Is Satan an angel?

[Phil .]

And once a law has been established though observation and repetition . You do not need be there to know the result of a tree falling. It was verified over and over and over and over and over and over.

Scientifically speaking, laws are not established about anything in which there is no one there to inspect, as inspection is the scientific approach. Upon earnest inspection, a tree which falls in the woods which there is no one there to hear… is a thought. That it makes a sound is an assumption believed only in overlooking the reality that it is a thought. Science is not inspecting thoughts. That ‘work’ is for you and you alone.

So are you saying you base your morality on your sensual intake?

No. In sincerity, honesty & integrity, I simply acknowledge morality is not seen as in an object perceived, nor felt as in an object touched or sensation, and is in fact the thought, ‘morality’.

No. doing is not a narrative but an action as a result of deciding.

Deciding is another way of saying doing. What does the alleged doer do? Allegedly decides.
A decision requires two thoughts experienced simultaneously… and a chooser which chooses between the two thoughts.
In simple honesty & transparency, that has never been experienced.

Well then I await your dispelling then.

No one is going to inspect and dispel beliefs for you, as they have their ‘work’ to do as well.

Well you aren't so whats your point!

To see the point, read from the beginning.

And slow down.

No the reality of the earth is the earth being there. KNowing the term is a result of learning a definition.

If you were to head on over here, and I called you at any point along your journey and asked where you are… without thinking, in simple honesty, you would say “here”, without exception. Even upon arriving to wherever we were meeting you would say “here”. This is because ‘there’ is a thought, which seems to point to something or somewhere real, yet ‘there’ is never actually experienced.

‘Knowing’ is also a learned term my good man.

What was before the label?

‘Birth’ as well?

Well each "label" as yu call it, has been assigned a specific definition so we can understand what we are talking about. God created grammar so we can know what things are and communicate effectively.

None but you have assigned or are now anssigning, isn’t it so?

‘Understand’, in a learned term as well.

A God separate of grammar & things would be a finite God.
God just means infinite.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Scientifically speaking, laws are not established about anything in which there is no one there to inspect, as inspection is the scientific approach. Upon earnest inspection, a tree which falls in the woods which there is no one there to hear… is a thought. That it makes a sound is an assumption believed only in overlooking the reality that it is a thought. Science is not inspecting thoughts. That ‘work’ is for you and you alone.

me thinks you are now merely being stubborn. We know from millions of experiences and direct observation and hearing that every single time a tree falls, it makes a noise. so, if we see a tree fallen and did not observe it the laws of sound dynamics, gravity and objects colliding with each other confirm it made a noise though unheard by ears. Why are you having such a problem with this.

No. In sincerity, honesty & integrity, I simply acknowledge morality is not seen as in an object perceived, nor felt as in an object touched or sensation, and is in fact the thought, ‘morality’.

In a hyper techinical sense yes we do not "see" morality. but we do see the actions worked out on the basis of morality so we "see" morality at work.

‘Knowing’ is also a learned term my good man.

What was before the label?

‘Birth’ as well?

Yes we all learned the labels. but since God created the labels we use them and they hold specific meanings. Now modern man is desperately seeking to redefine labels that God created. God gave man that innate capacity to learn and understand.

 

[keithr]

Before judgment, I think it would be wise if we behave ourselves so our judgment(s) are joyous occasions.

Regardless, there is no path available for humans to take so that they can become angels. Your "suspicion" that humans become angels when they repent of all their sin is unscriptural nonsense.

 

[Phil .]

me thinks you are now merely being stubborn. We know from millions of experiences and direct observation and hearing that every single time a tree falls, it makes a noise. so, if we see a tree fallen and did not observe it the laws of sound dynamics, gravity and objects colliding with each other confirm it made a noise though unheard by ears.

Talking about the topic at hand, and not me, is both clarifying & appreciated.


What, sans the thought, separate ‘one experience’ from ‘another experience’, such that there are ‘millions of experiences’?

From direct observation. Yes, exactly. ‘And no one is there to hear it’ = no direct observation.


The secondary assumption is that if no one is there to hear something, somehow nonetheless it’s still heard.

The primary assumption is that what’s heard, is a tree ‘making a sound’.
Put another way, it’s not presumed sound is vibration, while it is presumed a tree is not vibration.

This is only in accordance with thought, and is not in accordance with direct experience.

‘The laws’ don’t confirm anything at all, as ’the laws’ are also heard, yet ‘the laws’ do not hear, nor does science purport that ‘the laws’ hear or observe at all. ‘The laws’ are after thoughts, about observation, and are not applicable to thoughts, as ‘the laws’ is, in accordance with direct experience, a thought.

Why are you having such a problem with this.

‘A problem’ is interpretational. If there seems to be a problem, that is direct experience as well. It’s not “somewhere out there”, but again, if it is at all, it’s directly experienced. The “problem” experienced is the whole point of contemplating ‘if a tree falls in the woods…’ which of course you are free to contemplate or brush aside. Please, let it not seem there is a problem here nor between us, over simple discussion and contemplation. Kindness simply means indicative of, alike, similar. Much love!

In a hyper techinical sense yes we do not "see" morality. but we do see the actions worked out on the basis of morality so we "see" morality at work.

As morality is not seen, and morality is experienced as the thought ‘morality’… any actions which follow are therein inherently based on delusion, as in, believing a thought which has no actual corresponding ‘object of perception’. It’s no different than basing actions on a unicorn.

There is nothing ‘hyper technical’ about inspecting and ‘seeing’ what is actually or directly experienced, and what is not. This is the scientific approach. Direct experience is self-evident. Ordinary, plain, present, for all to inspect & see clearly. If science presumed and did not inspect, actually find out - there would not be science. That is what science is.

