Character - Integrity - Truth

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

None of the titled items can exist within the structure of Denial.

The current political climate and the absolute corruptions we see well mark the corruption of spirit of those who sought power over us.

Can anyone name 1 elected Federal Official in compliance with the 10th Amendment? I can't. When the level of corruption reaches 100% there is no chance of fixing it when those who are the corrupted are the only ones who can.

HQ was not intended to be a forum soley for political discussions. So, let us return focus to the point - spirit and the corruptions that will turn people away from the possibility of passing judgement.

Over the years, we've seen a variety of non ascendant behaviors roll thru here and those who have been around a while have become adept at spotting them.

Of late, Mssr. Obama has provided the vehicle for showing some of the worst aspects of non ascendancy and, when combined with denial, a 100 percent certainty that those who indulge those behaviors will not pass. I am the guardian on the bridge and only the worthy will pass.

I AM HE WHICH SEARCHETH THE REINS AND HEARTS AND I WILL GIVE UNTO EVERY ONE OF YOU ACCORDING TO YOUR WORKS

There are those who go to church and have missed the point of it. They think they're buying insurance for the afterlife. There is no such thing.

Parasites who take with both hands putting nothing back missed the point.

Those who adopt the wait and see approach promising themselves they'll change 'if' they see a reason why they should - missed the point.

After doing the radio show for two years, Rob and I discussed whether or not we should continue. With both agreed we'd addressed all of the issues we should and were we to continue, it would just degenerate into bitching and moaning about political corruption. We didn't want to go there.

There are people who see others getting away with evil doing and ask themselves why they shouldn't indulge as well. Such is the allure of evil. Yet, in truth, no one gets away with anything and there are no secrets.

Now you come to the moment of understanding of why there are two judgements and two ascensions.

The first to be taken at the first judgement will be the incarnated angels and the Midwayers who have passed judgement. Rate this as a status thing.

The first to die will be the 10,000 who made the devil's deal with Satan. These go directly to the lake of fire.

The left behinds then begin a journey on a hard and fearful road.
These are the ones who won't change until they've hit bottom and are staring into the abyss.

At various points during the seven years of tribulation, there will be a winnowing process where those who are beyond hope are removed. These will be delivered to the lake of fire.

Those who take the mark of the beast - lake of fire.

This process is performed several times keeping a balance between good and evil and not permitting evil to run away with things.

Fortunately, good and evil have one thing in common. They both come in degrees.

In the Revelation Code, there are three levels of being 'dead'.

No one on this planet is deemed alive until they pass judgement and are accepted by a Son.

Next, there is the first death - the death of the body. This is deemed an irrelevancy to everyone except the person wearing the skin. The Soul continues.

Last, there is the death of the soul - the second death. These are delivered to the lake of fire where they have two choices. Repent or go into the lake and face soul death.

Every step of the way, freewill is the arbiter of things.

REV 1 7 BEHOLD HE COMETH WITH CLOUDS AND EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM AND THEY ALSO WHICH PIERCED HIM AND ALL KINDREDS OF THE EARTH SHALL WAIL BECAUSE OF HIM EVEN SO AMEN

This listing provides the reasons why ALL KINDREDS OF THE EARTH SHALL WAIL BECAUSE OF HIM.

Even the good of heart will be concerned.

There was a verse that relates to Thor's Gate.

DAN 6 17 AND A STONE WAS BROUGHT AND LAID UPON THE MOUTH OF THE DEN AND THE KING SEALED IT WITH HIS OWN SIGNET AND WITH THE SIGNET OF HIS LORDS THAT THE PURPOSE MIGHT NOT BE CHANGED CONCERNING DANIEL

What lives in a den? A lion. The stated purpose for sealing a written document (Isaiah) was to render the words hidden. So also it was with this gate. I put my seal upon the gate.
Who are my lords? Father and Immanuel. This verse infers something I've known for a while. It will take the three of us to activate Angel's Keep and there are three seals upon the door.

