Entrance Into The Kingdom

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I appreciate and accept your earlier apology. : ) I am trying to flesh something out that is not typically discussed and am finding it a bit of a struggle to put the right words to it (see Calm's most recent response) just yet. I am hopeful others do not get lost in the "poor phrasing" at the expense of missing what may become in its own time the much bigger point. I'm also trying to approach the topic sensitively without drawing the ire of other posters (see your initial reaction). Your commentary, however, does strike very close to the heart of the matter. Regards to your comparison between this hypothetical dictator and the grandmother, could you speak more on what metric you are using to strike this contrast? Indeed and at least for one poster, it does sound like there is a behavioral metric for this life that can be used when speculating on the ultimate destination of others after this life. You'll notice earlier in the thread some including myself opined this is not our role nor are we capable of doing it anyway. From your example do you appear to feel differently?     

I think I am still not following you completely. Using your terminology I believe there definitely is a behavioral metric in determining our reward in the next life if any. I am not sure I followed what you are speaking about in speaking about our role. All I can know is that in my life when I have been behaving myself I find that I am much closer to God and feel the spirit much stronger. If I am happier here for following the Commandments why would I not be happier there?

[pogi]

On 5/26/2017 at 8:53 PM, Vanguard said:

That is very nicely said. : ) But how are we to know how much "light" another has been given? Isn't there any type of behavior or lack of behavior that would clue us in to another's light?

How much light a person receives is not as important as what they do with it - think of the parable of the talents.  It simply is not for us to judge if people are living up to the light they have been given.  Any judgment on our part would be superficial.  We are not able to assess a man's heart quite like God is able to - hence the command to not judge. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I appreciate and accept your earlier apology. : ) I am trying to flesh something out that is not typically discussed and am finding it a bit of a struggle to put the right words to it (see Calm's most recent response) just yet. I am hopeful others do not get lost in the "poor phrasing" at the expense of missing what may become in its own time the much bigger point. I'm also trying to approach the topic sensitively without drawing the ire of other posters (see your initial reaction). Your commentary, however, does strike very close to the heart of the matter. Regards to your comparison between this hypothetical dictator and the grandmother, could you speak more on what metric you are using to strike this contrast? Indeed and at least for one poster, it does sound like there is a behavioral metric for this life that can be used when speculating on the ultimate destination of others after this life. You'll notice earlier in the thread some including myself opined this is not our role nor are we capable of doing it anyway. From your example do you appear to feel differently?     

To back up a little having caught up better on the thread, and going back also to my grandma/dictator analogy- isn't it clear to you that the grandma deserves a better reward than the dictator?

That seems to me to be morally "properly basic" and undoubtable IF you believe that we DO get any rewards or "salvation" based on actions here, like "accepting Christ" or following the commandments at all.

Is not moral behavior morally praisworthy and bad moral behavior punishable?   I mean why do we have prisons?  Is it good to have felons running around committing the same crimes over and over again, and isn't the hero who prevents one praiseworthy?

I mean if you want to really get into it, I suppose the question is why have morality at all, and my naturalistic answer to that would be that morality has survival value.  Living in a criminal society where you are accosted on every street corner does not make life pleasant- in fact it shortens it, fewer people reproduce, fewer people survive and life is miserable.

I suppose THAT is what it boils down to.  That is a "behavioral metric" for morally praiseworthy and morally bankrupt behavior if I ever saw one.

To me in seems prima facie obvious- unless you are questioning that itself, which is certainly a valid point I suppose- that perhaps our morality is upside down?

Is that what you are getting to?

Incidentally I notice that this thread is exactly like the one you started 4 years ago which Calm referenced, so obviously you did not get the answer you were looking for- I hope you can get it now!

Let's keep plugging til you get it!

Edited May 28, 2017 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

On 5/26/2017 at 7:51 PM, Vanguard said:

1. Could you elaborate more on what you mean by needing to obey "the same laws and ordinances as God himself"? Are you suggesting this is possible in this life and that if it were not accomplished the individual would therefore lose the highest reward?

Yes and no.
Of course we cannot become exactly like God in this life.  He has eternities of experience beyond us.
But we are all on the path.  And the first goal we are aiming for as in your OP is the fulness of Celestial glory.  And that requires obedience to a fulness of Celestial laws.

• D&C 88:22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.
  23 And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.
  24 And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.
  25 And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law—
  26 Wherefore, it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it.

