Celestial Frequency Immortals as sovereigns that offer security?

User avatar
Alys-RaccoonReadings
venerated member
venerated member
Posts: 2766
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:43 pm
Answers: 0
8
You are...: a practitioner
My super power would be...: Ability to shape-shift
My magical/paranormal name...: Alys
Zodiac:

In my very personal opinion, I would not look for this with Yahweh. I cannot over-stress thag this is very personal to me and just an opinion. I know there are many people in this world who would disagree, and I respect that.

I rest this opinion on two things: (mostly Old Testament) scripture and personal long term experience.

First, Yahweh is not in the security (as humans see it) for loyalty business. I want to be very clear that I am not saying this is a bad thing or a blemish on His character or record. Different auto impish beings, including Deities, have their own perspectives and priorities. Physical security of individual adherents without a tie-in to what Yahweh’s larger motivations and desires just aren’t something He guarantees. The book of Job is an excellent long form example of this. Many Christians, at least, acknowledge this truth by reminding themselves and others that “His ways are not our ways.” Many also believe He has a “higher” plan that the human mind is not privy to both by station/worthiness and by natural limitations of the mind and constitution of humans. The New Testament contains examples of this as well in its accounts of martyrdom and, some argue, Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” (which some believe to be in the nature of a besetting sin or temptation but others believe to be a physical ailment or weakness of an unspecified nature.)

To get more personal, I was an avid, devoted and deeply educated evangelical Christian for around thirty years. When I was in my twenties I developed major depression. I cannot overstate how ill I was for a number of years. Even though I managed to receive treatment, from the time of onset until this day, Yahweh has never spoken to me again. I commune quite a bit with Jesus, but the doors to Yahweh were and remain closed. I received no durable relief until I accepted this and deconverted. I was unable to develop tools and perspective that gave me some control over my own condition until then. I say that not only to support my opinion of His nonpromise of what a living physical human would want when he or she asks for security; I say it also because I would validate DualWanderer’s experience of a permanent and reciprocal relationship’s not being guaranteed regardless of a human’s loyalty.

TLDR: Someone might be able to achieve this type of arrangement with Yahweh, but if it doesn’t work for you or feed your soul, you should never feel bad about moving on to something else that might.

<3


User avatar
HighSkies
venerated member
venerated member
Posts: 2007
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:07 am
Answers: 0
7
You are...: in the learning process
Male/Female: Male
Your favorite spirit to work with: Immortal(gods)
If I could be anything, I would be...: an Immortal/similar
My super power would be...: Ability to shape-shift
Zodiac:

Alys wrote:In my very personal opinion, I would not look for this with Yahweh. I cannot over-stress thag this is very personal to me and just an opinion. I know there are many people in this world who would disagree, and I respect that.

I rest this opinion on two things: (mostly Old Testament) scripture and personal long term experience.

First, Yahweh is not in the security (as humans see it) for loyalty business. I want to be very clear that I am not saying this is a bad thing or a blemish on His character or record. Different auto impish beings, including Deities, have their own perspectives and priorities. Physical security of individual adherents without a tie-in to what Yahweh’s larger motivations and desires just aren’t something He guarantees. The book of Job is an excellent long form example of this. Many Christians, at least, acknowledge this truth by reminding themselves and others that “His ways are not our ways.” Many also believe He has a “higher” plan that the human mind is not privy to both by station/worthiness and by natural limitations of the mind and constitution of humans. The New Testament contains examples of this as well in its accounts of martyrdom and, some argue, Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” (which some believe to be in the nature of a besetting sin or temptation but others believe to be a physical ailment or weakness of an unspecified nature.)

To get more personal, I was an avid, devoted and deeply educated evangelical Christian for around thirty years. When I was in my twenties I developed major depression. I cannot overstate how ill I was for a number of years. Even though I managed to receive treatment, from the time of onset until this day, Yahweh has never spoken to me again. I commune quite a bit with Jesus, but the doors to Yahweh were and remain closed. I received no durable relief until I accepted this and deconverted. I was unable to develop tools and perspective that gave me some control over my own condition until then. I say that not only to support my opinion of His nonpromise of what a living physical human would want when he or she asks for security; I say it also because I would validate DualWanderer’s experience of a permanent and reciprocal relationship’s not being guaranteed regardless of a human’s loyalty.

TLDR: Someone might be able to achieve this type of arrangement with Yahweh, but if it doesn’t work for you or feed your soul, you should never feel bad about moving on to something else that might.

