

---

Dear Jesoul, Joagbaje and Seyibrown ~ I perceive in my heart that my time on this thread has been exhausted. I wish you all very well.

^^^ Bump.

Dulcet7:

No, but see again: it is the accused who leaps into the river by himself, meaning that the accus[b]er[/b] LAID down his life and if he is innocent, he will pick it up again.

I don't get you. Did you mean to say that the accus[b]ed[/b] laid down his life, or that the accus[b]er[/b] did that?

And are you still at the borderline? (not a serious question that demands any answers though)

No, but see again: it is the accused who leaps into the river by himself, meaning that the accused LAID down his life and if he is innocent, he will pick it up again.

wordtalk:

I don't get you. Did you mean to say that the accus[b]ed[/b] laid down his life, or that the accus[b]er[/b] did that?

Yes I meant accused.

wordtalk:

And are you still at the borderline? (not a serious question that demands any answers though)

Yeah. No worries, I never have reservations about whatever I believe. You see, we didn't talk for like 6 or 7 months -  a lot changed then. I was further to one side back then in that D7 era. I'm further to the other side now, but borderline still. Maybe you can relate to that like the fringe, penumbra of the borderline.

^^ I thought as much, thanks.




And for this -

InesQor:

You see, we didn't talk for like 6 or 7 months - a lot changed then.

- it's actually my fault: I got your emails but was nursing back to health from something serious. I'll try and email you.

@wordtalk

It's alright, man; don't stress it . Sorry to hear about that, and I'm glad you're better now.

Inesqor, I am really really disappointed that you are Dulcet 

* . . . where is my tatashe water gun powered by jalapeno laced bullets? ah there! right next to the koboko . . . * ol boy, you berra run . . .

JeSoul:

Inesqor, I am really really disappointed that you are Dulcet 

* . . . where is my tatashe water gun powered by jalapeno laced bullets? ah there! right next to the koboko . . . * ol boy, you berra run . . .

Join the Queue, Ma'am 

Interesting stuff up there, Inesqor! You should not yet have disclosed twas you, though!

Wish I had the capability to "manifest" as the "questions inside" as you did in D7

InesQor:

Join the Queue, Ma'am 

Oh . . . make I join queue ehn? How about John Q instead? I have just started with you boy, I have just started

nuclearboy:

Interesting stuff up there, Inesqor! You should not yet have disclosed twas you, though!
Wish I had the capability to "manifest" as the "questions inside" as you did in D7

Why not? We need to exorcise this rampant schizo-spirit of multiple id that is possessing this section . . . ahn ahn, am I even talking to you nuclearboy? or is this someone else too? 

^ it is indeed me, Ma'am!

Don't worry - I have only ONE id !

But those who could "cerebrally" engage Dulcet7 will now go easy on Inesqor is why my statement above & you will admit D7 brought some hot stuff there worthy of cross-examination

nuclearboy:

^ it is indeed me, Ma'am!

Don't worry - I have only ONE id !

One ID for now abi?    . . . . 

But those who could "cerebrally" engage Dulcet7 will now go easy on Inesqor is why my statement above & you will admit D7 brought some hot stuff there worthy of cross-examination

Yeah I really liked Dulcet which is why I vex & I no vex too much. I am curious how people like our boy Nesquizzy can talk as someone else . . . I find that just plain weird . . . but I love Inesqor so I can't even lash him like I would 

^ LOL - nope, not just for now but FOREVER except I get banned and need a new handle.

I don't have the capability to hide in any form plus my signature tells I have a fixation that makes me totally inflexible about truth- those who come to probity must come with clean hands. I dey vex too much so can't afford to leave my flanks exposed. My impatience also does worsen matters - I just cannot!

So don't worry - you have a harmless single ID'ed boy here!

Inesqor may be the devil after all to have deceived us all so easily but I'm still on your side!

nuclearboy:

^ LOL - nope, not just for now but FOREVER except I get banned and need a new handle.

I don't have the capability to hide in any form plus my signature tells I have a fixation that makes me totally inflexible about truth- those who come to probity must come with clean hands. I dey vex too much so can't afford to leave my flanks exposed. My impatience also does worsen matters - I just cannot!

So don't worry - you have a harmless single ID'ed boy here!

Inesqor may be the devil after all to have deceived us all so easily but I'm still on your side!

Hehe . . . I dunno about the 'harmless' part  CEC folks would disagree with that bit but I appreciate the singleD - what you see is what you get!

@JeSoul:

Do you remember this

Dulcet7:

Thanks Jesoul. Years ago, I grew up with fanatical Christian views : meaning I always found a way to explain away all the inconsistencies that continually surfaced in my views : most of them based on various concepts of Christianity today and how they all claimed to have a monopoly on truth. I was also told that any study of other theology will damage my faith (I think that is a control measure used in religions).

