quote:If there were no perceived results at all, Christianity would have faded into mythology like Zeus and Apollo have. But there's something there, hard to define though it may be, apparently working for a lot of people, even if we don't fully understand it.
That seems a little inconsistent with the actual history of Christianity. From what I have read it's long lasting flavor seemed to to have to do with a generally appealing phylosophy and the power to back it up. That and the fact that one of its tenets is to proselytize....and the power to back that up.
I have a hunch that if I would have prayed to Papa Smurf before the interview of my now, new job, that I would still have gotten it. This is my limited and short lived perspective on things. Good things happen to those that pray to the Christian god, Budda, Alla, the devil, those that don't pray, those that don't deserve it, agnostics, aetheists, dogs, Jewish folks, dictators, the ants in my kitchen, everyone I know and everyone I don't know. Bad things also happen to them all, especially those damn ants. Some receive a little more of one than the other, some a lot more, sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't.
But in retrospect, now we can well imagine what went through the minds of some visitors who observed us speaking in tongues, even within the context of its orderly prescription. I bet they felt we were "pretty whacko" too (lol).
But many movements share the practice of chantings and glossalalia. It's certainly more common than I knew years ago, in movements both ancient and modern.
agreed, interesting to me Dan is that speaking in tongues has a prescription for speaking it in Corinthians, personally, I never really figured out how it fits, especially since i spent a lot of time in the Pentacostal church where everyone speaks it all the time. So i am cornfused on that one also.
Your comment:
I suppose truth might be regarded as either a telescope or a microscope - but one may experience better success toward tracing "centrist truths" when simply approaching various scriptures and writings of
varying beliefs with one's own eyes and heart.
You always got something good to say Danno, yes and amen its got to be individual.
With respect to Budda, I dont know anything about it. With respect to the history of that stuff I do find your knowledge to be quite phenomenal. I think you should own a library Dan unbelievable.
I am gonna post another thread below this one and look forward to your comments on the matter.
I would really like your comment on the administration concept DAn.
1)Personally I some times wonder if it isnt helpful to look at the church as "one body" and the denominations as "different administrations". Notice they are not "differing" administations by different ones. Personally I dont see the denominations fighting doctrinally a lot between each other anymore I think that is good.
2) Since I had limited involvement with TWI, some of the people in this room are really in tune with God. But after further review, I think TWI was a very very very dangerous cult. I am glad my involvement was limited. The thing that reinforces my opinion is the people who were in it who are now atheists and agnostics. God must have never stirred them, I dont get it. The huge error in my opinion, is "the living word and living epistles" which we all must take part of and the "written word" which must attest to all of our lives.
1)Personally I some times wonder if it isnt helpful to look at the church as "one body" and the denominations as "different administrations". Notice they are not "differing" administations by different ones. Personally I dont see the denominations fighting doctrinally a lot between each other anymore I think that is good.
As all churches being the same, one Body, but each particular church/group/sect being a different "member"?
I don't think it unreasonable in seeing it in that scale.
The churches appear extraordinarily diverse even from Christianity's earliest childhood.
I think in good part why Christians may digress on certain doctrines, and may continue to do so - i.e., on the topic of death, or in the Trinitarian-Unitarian debate, or in eschatology, etc., is because the source elements woven together into the patchwork of the New Testament writings themselves originated from diverse movements and communities , all of which, as today, did not always agree in their doctrinal perspectives. The efforts of the most adroit of editors and early theologians who worked on the NT canon could not entirely eradicate all the underlying differences. Much to any seeker's delight and reward.
quote:
2) Since I had limited involvement with TWI, some of the people in this room are really in tune with God. But after further review, I think TWI was a very very very dangerous cult. I am glad my involvement was limited. The thing that reinforces my opinion is the people who were in it who are now atheists and agnostics. God must have never stirred them, I dont get it. The huge error in my opinion, is "the living word and living epistles" which we all must take part of and the "written word" which must attest to all of our lives.
I'm actually under the opposite impression - that the number of atheists and agnostics is relatively small here. Are there really any more here to be found than with any other church or group? I don't think so, really.
Okay Zix, sure, I believe you. Being dishonest doesn't mean lying. Right, got it. Please forgive my ignorance of the subtle nuances of your words. I deeply regret causing you to put up with my many mischaracterizations and straw men. I most certainly will deal with it.
