Comments on: Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego vs the World http://apathyonline.net/2011/03/29/shadrach-meshach-and-abed-nego-vs-the-world/ Just trying to live consistently Mon, 04 Mar 2013 01:17:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: antijingoist http://apathyonline.net/2011/03/29/shadrach-meshach-and-abed-nego-vs-the-world/#comment-1101 antijingoist Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:14:25 +0000 http://apathyonline.net/?p=397#comment-1101 Oh, thats me copy-pasting hyphenated text split by a line break in my Bible program. :) Fixed.

]]> By: Jonathan http://apathyonline.net/2011/03/29/shadrach-meshach-and-abed-nego-vs-the-world/#comment-1100 Jonathan Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:59:54 +0000 http://apathyonline.net/?p=397#comment-1100 Thank you. Is there a reason for abbreviating Abednego?

]]> By: antijingoist http://apathyonline.net/2011/03/29/shadrach-meshach-and-abed-nego-vs-the-world/#comment-1098 antijingoist Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:45:06 +0000 http://apathyonline.net/?p=397#comment-1098 It's possible to do anything, and would appreciate the linkback. :)

]]> By: Jonathan http://apathyonline.net/2011/03/29/shadrach-meshach-and-abed-nego-vs-the-world/#comment-1094 Jonathan Wed, 28 Sep 2011 02:58:10 +0000 http://apathyonline.net/?p=397#comment-1094 I understand. Is it possible to republish your article, giving credit to its source (e.g., By antijingoist, www .http://apathyonline.net/archives/397)?

]]> By: antijingoist http://apathyonline.net/2011/03/29/shadrach-meshach-and-abed-nego-vs-the-world/#comment-1080 antijingoist Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:25:45 +0000 http://apathyonline.net/?p=397#comment-1080 I think you need your own website rather than just comments on this blog. :P

You put a lot into them, much more than I have time to read and respond to at the moment. Don't hate me if it takes a while to get back to you. :)

]]> By: Jonathan http://apathyonline.net/2011/03/29/shadrach-meshach-and-abed-nego-vs-the-world/#comment-1079 Jonathan Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:33:13 +0000 http://apathyonline.net/?p=397#comment-1079 Both. Hopefully you found something interesting in what I said, that was the purpose. I perceive that, essentially, your ideology makes a distinction between your idea of "Christian" and other's idea thereof. However, you may consider that you might not be going far enough, e.g., that the real person whom Christendom claims is the Christ is not a physical being or someone who was resurrected as such, but an entirely metaphysical being of self, the same self from whom everyone everywhere may live, based entirely on volition (here, volition in the service of Jehovah within, as one's exclusive, sovereign means of self-control). Such premise of self eliminates the pillars upon which Christendom generally rests, which is that one's best, highest choice, as long as one is living on earth, in a corporeal body, i.e., as a being born of earthly parents, is the choice to live for one's corporeal self or a surrogate on behalf thereof, as the subject of the liberty one seeks. In sum, your identification as a Christian, talking about what is true or false (moral or immoral), is beset by a contradiction (a material or ethical dichotomy), between the self from whom you live and the self from whom all may live, in relationship with a source therefor, whether the source therefor may be shared in common with others or not. As such, the premise from which you speak is simply more of the same old same old (essentially, "jingoist") — using an innately contradictory frame of reference, trying to make sense of life. The real thing is simply a choice away, not more of the same old same old (denying the Christ within, as the only subject we need, in order to achieve a truly just, last peace between one and all, the same for all as for one, as described above).

]]> By: antijingoist http://apathyonline.net/2011/03/29/shadrach-meshach-and-abed-nego-vs-the-world/#comment-1076 antijingoist Thu, 22 Sep 2011 05:30:42 +0000 http://apathyonline.net/?p=397#comment-1076 Are you commenting about the post, or evangelizing your ideas?