<3
Was it a different God that the Catholics or Old Catholics worship then to the Yahweh you mentioned? Because the 'feudal' interpretation was that Yahweh assigned you a sovereign as the 'caretaker' for your physical life while he takes care of the physical things.

Who was the 'God' that answered the prayers of medieval Christians if it was not Yahweh (The variant you describe seems to be close to the protestant one) versus the Catholic one which backed the doctrine of a collective spiritual journey, and everybody being like a citizen expected to have a collective relationship to 'God' before the reformation?

I visited some of those 'old catholics' (Who follow the interpretation of it between the 800s - late 1700s) on the YouTube community and they cited that the relationship cannot be an 'individual thing' (Not to bash but quoting them here: They dismissed it along with self interpretation of the bible as a 'protestant heresy and illogical'), you are required to be with other people on it like a flock and 'held to equal standards'?


User avatar
HighSkies
venerated member
venerated member
Posts: 2007
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:07 am
Answers: 0
7
You are...: in the learning process
Male/Female: Male
Your favorite spirit to work with: Immortal(gods)
If I could be anything, I would be...: an Immortal/similar
My super power would be...: Ability to shape-shift
Zodiac:

-Does this then maybe show there could be two different variants of 'God'? Because one seems to say the relationship cannot be 'personal' and must be collective, while the other in Protestantism says it has to be 'personal'. Whereas medieval Christianity said 'cannot be personal at all and must be fully collective as his holy church interprets'.


User avatar
Aurum
venerated member
venerated member
Posts: 4439
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:30 pm
Answers: 0
12
You are...: a practitioner
Your favorite spirit to work with: Immortals
Zodiac:

Alys wrote:In my very personal opinion, I would not look for this with Yahweh. I cannot over-stress thag this is very personal to me and just an opinion. I know there are many people in this world who would disagree, and I respect that.

I rest this opinion on two things: (mostly Old Testament) scripture and personal long term experience.

First, Yahweh is not in the security (as humans see it) for loyalty business. I want to be very clear that I am not saying this is a bad thing or a blemish on His character or record. Different auto impish beings, including Deities, have their own perspectives and priorities. Physical security of individual adherents without a tie-in to what Yahweh’s larger motivations and desires just aren’t something He guarantees. The book of Job is an excellent long form example of this. Many Christians, at least, acknowledge this truth by reminding themselves and others that “His ways are not our ways.” Many also believe He has a “higher” plan that the human mind is not privy to both by station/worthiness and by natural limitations of the mind and constitution of humans. The New Testament contains examples of this as well in its accounts of martyrdom and, some argue, Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” (which some believe to be in the nature of a besetting sin or temptation but others believe to be a physical ailment or weakness of an unspecified nature.)

To get more personal, I was an avid, devoted and deeply educated evangelical Christian for around thirty years. When I was in my twenties I developed major depression. I cannot overstate how ill I was for a number of years. Even though I managed to receive treatment, from the time of onset until this day, Yahweh has never spoken to me again. I commune quite a bit with Jesus, but the doors to Yahweh were and remain closed. I received no durable relief until I accepted this and deconverted. I was unable to develop tools and perspective that gave me some control over my own condition until then. I say that not only to support my opinion of His nonpromise of what a living physical human would want when he or she asks for security; I say it also because I would validate DualWanderer’s experience of a permanent and reciprocal relationship’s not being guaranteed regardless of a human’s loyalty.

TLDR: Someone might be able to achieve this type of arrangement with Yahweh, but if it doesn’t work for you or feed your soul, you should never feel bad about moving on to something else that might.

<3
This interesting, so before your depression did Yahweh really speak to you? If you don't mind sharing.

I'm curious about this, personally I have never felt any trace of him anywhere even if other gods are quite easy to reach and feel. But of course, I do not like him or consider him as a supreme god so that might be it.


User avatar
Alys-RaccoonReadings
venerated member
venerated member
Posts: 2766
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:43 pm
Answers: 0
8
You are...: a practitioner
My super power would be...: Ability to shape-shift
My magical/paranormal name...: Alys
Zodiac:

WolfKnight wrote:Was it a different God that the Catholics or Old Catholics worship then to the Yahweh you mentioned? Because the 'feudal' interpretation was that Yahweh assigned you a sovereign as the 'caretaker' for your physical life while he takes care of the physical things.

