The Least Commandment

Miri · Jun 23, 2018

I think the key is the last bit about righteousness exceeding the
Pharisees.

I heard that the Pharisees, would to add to the 10 commandments.
So to avoid breaking the sabbath. They put all sorts of rules in place for
example about the distance you could travel.

They hedged in the 10 commandments with other rules, yet despite this
Jesus said they were like white washed tombs containing dead men’s bones.

(Who said Jesus didn’t have a sense of humour!)

It was Jesus’ way of saying laws and rules don’t work, there has to be more
than just doing the does and not doing the dont’s.

There has to be a change of heart, a fixed spirit. A change inside.
Plus men’s righteousness is like filthy rags. Jesus was saying we have to be
better than the Pharisees who tried to do everything right but even in
their right way of doing stuff, they were full of pride and condemnation for
others. They bent the rules to avoid things too.

They tried to obey every single tiny thing but they were still sinful.

People around would have been shocked, probably thinking that if there is no
hope for the Pharisees, there is no hope for us either. But there was hope in
Jesus.

posthuman · Jun 24, 2018

whatev said:

yes, i really do 'think in math' haha
be warned! if i can, i'm probably going to try to make you do it too!!

"algebra" in university-level & beyond mathematics means something different than what it means in a class on manipulating variable expressions. you can think of it as the study of how x & y are related and can be related to each other -- instead of how to move them around in an equation, it's the underpinning of all that 'moving around.' how to define things like '+' and '-', whether x + y exists and what it means to add them together. all the algebra you've probably ever done was in a certain space, the real numbers and the Cartesian coordinate system, where x + y is intuitive and well defined. that's not the only space that exists. 'algebra' is the study of all such spaces and all such operations and relations within each space, defining 'groups' of elements, which aren't necessarily numbers, and defining characteristics of them.

STEM = science, technology, engineering and mathematics. i dunno why they put them all together i guess they're typically on the same side of campus lol
do y'all really call it "SPAG" ?? i've never heard of that. i've probably been kind of insulated on the STEM side of the campus, or go directly the art department without passing "go" -- interesting

i should probably explain a little bit what a "basis" is in terms of linear algebra, so it's clearer what i mean by thinking of the two greatest as a basis rather than a definition. i don't want to lose everyone reading by talking too much about abstract concepts, so even though properly you should think of a 'basis' as an abstraction you can apply in an enormous variety of settings, i'm just going to give an example that should be easy to comprehend, and say, think about this and how it can be analogous to other situations that don't necessarily involve numbers:

consider a plane, with x and y axis.

all the points on this plane, you can write as a pair (x, y)
you've got the origin, (0, 0) where x = 0 and y = 0.
you've got an infinite number of other points, like (15, 37) where x = 15, y = 37
etc.

you can express any point (x, y) as a combination of other points.
(15, 37) = (7, 42) + (8, -5)

we can write that a little differently...

this isn't the only way to get the point (15, 37) as a combination of other points, of course; there are are an infinite number of combinations of other points that give us (15, 37). here's a much simpler one:

notice we can write this a little differently, too..

in fact, for any point (x, y) in the whole plane we can express it like this:

now suppose we had a couple of other vectors instead of {[1 0]', [0 1]'} -- call them [a b]' and [c d]'
and suppose that these work out such that for any (x, y) we can find a couple of numbers {p, q} such that

if we can do that for every (x, y) that exists in the plane, then {[a b]', [c d]'} are a basis for the plane.
to be a basis means we can describe everything in the plane as a linear combination of the basis elements
((by 'linear combination' i mean you scale the basis by some number - which may be 0 or may be negative - and add them together))

the natural, simplest basis for the X-Y plane is of course this:

but it's not the only one possible. depending on the space we're talking about, there may be no basis, 1 basis, or any number of basis, even an infinite number. try to think of this in an abstract way, such that you can apply it to all kinds of situations, not just a plane, and even not just numbers... anything.

so what i meant was that the Law is like our 'plane' and that the two greatest commandments are like two vectors - two vectors that you can 'scale' and 'add' together in order to describe every other Law.
that every Law can be described as some kind of combination of these two.
in that sense i'm saying they form a 'basis' not a 'definition' -- because we're not 'defining' (15, 37) by saying it's equal to (7, 42) plus (8, -5), we're 'describing' it in terms of these other two points by saying it's these when we apply "+" to them.