To gain entrance into the Celestial Kingdom requires obeying the law required for entrance.  To obtain a fulness of Celestial glory requires obeying the full Celestial law.
To be as God is to obey the laws that God himself obeys (as Christ demonstrated).
D&C 131 tells us that all blessings are contingent on obedience to their specific laws.

 

Quote

2. At great risk of sounding facetious, how is being baptized a requirement when we know there are so many who have not been? Won't everyone be baptized at some point? And if everyone eventually is, doesn't the idea of it being a "requirement" lose meaning? And wouldn't this be true of the other ordinances also? - These questions strike very close to the exchange I would like to pursue.

According to prophecies of the Millennial reign all will have the opportunity to accept baptism.
Baptism is the signifying ordinance of our acceptance of Christ's sacrifice and to follow him.  That is why it is a requirement.
Even Christ said that baptism was "to fulfill all righteousness" and necessary to salvation (Mark 16).  Sounds like a requirement to me.

[Vanguard]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes and no.
Of course we cannot become exactly like God in this life.  He has eternities of experience beyond us.
But we are all on the path.  And the first goal we are aiming for as in your OP is the fulness of Celestial glory.  And that requires obedience to a fulness of Celestial laws.

• D&C 88:22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.
  23 And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.
  24 And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.
  25 And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law—
  26 Wherefore, it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it.

To gain entrance into the Celestial Kingdom requires obeying the law required for entrance.  To obtain a fulness of Celestial glory requires obeying the full Celestial law.
To be as God is to obey the laws that God himself obeys (as Christ demonstrated).
D&C 131 tells us that all blessings are contingent on obedience to their specific laws.

 

According to prophecies of the Millennial reign all will have the opportunity to accept baptism.
Baptism is the signifying ordinance of our acceptance of Christ's sacrifice and to follow him.  That is why it is a requirement.
Even Christ said that baptism was "to fulfill all righteousness" and necessary to salvation (Mark 16).  Sounds like a requirement to me.

Indeed, at some point we will abide whatever kingdom's law - I don't believe there is any dispute there. The scriptures you cited do not, however, address the issue. Whether we abide the celestial law or otherwise comes as a result of having done something else before that. It is obvious none of us live this celestial standard in this mortality. And so, again, what is expected of us in this mortality? What is that one variable that will determine the outcome? Of course there are myriad relative formalities (i.e., baptism, the endowment, sealing, the priesthood, etc) but these in and of themselves do not assure any reward. It's like saying in order to open a checking account one must show evidence of managing your finances wisely enough and having money in the bank. It's true you won't be able to withdraw the money without the open account though it becomes irrelevant if there is no money to withdraw. The account is open but inoperable.

The one variable that determines an individual's eternal reward is how well and how often s/he stretched toward his capacity during this mortality and nothing more. That is the gauge. By making the issue about individual capacity we are blocked rom making any judgement regards to any other individual as we cannot ultimately know another's heart. Ergo,there is simply no way to know his/her reward. Yes, we are heartened when another baptizes, goes through the temple, or otherwise though this is not the litmus. Focusing on these behaviors side tracks us from the real question. We can have all of these requirements done but if there is "no money in the account" it's null and void.

Regards to the baptismal requirement, again, if all receive the baptism then it seems odd to call it a requirement. I noticed you used the word "accept" when speaking of it. If the individual does not "accept" the baptism (despite the fact that he will be baptized) I suspect it would be because it would not make the difference anyway and the individual realizes this and so too does the Lord. But to say, "Ha! He didn't accept baptism so he can't get in", is an odd way to phrase it. The fact is that this individual did not live the life needed in this mortality for whatever glory awaits him. At that point, the ordinances become irrelevant. The flip side of the same coin is when a member proudly - and with genuine intention - states "All of my children have temple recommends" or "My husband died an active and endowed member of the church". Therefore, what? It seems like the "behavior-tail is wagging the dog" so to speak.

[Vanguard]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

To back up a little having caught up better on the thread, and going back also to my grandma/dictator analogy- isn't it clear to you that the grandma deserves a better reward than the dictator?

That seems to me to be morally "properly basic" and undoubtable IF you believe that we DO get any rewards or "salvation" based on actions here, like "accepting Christ" or following the commandments at all.

Is not moral behavior morally praisworthy and bad moral behavior punishable?   I mean why do we have prisons?  Is it good to have felons running around committing the same crimes over and over again, and isn't the hero who prevents one praiseworthy?