I also ask your forgiveness for being evasive, especially when the evasiveness is also drivel.
May I also beg pardon for expressing an opinion that did not answer your question in simple black and white terms? I realize now how bad gray areas are.
I don't know about the ex-TWI "community" at large, but the non-Christians are a minority at GS. Most of us have posted on this thread.
It is my observation that if one hooked up with TWI in order to know God or Jesus better, more often than not a separation from TWI would not slow that down, the goal is still there. Most people that I knew got involved with TWI as part of their quest for God, because it seemed to explain the Christianity that they were already involved with. After TWI getting involved in a church or ex-TWI offshoot seemed the most natural thing to do.
Good point about the names and rituals of the old deities changing. Many people in the pre-Christian era, and even well into it, saw the gods and goddesses as the same across cultural lines. Zeus = Jupiter = Odin = Dagda = et al. The rituals reflected differences in culture, as the names often did also. In fact Jesus = Mithra = Osirus wasn't unheard of either.
Longevity doesn't mean as much as some would have it. Sure Christianity has been around for about 2,000 years, and sure it supplanted Norse, Celtic and other beliefs; but what about Buddhism and Hinduism that it did not supplant? Both of those belief systems pre-date Christianity, and are still going strong today.
I do agree that no one was ever truly convinced to believe at swordpoint, but mass conversion of entire tribes and nations were the rule rather than the exception after Christianity got the power of the Roman Empire behind it. Ireland is a notable exception to the general rule. The Irish apparently converted willingly, person by person or family by family.
After the large scale conversions of the 4th century and following, whether an area converted willingly or not became moot, since it often became illegal to cling to the old religions or start new ones. You were forced to remain a Christian, unless you wanted to be burned.
"Consistently? For all within the religion? Is there then a formula under which it consistently works? Do those outside the religion or formula also have prayers answered?"
Answers 1 - 4
"1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
4) No."
In other words, prayer does work consistently for all within the religion and there is a proper forumula one must use when they pray. However, those outside of Christianity or those who do not use the proper formula will not consistenly have their prayers answered.
Yes, that is what I believe.
Anyone care to bite on this? I am curious 1) what is the proper formula? 2) Have any Christians ever used the proper formula and NOT had their prayer answered? 3) Has anyone of a religion outside of Christianity ever consistently had their prayers answered?
Honestly, Zix, if there is a proper formula I would love to learn it, because while I have certainly had a large number of prayers answered, there are still those which remain unanswered. BTW, how is it that I, whom an no longer Christian, can still have prayers answered? How is it my prayers were answered even before I ever became a Christian?
I'm not trying to be flip, dismissive, or insulting with this answer, but I don't know of anyone here who would understand the reasoning behind it if I gave it. As evidenced by previous discussions of similar topics, math just makes some folks' heads hurt, and analogies just make their eyes cross.
So that just leaves me with this: Yes, there's a formula, but we cannot comprehend the true extent of it since we're confined to nature. We may know some of the constants and variables, but it's impossible to know them all given our inherent limitations.
Next Group:
"How does one model what one has never seen? Trial and error? How does when know when one has erred if one has ever seen the accurate example?"
Answers:
"5) How were the electron, air, and the far side of the Sun modelled without ever being seen?
6) No.
7) Irrelevant, since accurate examples abound."
Honestly, I have no idea, never studied it. I imagine the effects of electrons and air are seen. Likewise one can see the "near side of the sun". So, we model after the effects?
For things we cannot sense otherwise, yes. It's all we can do. Regardless of the pictures in the elementary school science books, electrons probably are not little yellow balls with black minus signs painted on them. But they could be, for all we'll ever know about them. They are smaller than a wavelength of a photon of visible light, so we will never, ever be able to "see" an electron.
Doesn't make them imaginary or mythological constructs, though.
If it is not modelling by trial and error, then what is it? I mean from in the beginning - obviously you have a written standard to model after, but what about those who came before the written standard?
Oral tradition, bolstered by subsequent occasional direct experiences.
Could you give me a couple of accurate examples?
In the Bible, we have many, many examples, Moses, Joshua...Jesus himself.