While many believe that Father is an aloof and distant thing, the moment should well illustrate that He is very hands on.

[Mortal]

Why are Satan's 10,000 servants incapable of redemption?

"REV 1 7 BEHOLD HE COMETH WITH CLOUDS AND EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM AND THEY ALSO WHICH PIERCED HIM AND ALL KINDREDS OF THE EARTH SHALL WAIL BECAUSE OF HIM EVEN SO AMEN "

Is this a reference to the coming of the Son, telling us he will come from the skies and at that point we will know he truly is the Son, despite all the Antichrist(s) that preceded him?

Additionally, how does this not contradict him walking in the flesh with us now? Has he not awaken yet? When he does awaken, will he suddenly discover latent powers he has, and be able to "come from the sky" to appear to us all?

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

Why are Satan's 10,000 servants incapable of redemption?

Sell your soul and you abbrogate your 'right' to stand judgement. You've given your freewill to another. Now, at the Lake of Fire, they have two options, repent (with a true and sincere heart) or to go into the lake and they can stay there for as along as they wish.


"REV 1 7 BEHOLD HE COMETH WITH CLOUDS AND EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM AND THEY ALSO WHICH PIERCED HIM AND ALL KINDREDS OF THE EARTH SHALL WAIL BECAUSE OF HIM EVEN SO AMEN "

Is this a reference to the coming of the Son, telling us he will come from the skies and at that point we will know he truly is the Son, despite all the Antichrist(s) that preceded him?

This is the common Christian 'assumption' and it is dead wrong.
This tracks to the 4th Alpha and Omega (Christians see only three even though the versing clearly shows four) - the planetary prince.

REV 1 8 I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA THE BEGINNING AND THE ENDING SAITH THE LORD WHICH IS AND WHICH WAS AND WHICH IS TO COME THE ALMIGHTY

REV 1 11 SAYING I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA THE FIRST AND THE LAST AND WHAT THOU SEEST WRITE IN A BOOK AND SEND IT UNTO THE SEVEN CHURCHES WHICH ARE IN ASIA UNTO EPHESUS AND UNTO SMYRNA AND UNTO PERGAMOS AND UNTO THYATIRA AND UNTO SARDIS AND UNTO PHILADELPHIA AND UNTO LAODICEA

REV 21 6 AND HE SAID UNTO ME IT IS DONE I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA THE BEGINNING AND THE END I WILL GIVE UNTO HIM THAT IS ATHIRST OF THE FOUNTAIN OF THE WATER OF LIFE FREELY

REV 22 13 I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA THE BEGINNING AND THE END THE FIRST AND THE LAST


It also cross links into the first seal and the physical description of the mortal son of man. Then from there, into all of the duties of the planetary prince.

Furthermore, the 4th Alpha and Omega is also identified as the God of the Earth. Again, Christian's through some very lame interpretation assume that this is Satan. Further they fail to identify that Satan and the Devil are two totally different people.

The decryption sequence that shows otherwise is:

Alpha and Omega First and Last > Churches > Candlesticks = God of the Earth. The code says some very nice things about this individual. Further, the words Jesus Christ appear in the first and last lines of Revelation. The alpha and omega of the work. View this as His Imprimatur. Finally, The term 'god of the earth' appears in the Bible only twice. Once in Genesis and once in Revelation. The alpha and omega of the entire Bible.

The poor interepretation centers on this verse

REV 12 9 AND THE GREAT DRAGON WAS CAST OUT THAT OLD SERPENT CALLED THE DEVIL AND SATAN WHICH DECEIVETH THE WHOLE WORLD HE WAS CAST OUT INTO THE EARTH AND HIS ANGELS WERE CAST OUT WITH HIM

Then the add this verse

JOH 12 31 NOW IS THE JUDGMENT OF THIS WORLD NOW SHALL THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD BE CAST DOWN (OUT)

They cross connect and make three assumpions. The devil is Satan and Satan is the Planetary Prince. They ignore other facts.

a. Jesus himself was 'cast down'
b. The angels of the seven churchs are mortal and thus 'cast down'.
c. Immanuel (the word) is on the planet as a mortal (and the word was made flesh and walked amongst us) and was also 'cast down'.