[b]Eventually I delved into church history and saw that the 'Christian' view has never actually been uniform since Christ. I saw that everyone seemed to have their own religion formed from Christ's teachings and all called themselves Christians. All claimed to be correct. Fortunately for some like Tertullian, their views were canonized and we believe them today and label others heretic. Even the canonized gospels were pushing various agenda: Luke's own provided background for his friend Paul's already written epistles, Matthew made his own stress the fact that being Christian doesnt mean you shouldnt be under Jewish law (opposed to Paul), John arose to infuse beliefs that Jesus pre-existed etc. They were selected anyway.

After a lot of study in religious comparative theology, I decided to be sincere in my search and not suddenly tend towards agnosticism like most in my shoes do, but to drop all the religious views which are obviously all biased (in my opinion), embrace the true teachings of Christ and to meditate for myself. Surprisingly, everything seemed to start springing out at me. All the views you see on this thread and others are exclusively mine. I dont think you will find them elsewhere. Thanks and have a great weekend, you too.[/b]

Everything I said above here is true. The red and bold aspect is MY STORY.

There is nothing about "being the devil" or "talking as someone else" or anything of that nonesuch as Jesoul and nuclearboy said. 

At that time of my life; end of last year till some weeks ago, everything I posted as Dulcet was MY reality. Jesoul, when I was troubled I TRIED to talk to you (as Inesqor since that was who you knew and not Dulcet), but you ignored my message: my SMS, my calls, my request for an instant messenger conversation. When you replied, you simply asked me to mail you again. I needed to talk in real-time and not email so I gave up on that. I tried to talk to Viaro too, no responses (I just found out he was ill). I even called nuclearboy, no show. Eyzhvntsn knows I tried to call him cos I told her when I gave up. The only person I reached out to and replied me was Pastor AIO, he was really very helpful and I didnt even tell him until a couple of weeks ago that I am Dulcet. I think only Vescucci knew that I am D7, cos he is familiar with me on another network.

If you feel like having the unnecessary exercise, check out my Inesqor posts at that time. I either didnt make posts at all, or was just neutral. I was going to drop that Inesqor [/b]ID cos as far as I could see at the time, I needed a fresh slate. In retrospect I think I was concerned that my own soul enquiry may influence other people adversely, so I decided to just start afresh. Given the chance again, I would not even have bothered. I would have just gone ahead and made my posts amongst all the "Hey InesQor has backslidden" and all sorts of mumbo jumbo.

My journey is complete now, and I'm back to posting with my original handle. I believe I have more understanding now of my own Christian faith, Most of the things I posted as Dulcet stay in my purview, but even many more are refined with respect to Christianity and I believe they have brought me closer to God.

I personally don't care whether anyone is offended or not, honestly; although I apologize if it will make them feel better.

My own transformation in religious thoughts and posts from [b]mavenbox [/b]to [b]Inesqor [/b]to [b]dulcet7 [/b]and right back to [b]Inesqor now is as remarkable as the changes in my spiritual journey have been. I have nothing to hide, and I am not ashamed. If anything, my spiritual journey has only made me closer to God because I critically examined every thing that I would usually have taken for granted and now I know nothing can shake that. There is evidence for me beyond anything I see an atheist type on these boards or elsewhere.

Of course there is one last question. What if I never told? I am 100% certain that Vescucci and Pastor AIO would never have mentioned it. I really don't know what the big deal is. Oh, of course, I broke a forum rule. Yeah I know, and I'm guilty of that, and not for the first time. Not more guilty than those who insult others while posting. What else?

Arrivederci.

^ I half expected the above! You have met me face to face and are aware of the immense respec I have for your mind, morals and world-view! So let me first apologise though you read me wrongly up there!

In my communication with 2 people here (Jo included), I have boasted I have no other id and need none - take it as that then stopping me from the act rather than a "possible" righteousness which was NOT what I meant. I have in effect said thus and thus and will not change was my meaning.

D7 actually puts you higher than you were before in my estimation. And I am truly sorry you could not get me whenever - eyzhvntsn always was in touch and I wonder why I never knew before a few minutes ago

_{I was about to pick my keys and head out the door before sonething say make I see wassup before I check out till next tuesday . . .}

InesQor:

@JeSoul:

Do you remember this

Everything I said above here is true. The red and bold aspect is MY STORY.

There is nothing about "being the devil" or "talking as someone else" or anything of that nonesuch as Jesoul and nuclearboy said.  

At that time of my life; end of last year till some weeks ago, everything I posted as Dulcet was MY reality. Jesoul, when I was troubled I TRIED to talk to you (as Inesqor since that was who you knew and not Dulcet), but you ignored my message: my SMS, my calls, my request for an instant messenger conversation. When you replied, you simply asked me to mail you again. I needed to talk in real-time and not email so I gave up on that. I tried to talk to Viaro too, no responses (I just found out he was ill). I even called nuclearboy, no show. Eyzhvntsn knows I tried to call him cos I told her when I gave up. The only person I reached out to and replied me was Pastor AIO, he was really very helpful and I didnt even tell him until a couple of weeks ago that I am Dulcet. I think only Vescucci knew that I am D7, cos he is familiar with me on another network.