Yes we all learned the labels.

Not in accordance with direct experience. ‘We all’ is a label learned.

but since God created

Same for ‘a past’. Same as ‘unicorn’. There’s the thought, but not the object of perception or experience. Again, readily verifiable by attempting to actually go to the past now, and come back to the present, and share what the past is like. In accordance with direct experience, thoughts arise, labelled memories, presently… about there being other than presence / the present… such as a past.

the labels we use them and they hold specific meanings.

If interested, inspect. How do labels ‘hold meaning’?

Now modern man is desperately seeking to redefine labels that God created. God gave man that innate capacity to learn and understand.

Seeking is directly experienced. Suffering. There is no experience of ‘modern man seeking’.

No one is attempting to redefine anything at all, without exception. The definitions referred to are common and easily verified with google.

In accordance with direct experience, learn and understand are not ‘in’ perception, are never seen or heard, but are directly experienced as the thoughts, ‘learn’ and ‘understand’.

Truly, reality is stranger than fiction.

 

[Bob Estey]

Regardless, there is no path available for humans to take so that they can become angels. Your "suspicion" that humans become angels when they repent of all their sin is unscriptural nonsense.

What would you call a person who has repented of his sin?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What, sans the thought, separate ‘one experience’ from ‘another experience’, such that there are ‘millions of experiences’?

From direct observation. Yes, exactly. ‘And no one is there to hear it’ = no direct observation.

Well if you are asking about directly hearing a tree fall if no one is there- no we do not have direct observation. But when that tree falls, it makes a sound whether one is there to hear it or not. Seriously have you gone so metaphysical that you cannot see the simple basic reality of this?

The primary assumption is that what’s heard, is a tree ‘making a sound’.
Put another way, it’s not presumed sound is vibration, while it is presumed a tree is not vibration.

This is only in accordance with thought, and is not in accordance with direct experience.

‘The laws’ don’t confirm anything at all, as ’the laws’ are also heard, yet ‘the laws’ do not hear, nor does science purport that ‘the laws’ hear or observe at all. ‘The laws’ are after thoughts, about observation, and are not applicable to thoughts, as ‘the laws’ is, in accordance with direct experience, a thought.

This is just a bunch of metaphysical word salad.

As morality is not seen, and morality is experienced as the thought ‘morality’… any actions which follow are therein inherently based on delusion, as in, believing a thought which has no actual corresponding ‘object of perception’. It’s no different than basing actions on a unicorn.

There is nothing ‘hyper technical’ about inspecting and ‘seeing’ what is actually or directly experienced, and what is not. This is the scientific approach. Direct experience is self-evident. Ordinary, plain, present, for all to inspect & see clearly. If science presumed and did not inspect, actually find out - there would not be science. That is what science is.

If this is what floats your boat- go for it. but I think we have reached the end of the road here. I cannot argue against ones personal metaphysical musings other than to say reality is reality, words have specific meaning, trees make a sound when they fall even unobserved, birds chirp even if we do not hewar them. These are basic facts we learn as children.

Have the last word if you wish.

 

[keithr]

What would you call a person who has repented of his sin?

I would call him/her "a person who has repented of their sins". If they also believe the Gospel and then are baptized, then I would call them a Christian. Christians are human beings, not angels.

Jesus said, Mark 1:15 (WEB):

(15) and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and God’s Kingdom is at hand! Repent, and believe in the Good News.”​

Acts 2:38 (WEB):

(38) Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.​

Acts 11:26 (WEB):

(26) ... For a whole year they were gathered together with the assembly, and taught many people. The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.​

The Cambridge Bible notes says:

the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch] It is most probable that this name was given them by the heathen in ridicule. The disciples of Jesus never give it to themselves, and as the use of it would imply that those who bore it were the followers of the Messiah, the Christ, it is certain it would not be given to them by the Jews. The reason for a new distinctive term is apparent. When these new Gentile converts were joined to the Church of Antioch, none of the former distinctive appellations would embrace the whole body. They were no longer all Nazarenes or Galilæans or Greek-Jews, and as to the people of Antioch they probably seemed a strange medley, they would not be unlikely to apply to them such a hybrid form as “Christian,” a Greek word with a Latin termination. The name is probably used in mockery by Agrippa (Acts 26:28), “With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian,” but in the only other and later instance of the use of the name in the N. T. (1Peter 4:16) we can see that what had been at first a taunt had soon come to be a name in which to glory, “If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed.”​

 

[Phil .]

Well if you are asking about directly hearing a tree fall if no one is there- no we do not have direct observation.

Exactly. The experience is of an assumption. That we have direct observation is three assumptions.

But when that tree falls, it makes a sound whether one is there to hear it or not.

Same assumption again.

Seriously have you gone so metaphysical that you cannot see the simple basic reality of this?

I’m present & haven’t gone anywhere. That that isn’t an experience of thoughts is another assumption.

By assumption I just mean isn’t actually true of ‘your own’ direct experience. It’s a thought, assumed to be true, which isn’t.

This is just a bunch of metaphysical word salad.

No one else feels the discord of judgmental thoughts as it’s directly experienced.

I love you and wish you the very best!

If this is what floats your boat- go for it. but I think we have reached the end of the road here. I cannot argue against ones personal metaphysical musings other than to say reality is reality, words have specific meaning, trees make a sound when they fall even unobserved, birds chirp even if we do not hewar them. These are basic facts we learn as children.

Have the last word if you wish.

‘Arguing’ is an interpretation, an assumption, which is directly experienced as well. There is no arguing actually happening. There are no personal metaphysical musings happening. Only (apparently) an assumption projected that there is. The rest of what you said is assumptions. Not direct experience.