Next group:
""Wherever Christianity gained a true foothold, it usually supplanted the local beliefs, and that cannot be dismissed with exaggerated blanket claims of Christian atrocities. No one was ever convinced to truly believe at swordpoint."
Can't it? No, perhaps the parents weren't convined to believe at swordpoint, but what about the children and grandchildren who then grew up without the option of knowing any other doctrine?"
Answers:
"8) No.
9) The descendants still had free will. "
I disagree with number 8. You would be amazed at what the human mind can do in an attempt to fight for survival and sanity.
One can be coerced to CONFESS something, but one cannot be coerced to BELIEVE something. There is always the choice not to believe.
And again I disagree with number 9. Free will? irrelevant examples omitted
Yes, one always has the free will to change one's mind, change one's believing. Don't confuse free will with freedom of action. Religion was outlawed in the former Soviet Union, but despite 70 years of Communist oppression, Russian Christianity was not extinguished. It survived, bolshevism didn't.
"Honestly, Zix, if there is a proper formula I would love to learn it, because while I have certainly had a large number of prayers answered, there are still those which remain unanswered. BTW, how is it that I, whom an no longer Christian, can still have prayers answered? How is it my prayers were answered even before I ever became a Christian?
I'm not trying to be flip, dismissive, or insulting with this answer, but I don't know of anyone here who would understand the reasoning behind it if I gave it. As evidenced by previous discussions of similar topics, math just makes some folks' heads hurt, and analogies just make their eyes cross.
So that just leaves me with this: Yes, there's a formula, but we cannot comprehend the true extent of it since we're confined to nature. We may know some of the constants and variables, but it's impossible to know them all given our inherent limitations."
***I appreciate the honest answer. :)--> My only response is that if non-Christians get their prayers answered too (and many will tell you they do) then God must be far bigger than Christianity and perhaps there is more than one path (religion) by which people reach Him.***
"For things we cannot sense otherwise, yes. It's all we can do. Regardless of the pictures in the elementary school science books, electrons probably are not little yellow balls with black minus signs painted on them. But they could be, for all we'll ever know about them. They are smaller than a wavelength of a photon of visible light, so we will never, ever be able to "see" an electron.
Doesn't make them imaginary or mythological constructs, though."
***No, it doesn't make the imaginary. However, it does mean they may not be completely accurate. It also means there may be even more understanding to be gained about them than what we currently have.***
"If it is not modelling by trial and error, then what is it? I mean from in the beginning - obviously you have a written standard to model after, but what about those who came before the written standard?
Oral tradition, bolstered by subsequent occasional direct experiences.
Could you give me a couple of accurate examples?
In the Bible, we have many, many examples, Mosese, Joshua...Jesus himself."
***Yes, but none of them were Christian. Which is sort of my point, prior to Christianty there were still ways to commune with God. I don't see anything which would prove to me that has changed since the coming of Christianity. This is not to say Christianity is a "wrong path" only that there are other paths as well.
It is my belief that we are on this earth to learn. There are individual lessons, societal lessons, etc. When we come to a fork in the road, which path we choose may make a huge difference to us, but to God - well He will make sure we learn what He wants us to, regardless of the path we chose. Some lessons will just be harder for us to grasp.****
"I disagree with number 8. You would be amazed at what the human mind can do in an attempt to fight for survival and sanity.
One can be coerced to CONFESS something, but one cannot be coerced to BELIEVE something. There is always the choice not to believe."
****I still disagree with you here. Fear, for example can be a great way of manipulating people into believing something, TWI used it all of the time. Additionally, in our own attempts to rationalize and justify, we often convince ourselves to believe things that under different circumstances, we would not have believed.
A good example of this is the opposite of believing - denial. It is a way of protecting ourselves emotionally or mentally when we can't face the truth. I watched my mother do this over and over again - I remember my sister coming home puking drunk on a regular basis. My grandmother and I tried to tell my mother my sister had a drinking problem. My mom refused to see it until at 15, my sister was brought home by the police.