I mean if you want to really get into it, I suppose the question is why have morality at all, and my naturalistic answer to that would be that morality has survival value.  Living in a criminal society where you are accosted on every street corner does not make life pleasant- in fact it shortens it, fewer people reproduce, fewer people survive and life is miserable.

I suppose THAT is what it boils down to.  That is a "behavioral metric" for morally praiseworthy and morally bankrupt behavior if I ever saw one.

To me in seems prima facie obvious- unless you are questioning that itself, which is certainly a valid point I suppose- that perhaps our morality is upside down?

Is that what you are getting to?

Incidentally I notice that this thread is exactly like the one you started 4 years ago which Calm referenced, so obviously you did not get the answer you were looking for- I hope you can get it now!

Let's keep plugging til you get it!

I agree we do progress when we exercise our moral muscle. The problem with your analogy presumes the grandmother's & dictator's capacity to understand and act upon a "higher morality" to be the same. We make these distinctions all of the time. As an example, we hold a prophet to a much higher standard than we would someone who had never been introduced to the finest principles of Christianity, correct? When the prophet behaves in a moral way we applaud this but should said individual do the same thing we would celebrate it even more. Why is that? We should always support moral behavior though the consequences for not exercising moral behavior vary from individual to individual. For every individual in this life there is also an individual capacity to behave morally or not. No two capacities are alike.

We can both agree everyone will experience censure for not behaving in the ideal way our Father-in-Heaven expects us to. Conversely, everyone will experience praise for behaving in a way that approximates the ideal. Where we seem to depart is in assuming the same behavior (good or bad) consigns us to the same fate regardless of who we are. Yes, there is a metric for each one of us though it is entirely unknown what that is from one man to the next. And that applies equally for brutal dictators as it does for  kindly grandmothers... ; ) 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

We can both agree everyone will experience censure for not behaving in the ideal way our Father-in-Heaven expects us to. Conversely, everyone will experience praise for behaving in a way that approximates the ideal. Where we seem to depart is in assuming the same behavior (good or bad) consigns us to the same fate regardless of who we are. Yes, there is a metric for each one of us though it is entirely unknown what that is from one man to the next. And that applies equally for brutal dictators as it does for  kindly grandmothers... ; ) 

You are not understanding that I do not believe there IS an "objective metric" which dictates that "the same behavior (good or bad) consigns us to the same fate regardless of who we are."

I never said that.  That is totally unknowable, but possibly is the case.  Anything is possible.

What I actually SAID was this:

Quote

That seems to me to be morally "properly basic" and undoubtable IF you believe that we DO get any rewards or "salvation" based on actions here, like "accepting Christ" or following the commandments at all.

All we have here are beliefs which lead us to live a certain way.  There is nothing objective "out there" independent of human beliefs that we can know about.  Period.

Quote

 

" To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

What I also said was that there are behaviors which clearly promote human survival and others which do not- running down the street randomly shooting people does not lead to human survival.

I am not even saying at this point that human survival is "good".   Indeed there are people in our culture who think that the planet would be better off without humanity https://realtruth.org/articles/100510-003-weather.html

Yet it seems almost a tautology that killing random people is not good for human survival.  That is straight logic which is internally consistent and has nothing to do with your beliefs. 

What "fate" if there is such a thing, we will receive or not receive is totally unknowable, yet we live our lives in many cases, POSTULATING that we know that.

That is called "faith".   One cannot know that certain behaviors will get one into Harvard, yet many have faith that they will.  No one can know for certain that even GOING to Harvard will turn out to make our lives better.   Yet we conclude that "on faith" that those behaviors are "better" than others.  "It is better to study hard than to get drunk every night in college and that will give you a better life" may not prove true.  Perhaps the stress will cause one to commit suicide while drinking will give one enough time to seek therapy, etc.

But that is the way faith works.

So no, I do not for one minute think I know that certain behaviors will get me into the objectively real Mormon conception of the "Celestial Kingdom"

But I have faith and hope that there is something better in life and that being a good boy is better than being a bad boy.

I have made a compact with myself that I will pursue the course I am pursuing because it makes me feel good to do so.  So that is Alma 32- the behavior is sweet to me.

Moroni 10:4-5, Alma 32, Section 92, 1 James 1-5 and all the other scriptures which tell us how to find "truth" whatever that is supposed to be do not speak of "an 'objective metric' which dictates that "the same behavior (good or bad) consigns us to the same fate regardless of who we are."