the other thing i was saying is that Jesus didn't refer to them as 'equal' -- He called one the greatest, and the other the next. so i hypothesize that "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul" by itself may form a basis for all the commandments. in order to prove that, mathematically, if i already know that {A, B} forms a basis, all i need to do is show that B is a linear combination of A -- that i can arrive at B by 'multiplying' or 'scaling' A by something -- that Ax = B for some x.

if i love others because i love God, then loving God is the basis of loving others, so loving others is not part of the basis of all the Law and prophets, instead, loving God is actually alone the basis ((the greatest commandment)) of all this, including loving others.

. . and i think maybe i can prove that is the case . .

We love because He first loved us.

(1 John 4:19)

congratulations!
you reached the end of post's super-long post.
it even contained a whole lot of math! wow!
you win

or maybe you just skipped to it... cheater! lol j/k i understand.

Miri · Jun 24, 2018

posthuman said:

yes, i really do 'think in math' haha
be warned! if i can, i'm probably going to try to make you do it too!!

"algebra" in university-level & beyond mathematics means something different than what it means in a class on manipulating variable expressions. you can think of it as the study of how x & y are related and can be related to each other -- instead of how to move them around in an equation, it's the underpinning of all that 'moving around.' how to define things like '+' and '-', whether x + y exists and what it means to add them together. all the algebra you've probably ever done was in a certain space, the real numbers and the Cartesian coordinate system, where x + y is intuitive and well defined. that's not the only space that exists. 'algebra' is the study of all such spaces and all such operations and relations within each space, defining 'groups' of elements, which aren't necessarily numbers, and defining characteristics of them.

STEM = science, technology, engineering and mathematics. i dunno why they put them all together i guess they're typically on the same side of campus lol
do y'all really call it "SPAG" ?? i've never heard of that. i've probably been kind of insulated on the STEM side of the campus, or go directly the art department without passing "go" -- interesting

i should probably explain a little bit what a "basis" is in terms of linear algebra, so it's clearer what i mean by thinking of the two greatest as a basis rather than a definition. i don't want to lose everyone reading by talking too much about abstract concepts, so even though properly you should think of a 'basis' as an abstraction you can apply in an enormous variety of settings, i'm just going to give an example that should be easy to comprehend, and say, think about this and how it can be analogous to other situations that don't necessarily involve numbers:

consider a plane, with x and y axis.

View attachment 184426

all the points on this plane, you can write as a pair (x, y)
you've got the origin, (0, 0) where x = 0 and y = 0.
you've got an infinite number of other points, like (15, 37) where x = 15, y = 37
etc.

you can express any point (x, y) as a combination of other points.
(15, 37) = (7, 42) + (8, -5)

we can write that a little differently...

View attachment 184429

this isn't the only way to get the point (15, 37) as a combination of other points, of course; there are are an infinite number of combinations of other points that give us (15, 37). here's a much simpler one:

View attachment 184430

notice we can write this a little differently, too..

View attachment 184431

in fact, for any point (x, y) in the whole plane we can express it like this:

View attachment 184432

now suppose we had a couple of other vectors instead of {[1 0]', [0 1]'} -- call them [a b]' and [c d]'
and suppose that these work out such that for any (x, y) we can find a couple of numbers {p, q} such that

View attachment 184433

if we can do that for every (x, y) that exists in the plane, then {[a b]', [c d]'} are a basis for the plane.
to be a basis means we can describe everything in the plane as a linear combination of the basis elements
((by 'linear combination' i mean you scale the basis by some number - which may be 0 or may be negative - and add them together))

the natural, simplest basis for the X-Y plane is of course this:

View attachment 184434

but it's not the only one possible. depending on the space we're talking about, there may be no basis, 1 basis, or any number of basis, even an infinite number. try to think of this in an abstract way, such that you can apply it to all kinds of situations, not just a plane, and even not just numbers... anything.

so what i meant was that the Law is like our 'plane' and that the two greatest commandments are like two vectors - two vectors that you can 'scale' and 'add' together in order to describe every other Law.
that every Law can be described as some kind of combination of these two.
in that sense i'm saying they form a 'basis' not a 'definition' -- because we're not 'defining' (15, 37) by saying it's equal to (7, 42) plus (8, -5), we're 'describing' it in terms of these other two points by saying it's these when we apply "+" to them.