At times, we will do the same thing with believing. Ever read any of the news stories where police have found a dead body inside a home, where it had been for days or weeks, because the surviving spouse wanted to believe the person was still alive?***
"Yes, one always has the free will to change one's mind, change one's believing. Don't confuse free will with freedom of action. Religion was outlawed in the former Soviet Union, but despite 70 years of Communist oppression, Russian Christianity was not extinguished. It survived, bolshevism didn't. "
****If one lives their entire life without having ever heard of Christianity or Christ, how can one confess Jesus as Lord? Can a person be Christian without accepting/confessing Jesus as Lord?********
I am feeling uncomfortable with the direction our conversation has taken. I have put myself in the position of trying to convince you that Christianity is wrong, instead of simply explaining why I no longer choose to consider myself Christian.
It was my doing and I apologize. You need not answer my questions in the previous post.
Abigail: Funny, I didn't get that at all. I thought you were just playing a rhetorical devil's advocate. I've got no problems with your line of questioning if you wish to continue.
It's just a little busy here this afternoon... ;)-->
quote: I'm not trying to be flip, dismissive, or insulting with this answer, but I don't know of anyone here who would understand the reasoning behind it if I gave it. As evidenced by previous discussions of similar topics, math just makes some folks' heads hurt, and analogies just make their eyes cross.
Please, put it out there. Who cares if you think others won't understand you, that has never stopped you before. If we don't understand it or question it or dismiss it, that will help you clarify your stance, and the ability to comunicate it, hopefully. And dare I say, that at times one's comprehension of your ideas is in part due to your ability to expess them clearly, or lack there of. But, if there is a formula, I would like to know it. I'm sure everyone would.
quote: "How does one model what one has never seen? Trial and error? How does when know when one has erred if one has ever seen the accurate example?"
Answers:
"5) How were the electron, air, and the far side of the Sun modelled without ever being seen?
6) No.
7) Irrelevant, since accurate examples abound."
Honestly, I have no idea, never studied it. I imagine the effects of electrons and air are seen. Likewise one can see the "near side of the sun". So, we model after the effects?
For things we cannot sense otherwise, yes. It's all we can do. Regardless of the pictures in the elementary school science books, electrons probably are not little yellow balls with black minus signs painted on them. But they could be, for all we'll ever know about them. They are smaller than a wavelength of a photon of visible light, so we will never, ever be able to "see" an electron.
To be clear... It is able to be measured, thru experiments to find it's charge, mass, it's nature as a wavelength, its wavelength, etc.
Note. Louis DeBroglie's hypothesis would have been tossed aside if the Davisson-Germer Experiment was never performed or did not confirm it. That is the way science works for the most part. The only reason that science as a whole accepts the idea of an electron or its particle/wave duality, is because it can be observed on some level.
Another interesting fact. Before we new what air was or a sneeze was or wind was, they were thought to be spirits in many cultures including that of the Bible. Hence, "God Bless You" after a sneeze. Much later on, we found out what air consists of, why it moves, why it is cold at times and hot at others, what makes us sick, what an allergen is, how it all affects us, and on and on and on....all by hypothesising, experimenting, and observing, as well as the occasional "happy accident". Faith in the sneezing spirit, turned out to be false. So has the spirit of the wind and air and many other things that were once thought to be spirit. Our certainty of thier existence has pushed spirit our into the "super-natural" were it can not be disproved, or proved for that matter. How convenient.
So we are at an impasse.
That is unless Zix posts his formula.
Actually, I just reread that post and realised that there is no need to post it. because...
quote: So that just leaves me with this: Yes, there's a formula, but we cannot comprehend the true extent of it since we're confined to nature.
So I guess the whole "As evidenced by previous discussions of similar topics, math just makes some folks' heads hurt, and analogies just make their eyes cross" was not needed, since Zix doesn't totaly understand it himself.
Which gives abi's point of...
quote: My only response is that if non-Christians get their prayers answered too (and many will tell you they do) then God must be far bigger than Christianity and perhaps there is more than one path (religion) by which people reach Him
...a little more weight.
In other words, not knowing all the constants and variables or even knowing how many there are we can not claim that prayer is only ansered for Christians. Not only that but since we can not prove the existence of God (Christian or otherwise) then we can not prove any of its attributes and can not claim its religious affiliation, if you will. The fact that the concept of God is based on faith means that everything about that god is based on faith. Or as Zix and I both put it, "a guess". The more involved one gets in a religious belief system the more you build one guess upon another. I am not talking about a religious phylosophy, but its theology.