The code shows that the Devil is the Most High Ancient of Days (Samael) who is a usuper after the Son's Kingdom. Satan is an irritant and the Planetary Prince is a good guy in high service.


Additionally, how does this not contradict him walking in the flesh with us now?

Again, the assumption or interpretation supposes that the Son is the ONLY person here who is of celestial origin who is walking around in skin. Immanuel and the Seven Churches are also so identified. The issue of mortality becomes obvious when one notes that the Prince and 3 of the Advens are murdered. This applies only 'if' mortal.

Has he not awaken yet? When he does awaken, will he suddenly discover latent powers he has, and be able to "come from the sky" to appear to us all?

The Son does not make his appearance until the fifth seal. A lot happens before this. Beyond this, I wouldn't presume to speak for him.

Backtracking to the subject of angel's wearing skin. The Midwayers are listed as the 12 tribes of Israel. A cross confirmation appears in the Gospel of John.

JOH 1 13 WHICH WERE BORN NOT OF BLOOD NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN BUT OF GOD

The 144,000 comprising the tribes of Israel are all angels wearing flesh. These pass judgment.

What is the Capitol of Israel? Jerusalem. In this era its called New Jerusalem - aka Angel's Keep.

The code also states that they will be the Son's Praetorian Guard.
Read into this that few angels can be trusted. The Midwayers were born of the Earth and have never lived under Samael's tyranny.

Also, your best post on these forums in a while. The political arguments we engage are often very pointless.

Exemplars of evil are never pointless and it provides clear examples of what one shouldn't do. Note, in the 10 commandments the preponderance of THOU SHALT NOT's versus
Thou Shalt's.

Also, most Christians are agreed that we are in the End Times. They come to this conclusion based upon a number of prophesies spread out over the course of the Bible. They aren't wrong.

The circumstances of the moment, and its corruptions, speak to the genesis of what follows. The now and later are inextricably linked. This is the nature of linear time. A to B to C and so on.

It is also of interest that these prophesies are laid out by event.
No calendar is superimposed on them. So when A happens then B happens then C happens, you know you're in the slot and can anticipate D and E etc.

Christianity is founded upon a faulty premise. That The Son should be worshipped. Yet, Jesus never asked for worship. He directed honor and respect to the Father. He did ask for our service and defined a Church as a place where people gather in his name for the purpose of doing good works for their fellows.

It is the practice of Christians that all interpretations 'must' conform to those that came before. This like a stack of pennies.
If one skews slightly to the left, then the next skewing leans the stack more to the left, then the next and the next until eventually, the stack collapses.

Also, because of the erroneous first interpretation, the temples of worship demand faith and have ignored completely that Father's servants are ALWAYS sent with proofs.

Regardless of all these errors, the first person teachings of Jesus did survive through time and the message was simple - do good - be good.

It's not rocket science.

[joefarar]

There's a real simple way to look at this:

The very instant you betray your integrity, people will know how and why you got to where you did, and they will never forget it. You can try to hide the truth, but not forever (look at the history of Earth for God's sake). You can compromise yourself, even lie to yourself, thinking, maybe your actions are justified, but the simple truth is: ignorance of whether or not your actions may result in a potential good or evil when you do not have all the facts is not an excuse for indulging in potentially poor behavior or future-offered aggrandizements. Someone for instance can say, "I'll explain to you why what you do is right later, we'll talk later, but trust us." Is that an excuse to be a "yes man?" Full-disclosure, honesty, forthrightness, is important before you take any action, the truth ought stand on its own.

Some of the greatest philosophers of our age noticed one thing: birds of the same feather tend to flock together. The instant you associate yourself with those of bad character, you yourself have become no better than those who brought you into the fold. And such people who would give into the indulgence of self, will no doubt, probably hurt you later just as you may have hurt others to get to where you are (or the people you hurt will find you too). I, personally, do not want to live in a world where I have to compromise my ethics to enjoy life, enjoying life should be a given and we ought to help each other enjoy it "together." If I compromise my values, then what was all this for? Most of what I learned here on Earth has been but a waste.