Who was the 'God' that answered the prayers of medieval Christians if it was not Yahweh (The variant you describe seems to be close to the protestant one) versus the Catholic one which backed the doctrine of a collective spiritual journey, and everybody being like a citizen expected to have a collective relationship to 'God' before the reformation?

I visited some of those 'old catholics' (Who follow the interpretation of it between the 800s - late 1700s) on the YouTube community and they cited that the relationship cannot be an 'individual thing' (Not to bash but quoting them here: They dismissed it along with self interpretation of the bible as a 'protestant heresy and illogical'), you are required to be with other people on it like a flock and 'held to equal standards'?
Yes, my experience has been a Protestant one. Southern Baptist, to be exact.

But even under the medieval Catholic system, I think the concept of protection under a corporate covenant with Yahweh is still one that does not play out consistently for the humans. Again, just my opinion from observation and study, so YMMV.

Specifically, one incidence from the life of Eleanor of Aquitaine stands out (as recounted in Alison Weir's biography of her.)

"During her visit to England....[t]he Queen made a tour of some of her properties, among them several manors in William Longchamp's diocese of Ely, which still lay under an interdict. The consequences of the Church's ban were brought vividly home to the Queen, who could see for herself how badly the people's lives had been affected by it: 'That matron, worthy of being mentioned so many times, Queen Eleanor, was visiting some cottages that were part of her dower. There came before her, from all the villages and hamlets, wherever she passed, men, and women and children, not all of the lowest orders; a people weeping and pitiful, their feet bare, their clothes unwashed, their hair unshorn. They spoke by their tears, for their grief was so great that they could not speak.' Patiently Eleanor listened as her suffering tenants told her of the miseries they had endured through being deprived of the sacraments. What appalled her most was that 'human bodies lay unburied here and there in the fields because their bishop had deprived them of burial. When she learned the cause of such suffering, the Queen took pity on the misery of the living because of the dead, for she was very merciful. Immediately dropping her own affairs and looking after the concerns of others, she went to London,' where she prevailed upon Walter of Coutances to revoke the interdict and allow Longchamp to return to England and resume his pastoral duties."

Do you know why Longchamp (and, therefore, his innocent people) were under an interdict? its because Longchamp and Coutances were fighting over who got to rule England in its king's absence. Valid arms of the Church and Catholic feudal state acted, under the banner of their God, to spite each other without regard for the human suffering it would cause to innocents.

Richard I, for his part, was very involved in military exploits (including the Crusades, which firmly belongs in the contemporary medieval Catholic "pro" column) and had little interest in the wellbeing of his subjects beyond their ability to be taxed to fund his military exploits (very much NOT what is envisioned under a contemporary devout's analysis of a sovereign's spiritual duties under the system as ideally represented and the protection it should supply.) Largely, under this system of sovereignty, great numbers of people had no protection from the depredations and missteps of the Lord's Anointed himself as they were taxed mercilessly.

I didn't go back to comb through exactly how long Yahweh, if He was actively involved, let this go on before Eleanor intervened on the behalf of the affected people, but long enough to let dead bodies pile up in significant numbers.

This entire situation is not exactly what a human being bargains for when he or she wishes to strike a contract for protection. And, if one party has no way of knowing what they are getting when the word "protection" is used, you have to question whether a valid contract occurred at all.

As to whether a medieval Catholic Yahweh is the same as a modern American Protestant Yahweh, I personally would say yes. Gods have many facets, and there is no rule that means they have to all be perfectly compatible with each other to the human rationale. Although a God or Goddess may not change with time (though, perhaps they may, that's a larger question,) what different humans see in Them over time certainly may, and might even fill in a more complete picture. I also believe that different devotees bring out different aspects of Those they follow. As a result of all these interplaying factors, the God Zeus Who made so many unwanted sexual advances in the ancient myths is the same Zeus who speaks to female devotees (albeit via UPG, again, a while other kettle of fish) about those actions in the era of #MeToo today (SUPER fascinating, yet largely unrelated, read: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/agora/2018 ... tradition/ .)


User avatar
Alys-RaccoonReadings
venerated member
venerated member
Posts: 2766
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:43 pm
Answers: 0
8
You are...: a practitioner
My super power would be...: Ability to shape-shift
My magical/paranormal name...: Alys
Zodiac:

Aurum wrote:This interesting, so before your depression did Yahweh really speak to you? If you don't mind sharing.