Speaking of theories and religion, I found this yesterday and thought it was rather strange but intersting - figured this was as good a place as any to post it. . .
I have been doing some reading and research on Kabala (or however you spell it - so many different ways it seems). I sort of stumbled ino this by accident because a lot of parables and Jewish folk tales seem to stem from it or seem to be a way of trying to make it more understandable. A lot of it either goes over my head or simply doesn't make sense to me.
I was reading a website the other day, and what I realized was that what they were describing as the basic tree and how it functions was very much like the way our brains functions physically - the paths and neurons, etc. Which is pretty amazing considering when it was written. I haven't researched it further yet, but I am planning to.
From the ten sefirot the soul derives its corresponding ten soul-powers, all of which have names identical to the sefirot. The soul is expressed and manifested through its powers, of which there are two general categories -- the transcendent or encompassing powers, and the particular, or immanent powers (corresponding to the transcendent keter and the remaining immanent sefirot, respectively). The transcendent or super-conscious powers of the soul are called delight (oneg) and will (ratzon), corresponding to the inner and outer dimensions of keter mentioned above.
The particular or immanent powers are subdivided into intellect and emotions. The three intellectual powers are chochma, wisdom or creative intellect; bina, understanding or developmental intellect; and daat, which is knowledge or conclusive, synthesizing intellect.
" ...immanent powers are subdivided into intellect and emotions"
Chochma
Chochma is the creative and generally unpredictable power of the soul which is manifested in spontaneous insights or inspiration -- an intuitive flash of intellectual illumination which has not yet been processed or developed by the understanding power of bina.
The creative power which illuminates chochma derives from the concealed level of keter -- "and chochma emerges from nothingness" (Job 28:12), that is, from the hidden keter. The reason that chochma is able to act as a receptacle for the flash of divine revelation is that in its inner essence is also "nothingness". That is, the inner essence of chochma is self-nullification (bitul).
This is why the Zohar characterizes the nature of chochma by one of the permutations of the word chochma itself -- koach ma -- the "potential to be 'what' (i.e. undefined and therefore boundless)". In this state of bitul, a person will not experience his own being as an independent creation. Rather, his consciousness is focused on G-d's omnipresence.
Bina
Bina, usually translated as "understanding", is the cognitive faculty that develops and articulates the seminal energy of chochma so that the latter becomes known, in a detailed conceptual way, through bina. Bina is also the inductive and deductive faculty of understanding (or deducing) one thing from another, thus expanding the point of chochma into a multi-dimensional conceptual system. The Zohar therefore symbolizes chochma and bina and their relationship as "the supernal point (chochma) within its palace (bina)" (Zohar 1, 6A). However, bina is not merely an adjunct to chochma, it involves as well the ability to intuit a more inclusive reality that than encoded within chochma itself.
Bina is also the ability to explain the concept to another person, thus "reproducing" it. In this sense bina is referred to as "the mother of children" (Psalms 113:9).
" Daat is the ability to integrate and harmonize diametrically opposed views"
Daat
Daat (knowledge) is the third faculty of the intellect. It is the ability to integrate and harmonize diametrically opposed views or states of being. As mentioned above, when keter is counted, daat is not, and vice versa. In terms of the soul powers, daat in fact plays a dual role: On the one hand, daat is the power which binds together the powers of chochma and bina. In this capacity it is called daat elyon (higher daat), which generally remains in a state of concealment. As such it is identified with keter. On the other hand, daat serves as the bridge between the opposing domains of the intellect and the emotional attributes of the soul. In this capacity it is called daat tachton (lower daat). Daat is not merely another stage of intellect; it enables one to convert understanding into the vitality and inspiration of the emotions and actions. In this sense, the Zohar, refers to daat as "the key to the six [emotions]" (Zohar 3, 22a).
A person who possesses daat will therefore exhibit rational, mature behavior, whereas one who lacks daat is emotionally immature and will probably be plagued by inner emotional conflict.
Chesed
Chesed (love, kindness) is the first emotional attribute of the soul. Its motivating force is love and benevolence. Chesed is also sometimes called gedula (largesse), for it nurtures the other attributes of the soul into full development and maturity. The Zohar therefore refers to it as "the first day [i.e. the first attribute] which accompanies all the other days [of Creation]" (Zohar 1, 46a).