Yes that sort of language does appear in section 76, but that is part of what is accepted on faith- not how we confirm correct belief.

In other words Alma Moroni et al are about the epistemology of the gospel- how we know it is true, while section 76 is about the metaphysics of the gospel.

Never confuse WHAT we know (or pretend to know) with HOW we know it.

Edited May 29, 2017 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

On 5/26/2017 at 1:17 PM, Vanguard said:

Greetings, all. I OP’d on a Christian apologetics site several years ago regards to what other Christians believed should be the ultimate determinant that would grant someone the fullness of our God’s glory (however they imagine that to be) in the next life. I was rereading some of my older posts recently and decided I’d like to broach the topic again for this site. As an active Mormon myself I know the LDS community has it’s own beliefs as to the steps that are necessary.

Questions:

1. How would you explain to another what the most important consideration is for "gaining entrance”?

2. Is there more than one consideration?

3. And if so, are you able to prioritize them?

I have many of my own ideas - some of which are a bit unorthodox - that I will also share provided the thread gets any legs...  

I think the principles taught in Matthew 19:16-22 answer this question. Of course the Lord beholds and loves us individually, so what translates into "sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor" may differ for each individual, but the Lord will tell us how to gain treasure in heaven, after we have received Him by covenant. This includes  the same general principle as receiving grace after all we can do, but recognizing the more personal/customized levels in which this principle operates.

[filovirus]

Love God. If He asks us to do something and we know we should, then we do it. (Commandments, ordinances, covenants, etc). For those who aren't mormon, living to what light they have recieved.

Love everyone else. This means no judging. Why would we need to know where another is on their eternal progression? Do good.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, filovirus said:

Love everyone else. This means no judging.

No, it doesn't.  Christ judges all of us and loves us all.  Love and judging are two separate issues.

[Maidservant]

On 5/26/2017 at 6:51 PM, Vanguard said:

Won't everyone be baptized at some point? And if everyone eventually is, doesn't the idea of it being a "requirement" lose meaning?

Since this is the case, perhaps instead of looking at it as if it has 'lost meaning', perhaps look and ask even deeper about what it does mean.  Both of what 'baptism' really means; as well as what it means that everyone has one (available) eventually anyway.

[Maidservant]

I do not think (in my current understanding) that "entrance into the kingdom" is the best way to understand our project here on earth.  And I do not think we are here to be good, per se.  I think it's likely we were unutterably good before we came here.

So why would we leave the great gig we had before to come to this place?

In my understanding, we came to obtain knowledge and priesthood.  Which usually means jumping in the deep end of darkness and destruction and of royally screwing up.

Eternal life is to KNOW GOD.

The kind of life that can be described by the device "glory of the sun, or celestial" is emerged into by OVERCOMING (as D & C 76 teaches).

Alma in the Book of Mormon also has an interesting discussion where he says that we cannot receive what we did not have before.  That is, the idea of "reward and punishment" falls far short of describing the destiny and potential that we have in store.  Alma speaks of restoration, which to me means that we will have what we have already made--in us.

The streets could be paved with gold; but you still have to live with yourself whether that is in the humblest abode on the humblest planet or the most spectacular city of an eternal Zion.  Either you will want the rocks to fall on you--or you won't.

The parable of the virgins shows this too.  Even our Heavenly Father cannot hand over a result that we ourselves have not 'paid for', or created (as in the light in the lamps, by paying for the oil).

(We require the grace and atonement of Christ in order to be able to manage the day-in-and-day out journey.)

[Pete Ahlstrom]

I think we came here to see what it's like to live without parental guidance. So this notion of a God directing us is entirely beside the point.

[filovirus]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it doesn't.  Christ judges all of us and loves us all.  Love and judging are two separate issues.

Sorry, I was brief in my post for time constraints. I should have said, no judging others on their commitment to Christ, unless specifically called as a "Judge in Israel". That perfect Mormon may not be so perfect in the eyes of the Lord. And that alcoholic may be trying desperately to change his lifestyle and have a good relationship with God. Who are we to judge the final destination of others souls. Christ can judge that, but we should not.