I have been bribed many times in my life. When someone tries to bribe me, it tells me a lot about the character of the person who bribed me (and boy, some can make a compelling argument; rarely can they show the "goods though," more talk than walk usually). I won't lie, it's fun to indulge or fantasize about what you're offered, but regardless, you cannot put conditions on love or truth; you cannot negotiate with evil, you do that, you give them free license to do it again and again and again. You either do the right thing or you don't, over-analyzing a situation or trying to justify it serves little good. The person who tries to bribe, tries to control you and tries to put power over you. If you give in, you have become more like a slave than a cooperative partner. It is said, "the best slaves are the ones that think they are free." When you let someone have power over you like that, rather than working in cooperative unison without expectation, when you work for what you know is right in your heart, then you are doing the right thing.

But of course, you don't have to be overly critical either. When it's payday where I work, I expect a paycheck. It's not wrong to take a reward if it is offered either, as long as your heart is in the right place. You can relax after a hard day's work, pat yourself on the back too; nothing wrong with that. =)

As a sidenote: there may be times where you may decide to associate with those of poor character to achieve a righteous objective (again, look at Earth's history). It's not always the people involved that makes the objective good or bad, it is the intended result of the objective that counts more than anything else (and you don't have to lie to people about how you feel in performing the objective either). Just make sure you take "yourself" out of the equation. It isn't about you or what you're offered for completing an objective - you just work to do the right thing.

But all of this talk should not be discouraging: That is not to say you should completely abandon trust or lose faith in people either. Some people in this world are worth trusting and you'll know them when you meet them. Sometimes the love you feel from another is a good indicator of whether you can trust them or not, and love isn't exactly "a rational thing." Personally, when I cannot discern whether the choice I make is potentially good or bad and I do not know who to seek for guidance, if I have to make a difficult decision, I try to ask God for guidance. And I have enough faith in my own personal relationship with God to "trust" Father's leading. I don't let him babysit me in all my decisions (part of my job is to grow up), but, there are times I do ask for reasonable help in order to make the right decisions (it doesn't hurt to ask for help when you need it). There might be times where you have to put your faith in God's leading above all else, even when you do not have all the answers (and he may not always answer you either, for reasons you may not know). I think, based on your own moment of growth, you'll have faith in knowing it is Father who communes with you and no one else and you'll know he is worth trusting; sometimes what you "feel" can also work with your own logical discernment - I think this is true with God.

You tend to be known by the company you keep, so keep good company I say. God's the best company I got for truth if I need it and in a world where very few people can be trusted, it's nice to know I can trust him. Easy as cake and cake is delicious.

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating.

Once, in a court action my attorney said to the court.

I've known this man for 15 years and I've never heard an untruth pass his lips.

I later commented to him that I was glad he noticed.

We teach by example. Tooting our own horn establishes nothing. We are defined by what we DO

[joefarar]

Dec 11, 2008 18:01:17 GMT -5 Caligastia Lanonandek said:

I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating.

Once, in a court action my attorney said to the court.

I've known this man for 15 years and I've never heard an untruth pass his lips.

I later commented to him that I was glad he noticed.

We teach by example. Tooting our own horn establishes nothing. We are defined by what we DO

Lawyer jokes are coming to mind... =)

I agree with Bob, your actions speak louder than your words. In layman's terms, "Put up or shutup."

There's another element to all of this, and that's tolerance. We all make decisions based on our experience. Some people are a little ahead of others too. To our brothers and sisters who err in judgment, we should not cast stones at them in hatred. 2 wrongs do not make a right, and if any person would use the same logic of fighting fire with fire, they are gravely mistaken.