I'm curious about this, personally I have never felt any trace of him anywhere even if other gods are quite easy to reach and feel. But of course, I do not like him or consider him as a supreme god so that might be it.
Yes, from childhood. Although I always had more personal and, I would say, human-like interactions with Jesus, I received firm and specific direction from Yahweh over the years. I would even characterize it as stern, in that it brooked no question or discussion. There were things he wanted me to do and things he did not want me to do. Very consistent with the idea of God's Will. Absolute sovereignty was a strong theme.

It makes perfect sense to me that you did not experience the same, based on my personal interactions. He had a way He wanted things. I'm not certain He has ever wanted to be liked, per se, but He absolutely wanted to be supreme and dreaded in the KJV English sense of abject awe and respect. He did not respond well to being approached as anything remotely like an equal. Abasement was far more palatable. With me, there was even limited response to being approached as God the Father.

I'm not going to say that's how it is for everyone. In fact, I feel sure it's not. A God or Goddess can, after all, want different things from different people and relationships. But that was the tenor of what He wanted from me, and I have gotten the sense that when I was damaged beyond use within that specific paradigm then there was nothing else to be done with me. I'm not saying He would not have kept a promise such as a Christian afterlife. I think He would have so long as I kept up my end. But once I could no longer receive direction, there didn't seem to be much else He wanted to say to me after all.


User avatar
HighSkies
venerated member
venerated member
Posts: 2007
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:07 am
Answers: 0
7
You are...: in the learning process
Male/Female: Male
Your favorite spirit to work with: Immortal(gods)
If I could be anything, I would be...: an Immortal/similar
My super power would be...: Ability to shape-shift
Zodiac:

Alys wrote:
WolfKnight wrote:Was it a different God that the Catholics or Old Catholics worship then to the Yahweh you mentioned? Because the 'feudal' interpretation was that Yahweh assigned you a sovereign as the 'caretaker' for your physical life while he takes care of the physical things.

Who was the 'God' that answered the prayers of medieval Christians if it was not Yahweh (The variant you describe seems to be close to the protestant one) versus the Catholic one which backed the doctrine of a collective spiritual journey, and everybody being like a citizen expected to have a collective relationship to 'God' before the reformation?

I visited some of those 'old catholics' (Who follow the interpretation of it between the 800s - late 1700s) on the YouTube community and they cited that the relationship cannot be an 'individual thing' (Not to bash but quoting them here: They dismissed it along with self interpretation of the bible as a 'protestant heresy and illogical'), you are required to be with other people on it like a flock and 'held to equal standards'?
Yes, my experience has been a Protestant one. Southern Baptist, to be exact.

But even under the medieval Catholic system, I think the concept of protection under a corporate covenant with Yahweh is still one that does not play out consistently for the humans. Again, just my opinion from observation and study, so YMMV.

Specifically, one incidence from the life of Eleanor of Aquitaine stands out (as recounted in Alison Weir's biography of her.)

"During her visit to England....[t]he Queen made a tour of some of her properties, among them several manors in William Longchamp's diocese of Ely, which still lay under an interdict. The consequences of the Church's ban were brought vividly home to the Queen, who could see for herself how badly the people's lives had been affected by it: 'That matron, worthy of being mentioned so many times, Queen Eleanor, was visiting some cottages that were part of her dower. There came before her, from all the villages and hamlets, wherever she passed, men, and women and children, not all of the lowest orders; a people weeping and pitiful, their feet bare, their clothes unwashed, their hair unshorn. They spoke by their tears, for their grief was so great that they could not speak.' Patiently Eleanor listened as her suffering tenants told her of the miseries they had endured through being deprived of the sacraments. What appalled her most was that 'human bodies lay unburied here and there in the fields because their bishop had deprived them of burial. When she learned the cause of such suffering, the Queen took pity on the misery of the living because of the dead, for she was very merciful. Immediately dropping her own affairs and looking after the concerns of others, she went to London,' where she prevailed upon Walter of Coutances to revoke the interdict and allow Longchamp to return to England and resume his pastoral duties."

Do you know why Longchamp (and, therefore, his innocent people) were under an interdict? its because Longchamp and Coutances were fighting over who got to rule England in its king's absence. Valid arms of the Church and Catholic feudal state acted, under the banner of their God, to spite each other without regard for the human suffering it would cause to innocents.