[probablyHagoth7]

3 hours ago, filovirus said:

Sorry, I was brief in my post for time constraints. I should have said, no judging others on their commitment to Christ, unless specifically called as a "Judge in Israel". That perfect Mormon may not be so perfect in the eyes of the Lord. And that alcoholic may be trying desperately to change his lifestyle and have a good relationship with God. Who are we to judge the final destination of others souls. Christ can judge that, but we should not.

When people say "judge", they often mean condemnation. (Almost everyone understands that we need to make judgment calls of some kind.)

Which is part of the flavor I gathered from your earlier post (and pogi's), and this one too, to be what we ought to avoid.

Or does that skew your intended meaning?

Edited May 30, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

11 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think we came here to see what it's like to live without parental guidance. So this notion of a God directing us is entirely beside the point.

As in, "I teach them good principles, and let them govern themselves"?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

30 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

As in, "I teach them good principles, and let them govern themselves"?

We learn from each other and our real parents. The child is then allowed to be an adult without a parent organization hovering.

[aprorianalysis]

same fate regardless of who we are. Yes, there is a metric for each one of us though it is entirely unknown what that is from one man to the next. And that applies equally for brutal dictators as it does for  kindly grandmothers."

 

Now a second blogger is quoted as saying "But I have faith and hope that there is something better in life and that being a good boy is better than being a bad boy.

I have made a compact with myself that I will pursue the course I am pursuing because it makes me feel good to do so.  So that is Alma 32- the behavior is sweet to me.

Moroni 10:4-5, Alma 32, Section 92, 1 James 1-5 and all the other scriptures which tell us how to find "truth" whatever that is supposed to be do not speak of "an 'objective metric' which dictates that "the same behavior (good or bad) consigns us to the same fate regardless of who we are."

Yes that sort of language does appear in section 76, but that is part of what is accepted on faith- not how we confirm correct belief.

In other words Alma Moroni et al are about the epistemology of the gospel- how we know it is true, while section 76 is about the metaphysics of the gospel.

Never confuse WHAT we know (or pretend to know) with HOW we know it. "

 

Now my comments, are the first blogger seems to point to the fact that logical proof is not needed.  The second blogger seems to point to morals of knowing something without thinking about and desiring to know are different from knowing and knowing why you know something?

Both is interesting. If we are a part of antecedent  causation. In other words is GOD exclusively is our origin what would  be direct and innate connection with truth.  However being a moral is subject to free will so logically speaking my abilities to understand  issues such as , fact and fiction, light and darkness and morals and morays is based on my cultivation of the truths and lights of my experiences. I some what concur with the second blogger.   As a studier of cosmic harmony in the universe, my guess, or my opinion of such vast universe that as it appears is a system of things, or a whole, is made up of many inherent mechanisms but the divine spirit is the cog that sets things into motion.  It also appears that his mindal influence of love and mercy rules over the vast enterprise of spirit beings from high to low, but by some sort of duty, worship and insight that is a high degree seemingly  cause like that it seems mechanized yet it is not self regulating is it .  to believe  many men's materialistic tendencies might be added to this concept in the mind and our rationalization scheme or one's abilities to divide the one god into many gods seems reduced to irrational absurdum the two unequal qualities that the say god is not one.  So if by heavens mandate one must choose, then it understandable that the natural man is an enemy to god.

Granted mans child like innate ability to see what true or genuine religionist can profit by  experience the inner life with God is product of a life of harmony and a mind that can think clearly and logically.

These comments to which any personality that read them my question my interesting but hopefully logical statement above possible I have many flaws and errors in speaking and arranging to sentences structure that is illogical, hopefully I can do better as time goes forth, thanks for thus opportunity to present my views and discussion here at this blog site.  Thank you administrators too..

[mfbukowski]

On 5/26/2017 at 6:51 PM, Vanguard said:

2. At great risk of sounding facetious, how is being baptized a requirement when we know there are so many who have not been? Won't everyone be baptized at some point? And if everyone eventually is, doesn't the idea of it being a "requirement" lose meaning? And wouldn't this be true of the other ordinances also? - These questions strike very close to the exchange I would like to pursue.

As perhaps has been mentioned the importance is not the fact that we will all be the same in having been baptized as some kind of meaningless ceremony or as part of a natural cycle but that we all will have made a voluntary covenant to follow God's path.

Your point would be a good one if being baptized was like being born- something that happens to all living and not part of a freely- chosen decision on each person's part.

THAT is the difference.