]]> By: Jonathan http://apathyonline.net/2011/03/29/shadrach-meshach-and-abed-nego-vs-the-world/#comment-1075 Jonathan Thu, 22 Sep 2011 05:05:56 +0000 http://apathyonline.net/?p=397#comment-1075 You can't use the term "Christian" without implying that you need the State, that the "body of Christ" is a body of people who accept the State, as a legitimate source of liberty, or that the "church" is anything other than a physical body of people (usually sanctioned by the State — here, as a nonprofit appendage thereof). If the body of Christ is a metaphysical body within, the same within all as within one, independent of time or place, which may come into being, as the self from whom one lives, when one makes such Christ, through the Word thereof one's exclusive, sovereign means of self-control (therefore such self within replaces one's corporeal self without as the subject of the liberty one has in common with others), then we are talking about a whole different paradigm of self-government. The latter is what the real person (the Jewish man who was crucified, some 2,000 years ago) had in mind, i.e., the man Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, in the fourth century CE replaced with Jesus. The Jesus of Christendom and the theology of "Christianity" are designed to preserve the status quo (the rule of man over man); the person Jesus replaced was too dangerous to permit to live, through the untarnished Word thereof, so the Word thereof was corrupted by the powers that be. His Jewish name was Jehoshua (pronounced Yehoshua in Hebrew). His mission was to replace the rule of man over man in whatever package it might be wrapped (generally, political government or anarchy), with the rule of Jehovah only. In Yehoshua's case, his idea of how to achieve such feat was with himself as the one who provided the body (self) from whom we may live, in a union with Yehovah within, therefore the sole purpose for the existence of such self is to serve as a truly permanent, indispensable partner with Yehovah, in a union therewith, as described above. As such, such premise of self eliminates any material or ethical dichotomy, which always exists in relationship with others, when we choose our corporeal self as the subject of the liberty we seek, i.e., regardless of the source of the liberty, which we might choose therefor. (This means that one must use physical force or the threat thereof, in order for such self, i.e., in any union with any source of liberty, as a means of self-control, to survive.) This is because our corporeal self depends upon the material existence thereof, which, in turn, requires the use of physical force or the threat thereof in order to establish, enforce or sustain any union therewith with any source of liberty. The opposite of such self and the paradigm of liberty to which it is limited is an immaterial self in a union with an immaterial source of liberty, and where the whole of such union may reign from entirely within based entirely on volition. By making such self and such union one's exclusive, sovereign means of self-control, we may eliminate the external reality of our life as a domain in which any kind of physical struggle may occur, because of our choice of self-determination.

In sum, the choice of our corporeal self as the subject of the liberty we seek may not exist without creating a material or ethical dichotomy, between the self from whom one lives and the self from whom all may live, in relationship with either a common source or one's corporeal self, as the case may be, as one's means of self-control. Such is the root of all physical struggles over one's choice of freedom, the stuff from which the rule of man over man thrives, and the birthright of one whose destiny is a function of the laws of physics that govern physical matter (synonymous with reducing one's life to that of a physical object — or making one's life part of a whole, which may be bartered or sold by the strongest and most powerful).

WHEREFORE, unless one chooses a metaphysical self (within) in a union with a metaphysical source therein, one has no single being of self, as the subject of the liberty one seeks, which one may share in common with all. Without a single being of self, from whom all may live, independent of time or place, as the subject of the liberty we seek, all we have is a state of chaos (whether planned chaos, such as that which is provided by the ideology of political government, or unplanned chaos, such as that which may be provided by the ideology of anarchy).

THEREFORE, the Christ within, the same within all as within one, as described above, provides a common self and a common source (a single self in a union with a single source), therefore creating a whole, which is independent of the need to use one's hands (physical force), in order to establish, enforce or sustain the reign thereof. The reign of such union within, as one's whole, exclusive means of self-control means that we may then control everything in the material (external) reality of our life (from A to Z, including how we defend or protect our corporeal self or any possessions thereof) based entirely on volition (based entirely on voluntary agreements, each free to function as a fully integrated, comprehensive whole, i.e., independent of any extrinsic authority in one's life, with the power to violate any term thereof). For it is only when we choose a self and a source therefor, whose existence is entirely a function of volition that we may realize a state of true freedom (here, divine freedom), a freedom where the means is consistent with the end, a freedom where everyone stands on the same footing (because nothing exists in the external reality of one's life, which may prevent such from occurring, i.e., as an intrinsic reality of one's choice of self-government), and a freedom where there cannot be any physical struggle with anyone because of one's choice thereof. Such is the way out of the hell, the hell that is the world in which we live, a world created because of our choice of our natural, corporeal self, as the subject of the liberty we seek (i.e., regardless of who or what we choose as the source of the liberty thereof).

]]>