Of the three Patriarchs, Abraham embodied the quality of chesed, as the verse states, "Give....chesed to Abraham" (Micah 7:20). He is also referred to as "Abraham, My loving one" (Isaiah 41:8)
Gevura
Gevura (fortitude, restrictive power), associated with the force of din (severe divine judgment) restricts the benevolent expansiveness of chesed. As a soul-power it represents the emotional attribute of awe or fear. Whereas chesed dictates that one give generously and unconditionally, without concern for the intended recipient's worthiness to receive, gevura argues against doing so, for fear that the recipient is not worthy, or will misuse what he has been given. Accordingly, every opportunity to shower goodness upon someone is assessed in terms of the recipient's merit.
On the other hand, gevura is just as influential in motivating one courageously to uphold another's rights to the rewards which are legitimately his, even in the face of stiff opposition. Should divine justice dictate that someone be extended a particular benefit, the fear of Heaven impels one to do everything within one's power to facilitate it. Since gevura is concerned with maintaining proper measure and proportion within Creation, it works to defend the boundaries of the law, be they to one's advantage or disadvantage, requiring courage or trepidation.
As complimentary forces, chesed and gevura actually work together, establishing the rigorous standard of merit that endows subsequent overtures of chesed with genuine value and meaning for the recipient.
Gevura corresponds to the Patriarch Isaac, as in the verse "The One whom Isaac fears...." (Gen. 31:42, 53).
Tiferet
Tiferet (compassion) is the attribute of the soul which blends and harmonizes the-
" Tiferet corresponds to the Patriarch Jacob"
two polar opposites of chesed and gevura. Tiferet is also referred to as the attribute of truth, for it depends to some extent on the merit of the recipient. Nevertheless, ideally, tiferet tends towards chesed, and is therefore known as rachamim (mercy).
Tiferet corresponds to the Patriarch Jacob.
Netzach
Netzach has many meanings, referring to different aspects in the soul. It implies "victory" (nitzachon), "eternity" (nitzchiyut) and "orchestration" (nitzuach). Common to all these ideas is a sense of the initiative and persistence necessary in order to overcome the resistance to bringing thought and feeling into positive action. "Victory" assumes initiative; "eternity" implies persistence; and "orchestration" indicates a creative plan that deploys the other qualities in an intelligent way.
The quality of netzach in the soul is dependent upon the degree of confidence one has that he is doing what G-d wants of him.
Hod
Hod (surrender, acknowledgment) is the complementary soul-power to netzach. Whereas netzach thrusts forward, overcoming the barriers between the outflow of benevolence (from chesed) and the intended recipient; hod (a quality derived from gevura) ensures that the person's success is predicated on his acknowledging the divine source of his power and might. Hod therefore represents sincerity and innocence. The Zohar refers to this complementary relationship as "two halves of one body, like twins" (Zohar 3, 236a).
" Yesod combines all into a single creative act binding the giver and the recipient "
Yesod
Yesod is the quality which combines all the qualities which precede it into a single creative act binding the giver and the recipient into a single unit. In technical terms, yesod binds the higher sefirot to malchut, or heaven to earth. In the soul this represents a person's ability to bind himself to G-d's will and thus bring about the implementation of G-d's plan for Creation. Yesod also represents the tzadik (saintly person), regarding whom it is said: "The tzadik is the foundation (yesod) of the world" (Proverbs 10:25), for it is he who dedicates himself to fulfilling G-d's will and actualizing His plan for Creation.
" Malchut... receiving upon oneself the yoke of G-d's sovereignty"
Malchut
In terms of the powers of the soul, malchut represents receiving upon oneself the yoke of G-d's sovereignty, and acting in accordance with it, as a slave towards his master. Malchut thus experiences itself as a state of lowliness, for it possesses nothing of its own; it is aware that it receives all of its qualities from the other powers of the soul. At the same time, malchut also represents royalty and sovereignty. Only when a king humbly takes upon himself the yoke of Heaven, is he able to find the strength and wisdom to rule properly.