Point in case:

We have a Martin Luther King Jr. Day
We don't have a Malcolm X Day

Bob has said before: "have you ever stood in 'their' shoes?" A point well taken; however, the only shoes we have to stand in, truly, are our own. It is easy for us to sympathize with those who have been wronged, but, I think it is even harder for us to put ourselves in the shoes of those who have wronged.

Jesus said: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Those that live by the sword die by the sword. Jesus didn't change the heart of sinners by hurting them, or judging them, he changed it by showing them a better way to live their life, he taught by example. He didn't preach politics or militarism, he preached a message of love, tolerance, and mercy.

People who betray their integrity tend to be in search of power because they lack it themselves or they are corrupted by it. But in truth, I think these people really do not seek power, they seek to be loved. They substitute power for love and continually perpetuate behaviors that make them find something that they truly do not need, because when you have love and give it, you already have the security power offers, this is what I believe. They never even knew what love was because they, themselves, never sought it, never felt it, let alone, attempted to give it to begin with. It's hard to love when you have not been loved yourself. Irony is: how do you expect someone to love you if you don't love them? This is where unconditional love comes in. True love is never conditional, it does not seek to control, it is "honest" and "liberating" to those you share it with and to yourself.

Never make the same mistake of being more bigoted to the people who sin than the sinner is to his fellow brothers and sisters. Love them too. You cannot substitute your own experience for theirs, but certainly, you don't have to put up with bullshit either; don't get down to their level. Forgive and forget, don't let their wrongs control you. I think you love yourself more this way and in turn, it is easier for others to love you. We are perhaps better able to fight evil by not being evil ourselves.

[e-Male]

Dec 13, 2008 15:11:31 GMT -5 joefarar said:

Jesus said: Love the sinner, hate the sin.

No, Joe, Gandi said "love the sinner and hate the sin". And that sentiment isn't even aligned with biblical scripture.

Here's an excellent blog that helps explain why both the sin and sinners are abhorrent in God's eyes: God hates sin, God hates sinners, & God's love is conditional.

We should be good and do good, but not condone unrepentant sinning in any way. Turning the other cheek is an opening for repentance by your enemy. Loving your neighbor as yourself is an invitation leading by example for others to be good and do good.

Jesus rejected evil doers, and spoke of those whose poor decisions and deeds would keep them from heaven (ascendancy).

While it might seem noble to love the sinner, that doesn't benefit yourself or the sinner. Jesus told sinners to repent and go and sin no more. And he flat out discounted the Pharisees ascendance chances, calling them whited sepulchers. Doesn't sound like love for their them due to their behaviors. Arrogant self-righteous sinners without a hope of redemption.

Similarly, the aphorism of "judge not lest ye be judged" is not taken correctly. We are supposed to judge righteous judgments. Which means, first removing the mote in one's own eye (get yourself right first so you can judge righteously).

Again, judging is part of doing good. One should denounce poor choices and actions that harm (do no good).

This may sound like biblical legalism, but I believe the combination of "love the sinner" and "judge not" have allowed the growth of poor behavior within our own culture and society, as well as world-wide abominations to occur.

Much more in line with "love thy neighbor" is the adage that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Love the sinner? Not the unrepentant sinner. Judge not? And let evil triumph?

Bloviater at large,
/e

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

Here's an excellent blog that helps explain why both the sin and sinners are abhorrent in God's eyes: God hates sin, God hates sinners, & God's love is conditional.

This is dead wrong.

Father does not hate anyone or anything and his love is very unconditional. Whether one choses to accept it is another matter.
Such is freewill

I do not even believe that Father is capable of hate. I'd be wary of what self serving religionists who are in 'business' have to say when they presume to speak for Father.

[joefarar]

Dec 13, 2008 21:04:49 GMT -5 e-Male said:

Dec 13, 2008 15:11:31 GMT -5 joefarar said:

Jesus said: Love the sinner, hate the sin.

No, Joe, Gandi said "love the sinner and hate the sin". And that sentiment isn't even aligned with biblical scripture.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Here's an excellent blog that helps explain why both the sin and sinners are abhorrent in God's eyes: God hates sin, God hates sinners, & God's love is conditional.