the other thing i was saying is that Jesus didn't refer to them as 'equal' -- He called one the greatest, and the other the next. so i hypothesize that "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul" by itself may form a basis for all the commandments. in order to prove that, mathematically, if i already know that {A, B} forms a basis, all i need to do is show that B is a linear combination of A -- that i can arrive at B by 'multiplying' or 'scaling' A by something -- that Ax = B for some x.

if i love others because i love God, then loving God is the basis of loving others, so loving others is not part of the basis of all the Law and prophets, instead, loving God is actually alone the basis ((the greatest commandment)) of all this, including loving others.

. . and i think maybe i can prove that is the case . .

We love because He first loved us.

(1 John 4:19)

congratulations!
you reached the end of post's super-long post.
it even contained a whole lot of math! wow!
you win

or maybe you just skipped to it... cheater! lol j/k i understand.

Ok I surrender you’ve made my brain hurt, where are the aspirin. Lol

posthuman · Jun 24, 2018

Deade said:

Mrs. posts first reaction to this question was that isn't the 'least' commandment different for everyone? that it's the thing that you personally consider either the 'smallest' bit of obedience, or the 'least important' ? like the saying goes, 'the least you could do for me..' or 'he doesn't care in the least..'
she didn't initially understand what i was asking though, this was before i showed her the verse that the question originated from and explained what i thought was being implied by what He says there.

i think, what you are saying is similar -- that you considered the command to remember the seventh day 'least'
as i said earlier, as JaumeJ brought up, it's Gods measure, not any particular persons, that i think is relevant to the answer

i'd guess there are probably other commandments in the Law you actually think 'lesser' of -- like keeping the New Moon festival for example?

posthuman · Jun 24, 2018

Deade said:

aha!

here's a sorting method we could try;
we could say that whatever didn't call for a death penalty must be 'lesser' than what did. so the "least" must be in the set of things that weren't punished by physical execution.
this would cut the size of the search-set down considerably

posthuman · Jun 24, 2018

Deade said:

that's not true, by the way.

for example:

If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you. Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

(Deuteronomy 19:16-21)

the punishment for bearing false witness could be death if the liar intended by his lie to have someone else be put to death.
but it's not necessarily death.
punishment for bearing false witness ((so-called 9th commandment, Exodus 20:16)) could be a fine, or a whipping, or loss of property. it could simply be a loss of respect, if someone was simply slandering another person to ruin their reputation.
for example if someone falsely accused a person of adultery, the accuser could be put to death. but if a person falsely accused another of touching a dead body, then the accuser could be himself unclean for 7 days, and have to go through the purification rites or remain exiled.

another example, stealing ((8th, Exodus 20:15)) is punished by repaying double what was stolen -- Exodus 22:1-4 -- not physical death.

Deade · Jun 24, 2018

posthuman said:

that's not true, by the way.

for example:

If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you. Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

(Deuteronomy 19:16-21)

the punishment for bearing false witness could be death if the liar intended by his lie to have someone else be put to death.
but it's not necessarily death.
punishment for bearing false witness ((so-called 9th commandment, Exodus 20:16)) could be a fine, or a whipping, or loss of property. it could simply be a loss of respect, if someone was simply slandering another person to ruin their reputation.
for example if someone falsely accused a person of adultery, the accuser could be put to death. but if a person falsely accused another of touching a dead body, then the accuser could be himself unclean for 7 days, and have to go through the purification rites or remain exiled.

another example, stealing ((8th, Exodus 20:15)) is punished by repaying double what was stolen -- Exodus 22:1-4 -- not physical death.

See, you are beginning to understand the imperfections of the letter of the law. Things like restitution and bearing false witness must be looked at in perspective. Like you pointed out if you lied and caused a person's death, you could be condemned also. If you are burglarising and are caught red-handed you could be killed, right then. That is why we must interpret the law as spiritual and keep it thus.

whatev · Jun 24, 2018

posthuman said:

yes, i really do 'think in math' haha
be warned! if i can, i'm probably going to try to make you do it too!!