When man does good, his soul disseminates G-d's abundant goodness and reveals His greatness. Through man's good deeds, certain sefirot prevail. For instance, if a person displays compassion towards others, he causes tiferet to prevail. Thus, for example, Abraham represents kindness and love, which derive from the sefira of chesed, as explained above, for his deeds were concentrated in this direction.
From the "Fiftieth Gate" edition of the Zohar, Introduction "
Additionally, I found another website which goes into the neuro electronic impulses (if that is the right term) and how our breathing effects our heart, (from which these neuro impulses stem), the heart effects the brain and the brain the body - thus the benefits of meditation which starts with how we breath. . .
I found the Book of the Prophet Iddo. Thats right its in the Bible tooo. The book of the Prophet Iddo. It's the things yah didnt do, in the book of the prophet Iddo I did I did I did
I didn't didn't do, they are all written down in the book of the prophet Iddo.
Just wait till I find the Book of the Prophet Jashur.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
27
27
26
Popular Days
Aug 24
22
Aug 31
19
Aug 25
16
Sep 1
16
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 18 posts
Abigail 27 posts
Oakspear 27 posts
Zixar 26 posts
Popular Days
Aug 24 2004
22 posts
Aug 31 2004
19 posts
Aug 25 2004
16 posts
Sep 1 2004
16 posts
Abigail
Zix,
apology accepted. We are all only human afterall. I look forward to your more thoughtful answers, as they usually push me to think and consider.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
That seems a little inconsistent with the actual history of Christianity. From what I have read it's long lasting flavor seemed to to have to do with a generally appealing phylosophy and the power to back it up. That and the fact that one of its tenets is to proselytize....and the power to back that up.
I have a hunch that if I would have prayed to Papa Smurf before the interview of my now, new job, that I would still have gotten it. This is my limited and short lived perspective on things. Good things happen to those that pray to the Christian god, Budda, Alla, the devil, those that don't pray, those that don't deserve it, agnostics, aetheists, dogs, Jewish folks, dictators, the ants in my kitchen, everyone I know and everyone I don't know. Bad things also happen to them all, especially those damn ants. Some receive a little more of one than the other, some a lot more, sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Invisible Dan:
Your comment:
But in retrospect, now we can well imagine what went through the minds of some visitors who observed us speaking in tongues, even within the context of its orderly prescription. I bet they felt we were "pretty whacko" too (lol).
But many movements share the practice of chantings and glossalalia. It's certainly more common than I knew years ago, in movements both ancient and modern.
agreed, interesting to me Dan is that speaking in tongues has a prescription for speaking it in Corinthians, personally, I never really figured out how it fits, especially since i spent a lot of time in the Pentacostal church where everyone speaks it all the time. So i am cornfused on that one also.
Your comment:
I suppose truth might be regarded as either a telescope or a microscope - but one may experience better success toward tracing "centrist truths" when simply approaching various scriptures and writings of
varying beliefs with one's own eyes and heart.
You always got something good to say Danno, yes and amen its got to be individual.
With respect to Budda, I dont know anything about it. With respect to the history of that stuff I do find your knowledge to be quite phenomenal. I think you should own a library Dan unbelievable.
I am gonna post another thread below this one and look forward to your comments on the matter.
I would really like your comment on the administration concept DAn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Two things:
1)Personally I some times wonder if it isnt helpful to look at the church as "one body" and the denominations as "different administrations". Notice they are not "differing" administations by different ones. Personally I dont see the denominations fighting doctrinally a lot between each other anymore I think that is good.
2) Since I had limited involvement with TWI, some of the people in this room are really in tune with God. But after further review, I think TWI was a very very very dangerous cult. I am glad my involvement was limited. The thing that reinforces my opinion is the people who were in it who are now atheists and agnostics. God must have never stirred them, I dont get it. The huge error in my opinion, is "the living word and living epistles" which we all must take part of and the "written word" which must attest to all of our lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
As all churches being the same, one Body, but each particular church/group/sect being a different "member"?
I don't think it unreasonable in seeing it in that scale.
The churches appear extraordinarily diverse even from Christianity's earliest childhood.