And of course each ordinance brings a different covenant or set of more specific covenants, and so THAT is the difference

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, aprorianalysis said:

same fate regardless of who we are. Yes, there is a metric for each one of us though it is entirely unknown what that is from one man to the next. And that applies equally for brutal dictators as it does for  kindly grandmothers."

 

Now a second blogger is quoted as saying "But I have faith and hope that there is something better in life and that being a good boy is better than being a bad boy.

I have made a compact with myself that I will pursue the course I am pursuing because it makes me feel good to do so.  So that is Alma 32- the behavior is sweet to me.

Moroni 10:4-5, Alma 32, Section 92, 1 James 1-5 and all the other scriptures which tell us how to find "truth" whatever that is supposed to be do not speak of "an 'objective metric' which dictates that "the same behavior (good or bad) consigns us to the same fate regardless of who we are."

Yes that sort of language does appear in section 76, but that is part of what is accepted on faith- not how we confirm correct belief.

In other words Alma Moroni et al are about the epistemology of the gospel- how we know it is true, while section 76 is about the metaphysics of the gospel.

Never confuse WHAT we know (or pretend to know) with HOW we know it. "

 

Now my comments, are the first blogger seems to point to the fact that logical proof is not needed.  The second blogger seems to point to morals of knowing something without thinking about and desiring to know are different from knowing and knowing why you know something?

Both is interesting. If we are a part of antecedent  causation. In other words is GOD exclusively is our origin what would  be direct and innate connection with truth.  However being a moral is subject to free will so logically speaking my abilities to understand  issues such as , fact and fiction, light and darkness and morals and morays is based on my cultivation of the truths and lights of my experiences. I some what concur with the second blogger.   As a studier of cosmic harmony in the universe, my guess, or my opinion of such vast universe that as it appears is a system of things, or a whole, is made up of many inherent mechanisms but the divine spirit is the cog that sets things into motion.  It also appears that his mindal influence of love and mercy rules over the vast enterprise of spirit beings from high to low, but by some sort of duty, worship and insight that is a high degree seemingly  cause like that it seems mechanized yet it is not self regulating is it .  to believe  many men's materialistic tendencies might be added to this concept in the mind and our rationalization scheme or one's abilities to divide the one god into many gods seems reduced to irrational absurdum the two unequal qualities that the say god is not one.  So if by heavens mandate one must choose, then it understandable that the natural man is an enemy to god.

Granted mans child like innate ability to see what true or genuine religionist can profit by  experience the inner life with God is product of a life of harmony and a mind that can think clearly and logically.

These comments to which any personality that read them my question my interesting but hopefully logical statement above possible I have many flaws and errors in speaking and arranging to sentences structure that is illogical, hopefully I can do better as time goes forth, thanks for thus opportunity to present my views and discussion here at this blog site.  Thank you administrators too..

I suggest you learn to use the quote system

Instead of saying "first blogger" and "second blogger" you can simply quote them by hitting the button down below the post, and then respond directly to the person

That way the person will also be notified that they have received a response and be more likely to respond to you

Try it now but do not send the reply.  You will see my words quoted, then you can write below my words to respond directly to me.

To make sure you do not send your experiment, refresh the page, before sending it, and all you have written will disappear

[Calm]

"That way the person will also be notified that they have received a response and be more likely to respond to you"

Only if they ask for this in their options or follow or something.  Not sure how it's done as I don't do it.  I trust the new post function to keep track of what I have and haven't read in a thread, most of the time it works.  Sometimes it skips and I don't catch it till much later.

[T-Shirt]

There could be many things to consider, but, ultimately, it boils down to two things, in no particular order:

Covenant

Charity

[probablyHagoth7]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

"That way the person will also be notified that they have received a response and be more likely to respond to you"

Only if they ask for this in their options or follow or something.  Not sure how it's done...

Profile / Account Settings / Other Settings / Notification Settings

For my needs, the only option I needed to select was :"A notification when new content is posted."

Edited May 30, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

12 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

There could be many things to consider, but, ultimately, it boils down to two things, in no particular order:

Covenant

Charity

If required to choose, for you, which of those two would be of greater import?

Edited May 30, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[T-Shirt]

14 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

If required to choose, for you, which of those two would be of greater import?

Charity.  That is the end goal.  To love as God loves, to be as God is.  Covenants are the tools that teach us how to do it and bind us to God.  Both are necessary, but charity is the goal.  Covenants are the vehicle and charity is the destination.  You need both.

Edited May 30, 2017 by T-Shirt