"algebra" in university-level & beyond mathematics means something different than what it means in a class on manipulating variable expressions. you can think of it as the study of how x & y are related and can be related to each other -- instead of how to move them around in an equation, it's the underpinning of all that 'moving around.' how to define things like '+' and '-', whether x + y exists and what it means to add them together. all the algebra you've probably ever done was in a certain space, the real numbers and the Cartesian coordinate system, where x + y is intuitive and well defined. that's not the only space that exists. 'algebra' is the study of all such spaces and all such operations and relations within each space, defining 'groups' of elements, which aren't necessarily numbers, and defining characteristics of them.

STEM = science, technology, engineering and mathematics. i dunno why they put them all together i guess they're typically on the same side of campus lol
do y'all really call it "SPAG" ?? i've never heard of that. i've probably been kind of insulated on the STEM side of the campus, or go directly the art department without passing "go" -- interesting

i should probably explain a little bit what a "basis" is in terms of linear algebra, so it's clearer what i mean by thinking of the two greatest as a basis rather than a definition. i don't want to lose everyone reading by talking too much about abstract concepts, so even though properly you should think of a 'basis' as an abstraction you can apply in an enormous variety of settings, i'm just going to give an example that should be easy to comprehend, and say, think about this and how it can be analogous to other situations that don't necessarily involve numbers:

consider a plane, with x and y axis.

View attachment 184426

all the points on this plane, you can write as a pair (x, y)
you've got the origin, (0, 0) where x = 0 and y = 0.
you've got an infinite number of other points, like (15, 37) where x = 15, y = 37
etc.

you can express any point (x, y) as a combination of other points.
(15, 37) = (7, 42) + (8, -5)

we can write that a little differently...

View attachment 184429

this isn't the only way to get the point (15, 37) as a combination of other points, of course; there are are an infinite number of combinations of other points that give us (15, 37). here's a much simpler one:

View attachment 184430

notice we can write this a little differently, too..

View attachment 184431

in fact, for any point (x, y) in the whole plane we can express it like this:

View attachment 184432

now suppose we had a couple of other vectors instead of {[1 0]', [0 1]'} -- call them [a b]' and [c d]'
and suppose that these work out such that for any (x, y) we can find a couple of numbers {p, q} such that

View attachment 184433

if we can do that for every (x, y) that exists in the plane, then {[a b]', [c d]'} are a basis for the plane.
to be a basis means we can describe everything in the plane as a linear combination of the basis elements
((by 'linear combination' i mean you scale the basis by some number - which may be 0 or may be negative - and add them together))

the natural, simplest basis for the X-Y plane is of course this:

View attachment 184434

but it's not the only one possible. depending on the space we're talking about, there may be no basis, 1 basis, or any number of basis, even an infinite number. try to think of this in an abstract way, such that you can apply it to all kinds of situations, not just a plane, and even not just numbers... anything.

so what i meant was that the Law is like our 'plane' and that the two greatest commandments are like two vectors - two vectors that you can 'scale' and 'add' together in order to describe every other Law.
that every Law can be described as some kind of combination of these two.
in that sense i'm saying they form a 'basis' not a 'definition' -- because we're not 'defining' (15, 37) by saying it's equal to (7, 42) plus (8, -5), we're 'describing' it in terms of these other two points by saying it's these when we apply "+" to them.

the other thing i was saying is that Jesus didn't refer to them as 'equal' -- He called one the greatest, and the other the next. so i hypothesize that "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul" by itself may form a basis for all the commandments. in order to prove that, mathematically, if i already know that {A, B} forms a basis, all i need to do is show that B is a linear combination of A -- that i can arrive at B by 'multiplying' or 'scaling' A by something -- that Ax = B for some x.

if i love others because i love God, then loving God is the basis of loving others, so loving others is not part of the basis of all the Law and prophets, instead, loving God is actually alone the basis ((the greatest commandment)) of all this, including loving others.

. . and i think maybe i can prove that is the case . .

We love because He first loved us.

(1 John 4:19)

congratulations!
you reached the end of post's super-long post.
it even contained a whole lot of math! wow!
you win

or maybe you just skipped to it... cheater! lol j/k i understand.

So higher math isn't really numbers as much as logic? As in if A = B and B = C, than A = C? (And I just learned why two numbers are in a bracket together, but one number is on top of the other. Watching the Big Bang Theory might have just made more sense to me.)