Richard I, for his part, was very involved in military exploits (including the Crusades, which firmly belongs in the contemporary medieval Catholic "pro" column) and had little interest in the wellbeing of his subjects beyond their ability to be taxed to fund his military exploits (very much NOT what is envisioned under a contemporary devout's analysis of a sovereign's spiritual duties under the system as ideally represented and the protection it should supply.) Largely, under this system of sovereignty, great numbers of people had no protection from the depredations and missteps of the Lord's Anointed himself as they were taxed mercilessly.

I didn't go back to comb through exactly how long Yahweh, if He was actively involved, let this go on before Eleanor intervened on the behalf of the affected people, but long enough to let dead bodies pile up in significant numbers.

This entire situation is not exactly what a human being bargains for when he or she wishes to strike a contract for protection. And, if one party has no way of knowing what they are getting when the word "protection" is used, you have to question whether a valid contract occurred at all.

As to whether a medieval Catholic Yahweh is the same as a modern American Protestant Yahweh, I personally would say yes. Gods have many facets, and there is no rule that means they have to all be perfectly compatible with each other to the human rationale. Although a God or Goddess may not change with time (though, perhaps they may, that's a larger question,) what different humans see in Them over time certainly may, and might even fill in a more complete picture. I also believe that different devotees bring out different aspects of Those they follow. As a result of all these interplaying factors, the God Zeus Who made so many unwanted sexual advances in the ancient myths is the same Zeus who speaks to female devotees (albeit via UPG, again, a while other kettle of fish) about those actions in the era of #MeToo today (SUPER fascinating, yet largely unrelated, read: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/agora/2018 ... tradition/ .)
So would the all-accepting Yahweh who takes everybody in maybe be the Catholic one then?

Also I think it depends because Kingdoms essentially work like corporations which own land (If you look at Saudi Arabia who adapted theirs and it wasn't really hard to do so), each 'boss' or 'CEO' of the kingdom is a different person and their rule depends on what kind of person they are. Some make people living on their property pay alot yep but others maybe not so much.

Well what about if we were talking about the 'Quantity > Quality' ("A 1 is better than a 0 or -1, -10, so on") type of material security? In which you can get the bare basics including shelter, work including if they are of 'very low quality' compared to others. With no interest in 'fiercely competing to move up' and gradually accumulating, gaining blessings from forces of nature/gods who trigger events in your life sometimes to move you up, or whatever to do so in an orderly, 'rabbit/cow/sheep' fashion?

In the scenario of a 'Quantity > Quality' type of material security or in short where '1 is better than a 0' would that one be the best choice to go with?


User avatar
Alys-RaccoonReadings
venerated member
venerated member
Posts: 2766
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:43 pm
Answers: 0
8
You are...: a practitioner
My super power would be...: Ability to shape-shift
My magical/paranormal name...: Alys
Zodiac:

[quote=WolfKnight] So would the all-accepting Yahweh who takes everybody in maybe be the Catholic one then?

Also I think it depends because Kingdoms essentially work like corporations which own land (If you look at Saudi Arabia who adapted theirs and it wasn't really hard to do so), each 'boss' or 'CEO' of the kingdom is a different person and their rule depends on what kind of person they are. Some make people living on their property pay alot yep but others maybe not so much.

Well what about if we were talking about the 'Quantity > Quality' ("A 1 is better than a 0 or -1, -10, so on") type of material security? In which you can get the bare basics including shelter, work including if they are of 'very low quality' compared to others. With no interest in 'fiercely competing to move up' and gradually accumulating, gaining blessings from forces of nature/gods who trigger events in your life sometimes to move you up, or whatever to do so in an orderly, 'rabbit/cow/sheep' fashion?

In the scenario of a 'Quantity > Quality' type of material security or in short where '1 is better than a 0' would that one be the best choice to go with?[/quote]

I do not accept the premise that they are different entities.

And the medieval Catholic God was not perceived as all-accepting. Any study of the Church's literature, policies, and practices demonstrates this. On the obvious end, Muslims were not accepted without conversion to Christianity, but He wasn’t even seen to accept Christians who challenged contemporary orthodoxy.

Even under feudalism, a Christian wasn’t guaranteed ANY property, much less the opportunity to do maybe not so well with it. (http://www.vlib.us/medieval/lectures/paupers.html). The information we have therefore demonstrates a full 20% of a feudal Catholic population who were flat out homeless.

In most of life, yes, something greater than zero good stuff is better than zero good stuff, and best should not be the enemy of good. What I am positing, however, is that you personally (and arguably a societal entity) should not expect any guarantee of a base level of security or subsistence from the Old or New Testament God or any of His successive iterations.