I agree with Bob on this. I don't think God "hates sinners." Hating someone or something does not "feel good." If I had the power to be God, what purpose would I have in hating someone when loving them feels so much better? Hate is different than disappointment or dissatisfaction.

We should be good and do good, but not condone unrepentant sinning in any way. Turning the other cheek is an opening for repentance by your enemy. Loving your neighbor as yourself is an invitation leading by example for others to be good and do good.

I didn't say we should tolerate wrong-doing. Did you read my previous post?

Jesus rejected evil doers, and spoke of those whose poor decisions and deeds would keep them from heaven (ascendancy).

I don't think this is a correct interpretation. Jesus was known to mingle with sinner and publican alike. How do you reach the heart of a person who knows nothing of God if you ignore them? Religion back then was probably more about following social/cultural obligations than it was about "action" and "inclusion." Jesus wasn't afraid to associate with those of poor character - he opened the door for a lot of them, and in turn, those people opened the door and set examples for others - that the "Kingdom of Heaven" is reserved for all.

While it might seem noble to love the sinner, that doesn't benefit yourself or the sinner. Jesus told sinners to repent and go and sin no more. And he flat out discounted the Pharisees ascendance chances, calling them whited sepulchers. Doesn't sound like love for their them due to their behaviors. Arrogant self-righteous sinners without a hope of redemption.

Maybe, he spoke the truth of "them;" but, I doubt he ever left the door closed to them should they have sought his guidance. You can call someone on their bullshit if it serves a purpose I suppose, nothing wrong with speaking the truth. But you know, Jesus wasn't a zealot either. If he had to point out people's bullcrap, he did it eloquently enough that "most" people became aware of it without getting overly offended.

Similarly, the aphorism of "judge not lest ye be judged" is not taken correctly. We are supposed to judge righteous judgments. Which means, first removing the mote in one's own eye (get yourself right first so you can judge righteously).


We're not in disagreement.

Again, judging is part of doing good. One should denounce poor choices and actions that harm (do no good).

I really think "judge" is a poor choice of words here. Pointing out poor behavior is understandable, in so much as it can have a change. For instance, my mom smokes a lot of cigarettes (probably 2 packs a day and has been smoking since she was 17 - she's now 56). I once told my mom when I was 5, "Mommy, all I want for Christmas is for you to quit smoking. I don't want any presents." Not even that could change her. And I tried for years on end, and it only made her more and more irritable. Had I the foresight to put myself in her shoes, and realize that her poor behavior was the result of more than just a choice, but an additiction (biochemically, moreso I think, and it runs in the family generations past so that might tell you something), maybe I would not have tried to push her to do something she was really incapable of doing. She has to decide that for herself and whether she can or cannot is up to her and her god-given genetics and environmental circumstances. I can advise her kindly, but if you were to point fingers at her for smoking, she'd probably slap the shit out of you or tell you to fuck off (and rightfully so, you may have had it coming).

If you think you can change the world by telling people what is right or wrong...well, that's just wishful thinking. Jesus knew this well.

This may sound like biblical legalism, but I believe the combination of "love the sinner" and "judge not" have allowed the growth of poor behavior within our own culture and society, as well as world-wide abominations to occur.

Much more in line with "love thy neighbor" is the adage that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Not disagreeing with you...Hitler comes to mind...I agree, appeasements are probably, for the most part, ignoring a situation instead of dealing with it. Look, I'm not a pacifist by a long-shot. Sometimes you have to fight; you can't let people walk all over you and get away with it; especially if they are going to perpetuate the same behaviors with others. Sometimes they need a taste of their own "medicine." But, look, I'm not "looking for bullies either." I'd rather look for people who need love then need an ass-kicking even though the latter is probably more fun in my mind. You keep lopping off the head of a hydra, a new head pops up in it's place. People keep dying, people continue to get pissed at one another. Sometimes, you can do more good by trying to love than fight. You look for fights, you'll find em. You look for love, you might find that also. But yeah, sometimes you gotta hold your own...

