Sunday, September 17, 2006

The glass is half full not half empty

So I guess I'm perplexed why you would find it so hard to believe that the almighty and eternal creator would provide a name (or set of names) so his limited creatures could refer to him?

In my post I said my Spock-me doesn't see why God needs a name, I said that my Bones-me sees no problem with it. The fact that you concentrated on my Spock-me answer means I guess that you think I am more Spock than Bones .. this could be true I guess. deep.thought(70,30), deep.thought(80,20)? Spock-me likes the fact that if one needs to name God then one calls him something like "I am". Heck, even we call Him "GOD", which is a name. Spock-me much prefers "I AM". Bones-me thinks it's irrelevant.

If you're serious about this, it makes me sad. You've had more revelation that most. What more evidence could you want? And would you believe it if it was given to you?

Please don't be sad. God knows that my Bones-me believes 100% and if necessary will show me more, He doesn't want to kill my Spock-me off as far as I can tell. He's already revealed to me what a bunch of charlatans The Church is, and how angry He is that they speak in His name, so any "growth" in my faith will be as a result of a direct relationship with Him, unbrokered by The Church.

Note: Please note that this is my personal view, my revelation from God may have been a revelation from Satan - but I don't believe so.

So it will be difficult for a Church-goer to see any growth in my relationship with Him. For instance, if I became an ordained minister it would be very easy for a Church-goer to see growth and progress in me as a "Christian".

And yes, I'll believe it when I see it, I think that I can tell the difference between revelations from God and information from Satan, but I can't be 100% sure, it's just a feeling.

I don't know what "I AM's" plan for me is, perhaps He'll let me know, perhaps not, either way - He is there and watching us, often interacting. Both Spock-me and Bones-me believe this.

No comments: