21 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe sense of life. That is the ZOE divine and spiritual life received in the human spirit.
[b]…I can recall many instances when God was or was not happy with me…
At each one of those moments of time, how did you acquire the knowledge that “god” was or was not happy specifically with you?[/b]
"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit." (1 Cor. 6:17)
The inner sense of the divine life indwelling my spirit.
"The mind set on the spirit is life and peace."
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
22 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Dance Master MCContentment? Inner peace? Boy it's hard to argue that anyone would be more content than a buddhist. I'd be a buddhist if I didn't have huge problems with karma and reincarnation, but I do use a lot of buddhist ideas, thought, and social action. I also subscribe to some buddhist quarterlies; I like their mental approach to life.
Does anyone believe that most followers of any one religion are happier (or more content with themselves) than followers of another religion? i.e. Bhuddists are usually happier than Muslims
Sorry if this question is stupid, I'm just typing my train of thought right now...
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by BadwaterKarma. Huh.
Contentment? Inner peace? Boy it's hard to argue that anyone would be more content than a buddhist. I'd be a buddhist if I didn't have huge problems with karma and reincarnation, but I do use a lot of buddhist ideas, thought, and social action. I also subscribe to some buddhist quarterlies; I like their mental approach to life.
What is that avatar? A cat with a machine gun?
Yeah, I kinda see what you mean.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by scherzoKarma, yeah. Karma is that you are responsible for everything that happens to you. I've never been able to accept that a 5-year old Rwandan famine and rape victum is somehow resposible for what happened to her just because of karma.
Karma. Huh.
What is that avatar? A cat with a machine gun?
Yeah, I kinda see what you mean.
And the cat's a cartoon, a fictional thing - it's not like it's me. Cats can't carry machine guns, so what's your point?
22 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by BadwaterTake a walk on the Zen side. Leave the metaphysics behind.
Contentment? Inner peace? Boy it's hard to argue that anyone would be more content than a buddhist. I'd be a buddhist if I didn't have huge problems with karma and reincarnation, but I do use a lot of buddhist ideas, thought, and social action. I also subscribe to some buddhist quarterlies; I like their mental approach to life.
All this “I would be a Buddhist, but...”; “I would be a Christian, but...”; etc., etc. Neither dismiss the forms because they can’t be anything but forms, nor adhere to any form uncritically.
I wasted a lot of time searching for the “right “ form. Then I wasted a lot of time being disgruntled because every form I tried had all the limitations of being just—a form. Now, I just speak in terms of whatever form I find helpful at the moment, in whatever given context.
All religious language is either iconographic or idolatrous. It is as misguided to judge the territory according to the map as it is to dismiss all maps because they are—in the end—only limited in their ability to “define” the territory. Maps can be useful; they can also be traps.
The referent precedes every sign that is applied to describe, circumscribe, conceptualize, or just point to it.
Whenever someone says, “I am a _________”; they are usually naming the map they adhere to, nothing more. Whenever someone says, “I am not a _______ ”; they are just rejecting that map. Maps are just functional. They are (in the context of spirituality here) just ways of thinking. Reality is prior to how we think about it, prior to the names (God, Brahman, Tao), symbols and categories we use to describe it.
Some people find this map more useful—in terms of getting to the territory; others find that map more useful. The fault is not really with the maps, but with how people apply them—or, rather, with how some people insist on their map as the only “right” one.
If I cite from map X, people think I’m an “X-ist”; if I cite from map Y, they think I’m a “Y-ist.” I have spent far too much time saying things like, “I am not a Z-ist!”
At the moment—in the limited context of writing posts for an internet forum—I am whatever I am saying.
So, don't really take a walk on the "Zen" side: take a walk in the territory. Then say whatever you want... 🙂
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
22 Jul 08
I believe I did say whatever I wanted.
More and more I tend to lean toward an interfaith spirituality. I look to someone like Gandhi, who congealed various components of different religions and came up with what, for him, was a working spirituality that he could work with. Not be comfortable with, work with. It was still a spiritual expression that challenged him all his life; yet, I get the sense that he always kept the focus of his spiritual truth clear and in his sights. I admire that rather than throw away all of a religion because he had some misgivings about some of its premise(s), he used what seemed to him to make sense.
So if I say "I'd be a buddhist, but..." then I do. I'm the only one who has to live with any of my convictions.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by jaywillI am not sure what any of that means.
The sense of life. That is the ZOE divine and spiritual life received in the human spirit.
[b]"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit." (1 Cor. 6:17)
The inner sense of the divine life indwelling my spirit.
"The mind set on the spirit is life and peace." [/b]
OK; Can you give a specific example of a typical instance which you MAY have of you acquire knowledge of whether or not “god” is happy AND explain in detail the mental process by which you acquired that knowledge?
And does this mental process involve “hearing god” with your ears or “seeing god” with your eyes? -or what?
And does this mental process involve “god” deliberately communicating with you?
-if so, do you hear voices in your head that you suppose is the voice of god? If not, does he send you text-messages (sorry! -bad joke! -but I hope you still get the bases of my question) or what? and, do you have a two-way communication with “god” just like you can have a two-way communication with me?
22 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBefore you are regenerated, before you are born again one component of your being is in a comatose state. It is deadenend. That is one reason why the Bible speaks of "BORN ... anew"
I am not sure what any of that means.
OK; Can you give a specific example of a typical instance which you MAY have of you acquire knowledge of whether or not “god” is happy AND explain in detail the mental process by which you acquired that knowledge?
And does this mental process involve “hearing god” with your ears or “seeing god” with your ey ...[text shortened]... have a two-way communication with “god” just like you can have a two-way communication with me?
The sense of life I speak of in involves the mind detecting the function of that part of your being.
This part of a man's being is called the human spirit. It is not the same thing as the human soul. But it is an important part of the total human being that is missing before that person is born anew.
The person not yet born anew has a spirit but it is deadened and in a comatose state. She or he does sense that something is missing.
Sometimes a person who has not been regenerated - nor be born of the Holy Spirit, will go to a party or pleasurable event. They will be happy in their emotions. But they sense deep within their being that something undefinable is missing.
The question they may ask themselves is "Why does this not make me REALLY satisfied? Is this ALL there is to my life?"
I believe that this sense is the sense of the missing human spirit. It is the sense that one part of a person's being is NOT there.
Now when this person receives Jesus as the Lord and Savior that missing element is made alive. The Bible calls this regeneration. The missing dimension to their human life is suddenly brought into their consciousness.
I can go no deeper than this with you at this time. But this sense or this kind of intuitive detection deep in the innermost being of a man involves more and more events in connection with "hearing" God and "seeing" God, and fellowshipping with God and having communion with God.
There is a sense of the spirit. If you are not born again I think you will sense the absence of a dimension of human life.
Now, the atheist may adopt an attitude of just living with that sense of absence. I mean if it involves God, which he intends to deny, he may want to deny also that there IS any such feeling of loss.
This innermost spirit is the key to intuitively sensing the mind of Christ and fellowshipping with the Triune God.
www.regenerated.net
23 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by BadwaterI'm sorry: I did not mean my post as critically as you might have taken it, and as it likely seemed. You just triggered my own thinking, which is pretty close to yours. I pretty much agree with what you say here.
I believe I did say whatever I wanted.
More and more I tend to lean toward an interfaith spirituality. I look to someone like Gandhi, who congealed various components of different religions and came up with what, for him, was a working spirituality that he could work with. Not be comfortable with, work with. It was still a spiritual expression that chall a buddhist, but..." then I do. I'm the only one who has to live with any of my convictions.
Sometimes the "you" is a general "you", and is not intended to target the individual to whose post I am responding. I often try to make that clear; in this case I failed to do so.
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by Rajk999
I have never yet read any book on Christianity other than the bible.
Originally posted by SmoothCowboy
I agree they do add much confusion.
Why are you proud to confess your willful ignorance? Such hubris makes it sound like no one
could possibly teach you something different about the Bible than you already know or figure
you can work out on your own.
Indeed, if you are so knowledgeable about the Bible, then reading such books should only
reaffirm what you know or provide you with a different model to strike down so-called bad
arguments.
That you would brag that you've not read any criticisms, perspectives, arguments, or observations
about the Bible is just a shameful testimony.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by vistesdUnderstood. 🙂
I'm sorry: I did not mean my post as critically as you might have taken it, and as it likely seemed. You just triggered my own thinking, which is pretty close to yours. I pretty much agree with what you say here.
Sometimes the "you" is a general "you", and is not intended to target the individual to whose post I am responding. I often try to make that clear; in this case I failed to do so.
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by NemesioOne thing I am certain of ... you cannot teach me anything new about what Christ said. The words of Christ is the road to salvation. Anything else is optional reading. I dont need any ".. criticisms, perspectives, arguments, or observations..." .
Originally posted by Rajk999
[b]I have never yet read any book on Christianity other than the bible.
Originally posted by SmoothCowboy
I agree they do add much confusion.
Why are you proud to confess your willful ignorance? Such hubris makes it sound like no one
could possibly teach you something different about the Bible t ...[text shortened]... spectives, arguments, or observations
about the Bible is just a shameful testimony.
Nemesio[/b]
Go find someone else to attack.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999This really is an appalling view to adopt. How could you possibly understand (or be certain of the meaning of) the words of Christ without biblical criticism? English translations are not a perfect imitation of Koine Greek; translations will not capture the subtlety and allusive nature that all languages possess. We need commentaries and critical volumes to explain this. For example, in the Gospel of Luke, there is a scene in which the crowds cry after a miraculous healing, "God has visited upon this house" (this is recalled from memory, so I do not presume much accuracy...treat it as a hypothetical), deploying the same verb the Septuagint uses to describe God's visitation in the end-times. The theological significance of this is profoundly important to understanding Luke's eschatological view of Jesus, but is impossible to see without a commentary.
One thing I am certain of ... you cannot teach me anything new about what Christ said. The words of Christ is the road to salvation. Anything else is optional reading. I dont need any ".. criticisms, perspectives, arguments, or observations..." .
Go find someone else to attack.
Surely, if you really were committed to understanding the words of Christ, you would want to invest in some commentaries just to see whether your interpretations stand as valid when compared to alternative perspectives. This really is hubris on your part. Talking about epistemic irresponsibility...
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau KLets see.... how should I say this without offending you and Nemesio. I think you both remind me of my sister. When we go to visit she has this way of telling everyone what to do, how to behave, what to think, what to eat. eg she will say that we are all going to eat smoked salmon, cream cheese and French Bread for breakfast. So there I am thinking ... I feel like eating just a F***ing ham sandwich .. dont care for either salmon or cream cheese. Why the hell does she care what I eat.
This really is an appalling view to adopt. How could you possibly understand (or be certain of the meaning of) the words of Christ without biblical criticism? English translations are not a perfect imitation of Koine Greek; translations will not capture the subtlety and allusive nature that all languages possess. We need commentaries and critical volumes to ...[text shortened]... erspectives. This really is hubris on your part. Talking about epistemic irresponsibility...
Its probably a personality flaw that both you and Nemesio need to work on .. the uncontrolable desire to tell people what they should or should not do. This forum is about discusing spirituality and religion. It does not include getting involved in people's choices.
My statement about not reading certain types of books arose when I was advised to read a book about the life of a Christian. I do have access to concordances and other references, and I used these. I dont need to look at Oprah to know how to live my life .. if you know what I mean. Thanks for the advice anyway.