That is, I’m not saying the arrangement you are examining is entirely unavailable across all Beings. I’m saying that you won’t get it from this One in particular (1) in a reliable way, (2) the way you probably envision for yourself personally upon seeking the arrangement, (3) even if you offer lifelong devotion as suggested (perhaps facetiously) above by wolves.


User avatar
darkwing dook
sanctified
sanctified
Posts: 8410
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:14 pm
Answers: 0
8
You are...: new to this
Male/Female: It's a Secret
Zodiac:

In other words, it doesn't sound good to choose a religion and be devoted to its god(s) due to the promise of money etc.

Not saying it's wrong; some people do it for them and some religions do promise them (usually not the "celestial" thingy, though).


"Often the truth is in front of your face, but your eyes and heart are so full of lies that you can't see it." Shannon L. Alder

"May you live in interesting times, may you be recognized by people in high places, may you find what you’re looking for."
User avatar
HighSkies
venerated member
venerated member
Posts: 2007
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:07 am
Answers: 0
7
You are...: in the learning process
Male/Female: Male
Your favorite spirit to work with: Immortal(gods)
If I could be anything, I would be...: an Immortal/similar
My super power would be...: Ability to shape-shift
Zodiac:

darkwing dook wrote:In other words, it doesn't sound good to choose a religion and be devoted to its god(s) due to the promise of money etc.

Not saying it's wrong; some people do it for them and some religions do promise them (usually not the "celestial" thingy, though).
Its not about ‘money’ but just all forms of security in general. Ranging from material, emotional (validation) to spiritual and astral when needed? Basically the idea is they provide you the very basics to not have to worry about material survival and pursue higher or non-material things if that’s ‘part of the package’.
Alys wrote:
WolfKnight wrote: So would the all-accepting Yahweh who takes everybody in maybe be the Catholic one then?

Also I think it depends because Kingdoms essentially work like corporations which own land (If you look at Saudi Arabia who adapted theirs and it wasn't really hard to do so), each 'boss' or 'CEO' of the kingdom is a different person and their rule depends on what kind of person they are. Some make people living on their property pay alot yep but others maybe not so much.

Well what about if we were talking about the 'Quantity > Quality' ("A 1 is better than a 0 or -1, -10, so on") type of material security? In which you can get the bare basics including shelter, work including if they are of 'very low quality' compared to others. With no interest in 'fiercely competing to move up' and gradually accumulating, gaining blessings from forces of nature/gods who trigger events in your life sometimes to move you up, or whatever to do so in an orderly, 'rabbit/cow/sheep' fashion?

In the scenario of a 'Quantity > Quality' type of material security or in short where '1 is better than a 0' would that one be the best choice to go with?
I do not accept the premise that they are different entities.

And the medieval Catholic God was not perceived as all-accepting. Any study of the Church's literature, policies, and practices demonstrates this. On the obvious end, Muslims were not accepted without conversion to Christianity, but He wasn’t even seen to accept Christians who challenged contemporary orthodoxy.

Even under feudalism, a Christian wasn’t guaranteed ANY property, much less the opportunity to do maybe not so well with it. (http://www.vlib.us/medieval/lectures/paupers.html). The information we have therefore demonstrates a full 20% of a feudal Catholic population who were flat out homeless.

In most of life, yes, something greater than zero good stuff is better than zero good stuff, and best should not be the enemy of good. What I am positing, however, is that you personally (and arguably a societal entity) should not expect any guarantee of a base level of security or subsistence from the Old or New Testament God or any of His successive iterations.

That is, I’m not saying the arrangement you are examining is entirely unavailable across all Beings. I’m saying that you won’t get it from this One in particular (1) in a reliable way, (2) the way you probably envision for yourself personally upon seeking the arrangement, (3) even if you offer lifelong devotion as suggested (perhaps facetiously) above by wolves.
Not arguing it was perfect but then again weren’t most cases temporary and eventually ended up with those people erecting a hut, be taken in by a monastery or something for themselves without being stopped? Just asking for more clarification on that.

Also what would it mean if it’s basically like being in high school (that kind of environment)?

As for the cases where it was provided do you think it was maybe certain angel leaders who dealt in assigning people ‘caretakers/protestors’ in life maybe? Since angels or saints are worked with being they are closer to the earthly.


Post Reply

Return to “Immortals”