The Kingdom of Jesus

[_Quasimodo]

You missed, or ignored my point on that; as the world descends into corruption and violence, the wicked will wind up eliminating the wicked, as the Lamanites did with the Nephites; I doubt Christ will have any blood on His hands. In any event, in a choice of government between Jesus Christ and Lucifer, who currently rules this earth, would you seriously hesitate and weigh the two?

I think the world is getting better. Things seem to be on an upswing, right now. We're no longer on the verge of a nuclear holocaust and the world is gradually moving towards Democracy. The wicked (not sure who they are) don't seem to have much of a foot hold, never mind eliminating other wicked people. The word "wicked" is not from biblical times, by the way, just a reference to "Wicca" (a pre-Christian, Celtic religion).

Another interesting word is "bless", which means to anoint with blood. I guess Jesus did have some blood on his hands.

Lucifer is another really good one. It means "Morning Star" (bringer of light... Venus). A misinterpretation of Isaiah 14:3-20. It has nothing to do with Satan.

Oh, and Satan is not a name. It's the job title of an angel that does God's bidding by opposing the bad actions of mortals.

You should look all these up.

[_zeezrom]

But Quas, don't forget about the mini skirt!

Trends for 2012:

You can often meet during this season mini-skirts. The most popular are tight-fitting mini-skirts, decorated with different applications (Emilio de la Morena). Also in collections Balmain you can meet bell-bottomed mini-skirts which were very popular during this spring.

http://www.pandorasrack.com/fashion-trends/fashion-trends-in-skirts-in-2012,4edc5141d7d56

!

[_Quasimodo]

But Quas, don't forget about the mini skirt!

Trends for 2012:

You can often meet during this season mini-skirts. The most popular are tight-fitting mini-skirts, decorated with different applications (Emilio de la Morena). Also in collections Balmain you can meet bell-bottomed mini-skirts which were very popular during this spring.

http://www.pandorasrack.com/fashion-trends/fashion-trends-in-skirts-in-2012,4edc5141d7d56

!

As always, Z, you are quite correct. How could I forget one of my favorite fashion statements (both old and current).

I was at the movies last night with the my wife ("The Decedents"). I caught myself looking at all the mini-skirts there in the audience. I was inspired. I hope the my wife didn't catch me looking.

[_Stormy Waters]

By nature, the lion will eat the lamb … and yet one of the main concepts of the New Jerusalem is that it is a Paradisiacal existence, where the lion lays with the lamb. I assume just as miraculous of a human nature change could be expected.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were still permitted to disobey. Even in Heaven, Satan in his angels were able to rebel against God (Revelation 12:7-9). If angels in heaven are able to rebel, why won't the people in this paradisiacal existence be able to?

[_Drifting]

By nature, the lion will eat the lamb … and yet one of the main concepts of the New Jerusalem is that it is a Paradisiacal existence, where the lion lays with the lamb. I assume just as miraculous of a human nature change could be expected.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were still permitted to disobey. Even in Heaven, Satan in his angels were able to rebel against God (Revelation 12:7-9). If angels in heaven are able to rebel, why won't the people in this paradisiacal existence be able to?

Interesting thought.
If the angel titled Satan was able to be tempted away from God's plan - who was to blame for that temptation?

[_Yoda]

By nature, the lion will eat the lamb … and yet one of the main concepts of the New Jerusalem is that it is a Paradisiacal existence, where the lion lays with the lamb. I assume just as miraculous of a human nature change could be expected.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were still permitted to disobey. Even in Heaven, Satan in his angels were able to rebel against God (Revelation 12:7-9). If angels in heaven are able to rebel, why won't the people in this paradisiacal existence be able to?

Maybe they just simply won't want to?

Let's take a look at this. What do people fight over? They fight over land...they fight over gain...money, essentially.

What happens if everyone's needs are met? The absence of struggling for physical needs frees time up for development of a spiritual nature. If everyone was freed of that burden, and could simply concentrate on talents and family, would there really be a need or a want to rebel? For what purpose?

[_zeezrom]

Liz if nobody wanted to "disobey" i.e. deviate, it would be hell.

[_Yoda]

Liz if nobody wanted to "disobey" i.e. deviate, it would be hell.

Why?

[_Runtu]

Liz if nobody wanted to "disobey" i.e. deviate, it would be hell.

You just reminded me of a long-ago conversation I had with John Redelfs, founder of the old ZION-L email list I was on many years ago. Redelfs believed that, the more righteous you were, the more united you became in thought, such that there was and could not be anything but unanimity in the highest quorums of the priesthood. In the celestial kingdom, he believed, we would all be so united that our thoughts would all be the same, and the same as God's. He based this on a few scriptures about being of one mind and pure in heart, but also on the notion that the first presidency and quorum of the 12 always make decisions based on absolute consensus. Thus, he envisioned the brethren's meetings as being simple formalities to ratify what they are already thinking.

I mentioned that, in my experience in the COB, I had seen that there are often major disagreements and even a little contention once in a while among the brethren, and that consensus usually means putting out that which is least offensive to all the brethren. I liked the idea that God would choose different people with different perspectives and ask them to work together to build the kingdom; I did not like the idea of men who just occupied a seat as a formality.

If we accept that Jesus will usher in His kingdom, we don't necessarily have to believe that there will never be any disagreement; it's that disagreement that often makes for the best outcomes.

[_Yoda]

If we accept that Jesus will usher in His kingdom, we don't necessarily have to believe that there will never be any disagreement; it's that disagreement that often makes for the best outcomes.

Agreed. And, I am not implying that disagreement won't ever occur. I am simply saying that disagreement resulting in war, murder, and violence, in general, will not be happening. There will be no base need for anything like that to happen.