If I'm interpreting your form of math correctly, I agree with you. We love God because he first loved us. And we love our neighbor because God first loved us, and then we love God, and God wants us to love our neighbor, so we love our neighbors out of love for God who loved us first. (And, that is a perfect run-on sentence.

Which, if I'm catching the math right makes God loved us first the basis. And loving God and loving neighbor is what comes from basis? Yeah? Yeah, yeah, yeah?

Also, just so you know, SPAG isn't what we call the other side of the math/technology people. It's how I interpret it. Most of this side calls us English/history people, and call your side science/math people.

whatev · Jun 24, 2018

Deade said:

See, you are beginning to understand the imperfections of the letter of the law. Things like restitution and bearing false witness must be looked at in perspective. Like you pointed out if you lied and caused a person's death, you could be condemned also. If you are burglarising and are caught red-handed you could be killed, right then. That is why we must interpret the law as spiritual and keep it thus.

View attachment 184436

Robbing someone isn't the death penalty though.

posthuman · Jun 24, 2018

whatev said:

[a b] means

and [a b]' means

the ' means transpose which changes rows to columns in a matrix & vice-versa

[a b]' is a vector, which is a matrix with only one column. it's like a direction.

(a, b) is an ordered pair, sometimes called a "tuple" of size 2 ((as opposed to a 3-tuple (a, b, c) or an n-tuple in general)) - it's like coordinates.

i've never seen the big bang theory. i refuse

theanointedsinner · Jun 26, 2018

Deade said:

Things like restitution and bearing false witness must be looked at in perspective <-- such strong evidence to prove that laws viewed legalistically, can be a big weakness.

as an example, a child can see something and feel fully convinced of the truth, but the parents can falsely accuse the child as lying, a parent can misunderstand their child, if the parent punish the child, the child might wonder, "why am I being punished for telling the truth", or "is it good to lie" and as time goes on, the smallest consequence of confusion can beget more confusion (just as bad as Adam and Eve sinned and ruined the world), which will be quite a damage to the child. Only God can understand the heart of that child, and shake his head disapprovingly at how their parents "lean on their own understand"

Dan_473 · Jun 29, 2018

posthuman said:

yes, i really do 'think in math' haha
be warned! if i can, i'm probably going to try to make you do it too!!

"algebra" in university-level & beyond mathematics means something different than what it means in a class on manipulating variable expressions. you can think of it as the study of how x & y are related and can be related to each other -- instead of how to move them around in an equation, it's the underpinning of all that 'moving around.' how to define things like '+' and '-', whether x + y exists and what it means to add them together. all the algebra you've probably ever done was in a certain space, the real numbers and the Cartesian coordinate system, where x + y is intuitive and well defined. that's not the only space that exists. 'algebra' is the study of all such spaces and all such operations and relations within each space, defining 'groups' of elements, which aren't necessarily numbers, and defining characteristics of them.

STEM = science, technology, engineering and mathematics. i dunno why they put them all together i guess they're typically on the same side of campus lol
do y'all really call it "SPAG" ?? i've never heard of that. i've probably been kind of insulated on the STEM side of the campus, or go directly the art department without passing "go" -- interesting

i should probably explain a little bit what a "basis" is in terms of linear algebra, so it's clearer what i mean by thinking of the two greatest as a basis rather than a definition. i don't want to lose everyone reading by talking too much about abstract concepts, so even though properly you should think of a 'basis' as an abstraction you can apply in an enormous variety of settings, i'm just going to give an example that should be easy to comprehend, and say, think about this and how it can be analogous to other situations that don't necessarily involve numbers:

consider a plane, with x and y axis.

View attachment 184426

all the points on this plane, you can write as a pair (x, y)
you've got the origin, (0, 0) where x = 0 and y = 0.
you've got an infinite number of other points, like (15, 37) where x = 15, y = 37
etc.

you can express any point (x, y) as a combination of other points.
(15, 37) = (7, 42) + (8, -5)

we can write that a little differently...

View attachment 184429

this isn't the only way to get the point (15, 37) as a combination of other points, of course; there are are an infinite number of combinations of other points that give us (15, 37). here's a much simpler one:

View attachment 184430

notice we can write this a little differently, too..