If you feel like having the unnecessary exercise, check out my Inesqor posts at that time. I either didnt make posts at all, or was just neutral. I was going to drop that Inesqor [/b]ID cos as far as I could see at the time, I needed a fresh slate. In retrospect I think I was concerned that my own soul enquiry may influence other people adversely, so I decided to just start afresh. Given the chance again, I would not even have bothered. I would have just gone ahead and made my posts amongst all the "Hey InesQor has backslidden" and all sorts of mumbo jumbo.

My journey is complete now, and I'm back to posting with my original handle. I believe I have more understanding now of my own Christian faith, Most of the things I posted as Dulcet stay in my purview, but even many more are refined with respect to Christianity and I believe they have brought me closer to God.

I personally don't care whether anyone is offended or not, honestly; although I apologize if it will make them feel better.

My own transformation in religious thoughts and posts from [b]mavenbox [/b]to [b]Inesqor [/b]to [b]dulcet7 [/b]and right back to [b]Inesqor now is as remarkable as the changes in my spiritual journey have been. I have nothing to hide, and I am not ashamed. If anything, my spiritual journey has only made me closer to God because I critically examined every thing that I would usually have taken for granted and now I know nothing can shake that. There is evidence for me beyond anything I see an atheist type on these boards.

Of course there is one last question. What if I never told? I am 100% certain that Vescucci and Pastor AIO would never have mentioned it. I really don't know what the big deal is. Oh, of course, I broke a forum rule. Yeah I know, and I'm guilty of that, and not for the first time. Not more guilty than those who insult others while posting. What else?

Arrivederci.

Nesqor . . . glad you explained, and my conclusion is you are one unique & complicated guy and go about your business in a unique and complicated way. I get your explanation, I still don't see the need to have posted as 'someone else' (okay not 'someone else' but you get my point). . . check my posts from when I started here in 07, so much of my views have changed or evolved, sometimes dramatically even - just like many of us around here. But alas, if you felt posting as a fresh ID and as a means of 'discovering yourself' without the 'baggage' from the former then it is certainly your way and I got no beef with that. And you know me, you're my friend so I gotta give it you like I see it, tough love baby

Beyond that, I'm quite suprised you said you tried to contact me to no avail . . . hmmm . . . are you sure it was me? (you recall I have seperate #'s that do seperate things right?) I have had a couple nlders ask to speak privately with me and I did so with urgency, how much more someone I consider a friend? I done told you before dude EMAIL ME! but you no gree' lol. It is the quickest and surest way to reach me. If I had known it was important don't you think I would've replied in earnest? or have you so little faith in me?

 Anyways sha, you've washed enough laundry today Nuclearboy will take you out for some drinks later (wait . . . abi you still no dey drink?)

@JeSoul:

I can go through some posts this year in which I complained that I tried to reach you via phone AND Sms to no avail (I have BOTH ur lines). My SMS "never gets delivered" and you dont pick up ur calls. As for "hurrying to respond", the evidence is in my final post on the Questions for Mods thread where I finally gave up. But I don't think checking any of that is necessary. It's all history. Thanks I appreciate.

InesQor:

@JeSoul:

I can go through some posts this year in which I complained that I tried to reach you via phone AND Sms to no avail (I have BOTH your lines). My SMS "never gets delivered" and you dont pick up your calls. As for "hurrying to respond", the evidence is in my final post on the Questions for Mods thread where I finally gave up. But I don't think checking any of that is necessary. It's all history. Thanks I appreciate.

Yeah now that you mention it you did say so on here . . . it just never clicked I guess, plus all this 'code, _subset talk' didn't help drive the point home. You're right about calls - 95% of the time I don't answer during the day cos I'm at work or practice or playing - which is why I always say email dude, email! then I schedule a time to give you a proper realtime holla. You'd be amazed at how quick I respond thru that compared to other methods of communication.

But I apologize I couldn't be there to help you in any way I could, which is why we never depend on human beings cos they will fail us. I trust you've been able to find your way just fine .

Aight, gats to be stepping. If the bank closes before I get there ehn Inesqor . . . na you . . . and if you shiver & sneeze within the next hour it was because I called your name 3 times. . .

@nuclearboy:

Egbon mi I apologize. I totally read you wrongly Somehow I missed your post and only saw Jesoul's own (maybe cos she quoted my text in a long block).
Please don't be mad at me. And yes, I mentioned it to Eyzhvntsn, maybe she forgot. God bless you sir.

@Jesoul:
Thanks a lot, too and I'm sorry I flared up. Yes I know we can't depend on human beings. But sometimes we just need one another to remind us where the breadcrumbs on that trail are. You recall Hansel and Gretel? Thank God for everything. Hope you met the bank open.