Case in point, (and I don't want to get into a historical debate here, please, but if I stand corrected, by all means):

The 13 Colonies of the US were technically still a part of England (think of is as a trial separation or succession). It wasn't until England became an asshole that people had the balls to tell em to fuck off and leave em' alone, and, it actually worked thanks to the genius of a few men and the bravery of many.

I am saying
Love the sinner? Not the unrepentant sinner. Judge not? And let evil triumph?

Bloviater at large,
/e

[/b]

Again, there's a fine line between fighting evil and becoming evil yourself. How do you best fight it? Most of the people who changed the world, I think, did so by fighting evil the right way. They stand out. Empires rise and fall but it is the people that makes the empire, not the empire a people and it is people who do good that live on not just as legends, but their contributions become a part of the culture as well.

[ophello]

I think the best way to fight evil is to live as an example of Good.

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

Op

Generally I agree with you but there are lines.

Consider Jesus' comment on turning the other cheek. It presupposes that the bad guy can be shamed into doing the right thing. (Ghandi proved this to be true with the British as did Martin Luther King). Sometimes this is true depending upon the evolutionary moment of the bad person.

Evil, like good, comes in degrees. There are those who are no where near being in orbit of shame. They are predatory and murderous in the extreme. For these, my rule of thumb is.

You step on my feet - I'll step on your face. High and Holy is a wonderful thing, yet for these people, there is no possibility of making a connection. You have to speak to people in their own language and if this is all they can understand - so be it. I understand the concept of wrath well. Don't read hate as a motivating factor here.

For your moment, I'd agree with your assessment and taking Jesus' approach is best for you.

[e-Male]

Cal,

Yes, I believe your belief is absolutely right on that Father is incapable of hate. The problem here, I think, is that wrath is defined in terms of:

wrath
   /ræθ, rɑθ or, especially Brit., rɔθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rath, rahth or, especially Brit., rawth] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. strong, stern, or fierce anger; deeply resentful indignation; ire.
2. vengeance or punishment as the consequence of anger.
–adjective

Wrath, hence "anger", is most often equated with hatred. Therein lies their and (by my reference to the blog) my mistake. Being "most often" associated with hatred is not the same as "always" or even "necessarily". So it's easy to go overboard in speaking about the wrath of God against evil and sin.

I stand corrected.

Joe,

Hatred is indeed different from disappointment, and in that, you're closer than I am in describing right behavior towards others who are making poor choices.

But you responded by disassociating my sentences out of context of their paragraphs, making it more difficult to reply.

You seem to be arguing that unrepentant sinners can get to Heaven. And that by simply living your own life properly is sufficient. Don't rock the boat, and don't call out someone who is doing harm. That strikes me as selfish -- looking out solely for one's own hide and salvation, and doesn't satisfy the "do good" part of "be good -- do good".

But I don't want to start a protracted debate on what is very likely a misunderstanding due to parsing poorly. If you put my sentences back together, you'll see I'm not saying or implying things you claimed I did.

I do believe that everyone has the right to go to Hell in their own way. Free will does that. But I also believe everyone else has the obligation to create a world around themselves that is conducive to others to see the benefit of righteous choices. But free will means the hearer is free to reject that. There's no gain to wasting time on such a listener.

Op has felt "picked on", so let me use his experience as a good example of this. Nobody here condoned his choice to use drugs. But nobody here told him to get lost and suffer on his own. Additionally, he wrote about having some good supportive friends who respect and accept his choice to try to change and even will quit with him.

This is fellowship and caring. Not always giving a pat on the back. Sometimes a swift kick in the butt. And being truthful. And speaking up with judgment about right behavior. That is not the same as condemnation.

Being tolerant of bad behavior is itself bad behavior.

Just as there are too few words for "love", there are too few words for poor choices. Righteous anger without malice deserves its own word.

And, no, Cal, you're right: it isn't "hatred".

/e

[.]

.

[.]

.