View attachment 184431

in fact, for any point (x, y) in the whole plane we can express it like this:

View attachment 184432

now suppose we had a couple of other vectors instead of {[1 0]', [0 1]'} -- call them [a b]' and [c d]'
and suppose that these work out such that for any (x, y) we can find a couple of numbers {p, q} such that

View attachment 184433

if we can do that for every (x, y) that exists in the plane, then {[a b]', [c d]'} are a basis for the plane.
to be a basis means we can describe everything in the plane as a linear combination of the basis elements
((by 'linear combination' i mean you scale the basis by some number - which may be 0 or may be negative - and add them together))

the natural, simplest basis for the X-Y plane is of course this:

View attachment 184434

but it's not the only one possible. depending on the space we're talking about, there may be no basis, 1 basis, or any number of basis, even an infinite number. try to think of this in an abstract way, such that you can apply it to all kinds of situations, not just a plane, and even not just numbers... anything.

so what i meant was that the Law is like our 'plane' and that the two greatest commandments are like two vectors - two vectors that you can 'scale' and 'add' together in order to describe every other Law.
that every Law can be described as some kind of combination of these two.
in that sense i'm saying they form a 'basis' not a 'definition' -- because we're not 'defining' (15, 37) by saying it's equal to (7, 42) plus (8, -5), we're 'describing' it in terms of these other two points by saying it's these when we apply "+" to them.

the other thing i was saying is that Jesus didn't refer to them as 'equal' -- He called one the greatest, and the other the next. so i hypothesize that "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul" by itself may form a basis for all the commandments. in order to prove that, mathematically, if i already know that {A, B} forms a basis, all i need to do is show that B is a linear combination of A -- that i can arrive at B by 'multiplying' or 'scaling' A by something -- that Ax = B for some x.

if i love others because i love God, then loving God is the basis of loving others, so loving others is not part of the basis of all the Law and prophets, instead, loving God is actually alone the basis ((the greatest commandment)) of all this, including loving others.

. . and i think maybe i can prove that is the case . .

We love because He first loved us.

(1 John 4:19)

congratulations!
you reached the end of post's super-long post.
it even contained a whole lot of math! wow!
you win

or maybe you just skipped to it... cheater! lol j/k i understand.

An interesting way of looking at it!

The next step for me is to try to figure out how the second greatest commandment fulfills them all.

so-jesus-e-deus · Jun 29, 2018

posthuman said:

The one who most distances us from the love we should have for those whom Jesus places in our way. After all, the man wasn't make for the law, but the law was made for the man (Mark 2.27).

Karraster · Jun 30, 2018

"The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him..." (1 John 2:4)

mcubed · Jun 30, 2018

posthuman said:

This is such a "deep" post, for lack of a better term, I stopped, paused and paused again...

Please hear me!!!! Not for salvation but because I am saved I want to be like Him for righteousness sake, so the only thing I can measure with G-d's measuring stick righteousness is Torah.

The pharisees show me I cannot compare myself laterally. In my own eyes I will alway be more righteous, and the Law shows me comparing myself vertically, I fall short evry time, and it is by GRACE I AM SAVED!!!!
The Law is GOOD.... It is the ROD!!! But if one uses it for salvation, they will never be saved (We are only Saved by ACCEPTING MESSIAH).

Thinking about the pharisees... I cannot figure out who is saved and who is not... Oy!!! Look at me!!!! I am so GRATEFUL looking "spiritual" / or sounding "spiritual"to other men does not equal Salvation to G-d!!!!

posthuman · Jun 30, 2018

mcubed said:

the rod, held laterally and vertically -- that's beautiful; i never considered it before

mcubed · Jun 30, 2018

posthuman said:

From deep within me (my heart) thank you!!

posthuman · Nov 23, 2020

*bump*

it's been a couple of years and there are a lot of new voices around -- wonder if anyone has insight on what 'the least commandment' or the set of 'the least commandments' is?

posthuman said:

seed_time_harvest · Nov 23, 2020

posthuman said:

A person trying to keep the Ten Commandments will not keep them perfectly with their own strength but a person thats loving GOD and his neighbor are able to do that because they are GODs workmanship.

James 5:4
King James Version

4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

seed_time_harvest · Nov 23, 2020

posthuman said:

I thought you agreed with post#2.

The Least Commandment

Miri

Guest

Senior Member

Miri

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Called of God

whatev

Guest

whatev

Guest

Senior Member

theanointedsinner

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Karraster

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member