I think in good part why Christians may digress on certain doctrines, and may continue to do so - i.e., on the topic of death, or in the Trinitarian-Unitarian debate, or in eschatology, etc., is because the source elements woven together into the patchwork of the New Testament writings themselves originated from diverse movements and communities , all of which, as today, did not always agree in their doctrinal perspectives. The efforts of the most adroit of editors and early theologians who worked on the NT canon could not entirely eradicate all the underlying differences. Much to any seeker's delight and reward.
I'm actually under the opposite impression - that the number of atheists and agnostics is relatively small here. Are there really any more here to be found than with any other church or group? I don't think so, really.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Okay Zix, sure, I believe you. Being dishonest doesn't mean lying. Right, got it. Please forgive my ignorance of the subtle nuances of your words. I deeply regret causing you to put up with my many mischaracterizations and straw men. I most certainly will deal with it.
I also ask your forgiveness for being evasive, especially when the evasiveness is also drivel.
May I also beg pardon for expressing an opinion that did not answer your question in simple black and white terms? I realize now how bad gray areas are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Sky:
I don't know about the ex-TWI "community" at large, but the non-Christians are a minority at GS. Most of us have posted on this thread.
It is my observation that if one hooked up with TWI in order to know God or Jesus better, more often than not a separation from TWI would not slow that down, the goal is still there. Most people that I knew got involved with TWI as part of their quest for God, because it seemed to explain the Christianity that they were already involved with. After TWI getting involved in a church or ex-TWI offshoot seemed the most natural thing to do.
Look at the most prolific GS posters:
Christian or no?
excathedra - yes
Zixar - yes
Dot Matrix - yes
Tom Strange - yes
Raf - yes
dmiller - yes
Mister P-Mosh - no
me - no
Steve! - yes
ChattyKathy - yes
mj412 - yes
vickles - yes
Shellon - yes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Abi:
Good point about the names and rituals of the old deities changing. Many people in the pre-Christian era, and even well into it, saw the gods and goddesses as the same across cultural lines. Zeus = Jupiter = Odin = Dagda = et al. The rituals reflected differences in culture, as the names often did also. In fact Jesus = Mithra = Osirus wasn't unheard of either.
Longevity doesn't mean as much as some would have it. Sure Christianity has been around for about 2,000 years, and sure it supplanted Norse, Celtic and other beliefs; but what about Buddhism and Hinduism that it did not supplant? Both of those belief systems pre-date Christianity, and are still going strong today.
I do agree that no one was ever truly convinced to believe at swordpoint, but mass conversion of entire tribes and nations were the rule rather than the exception after Christianity got the power of the Roman Empire behind it. Ireland is a notable exception to the general rule. The Irish apparently converted willingly, person by person or family by family.
After the large scale conversions of the 4th century and following, whether an area converted willingly or not became moot, since it often became illegal to cling to the old religions or start new ones. You were forced to remain a Christian, unless you wanted to be burned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
oak:
its just that its the thing that bothers me the most.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Oakspear: I'm no stranger to sarcasm. I just don't have anything left to say to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Honestly, Zix, if there is a proper formula I would love to learn it, because while I have certainly had a large number of prayers answered, there are still those which remain unanswered. BTW, how is it that I, whom an no longer Christian, can still have prayers answered? How is it my prayers were answered even before I ever became a Christian?
I'm not trying to be flip, dismissive, or insulting with this answer, but I don't know of anyone here who would understand the reasoning behind it if I gave it. As evidenced by previous discussions of similar topics, math just makes some folks' heads hurt, and analogies just make their eyes cross.
So that just leaves me with this: Yes, there's a formula, but we cannot comprehend the true extent of it since we're confined to nature. We may know some of the constants and variables, but it's impossible to know them all given our inherent limitations."
***I appreciate the honest answer.
:)--> My only response is that if non-Christians get their prayers answered too (and many will tell you they do) then God must be far bigger than Christianity and perhaps there is more than one path (religion) by which people reach Him.***
"For things we cannot sense otherwise, yes. It's all we can do. Regardless of the pictures in the elementary school science books, electrons probably are not little yellow balls with black minus signs painted on them. But they could be, for all we'll ever know about them. They are smaller than a wavelength of a photon of visible light, so we will never, ever be able to "see" an electron.
Doesn't make them imaginary or mythological constructs, though."
***No, it doesn't make the imaginary. However, it does mean they may not be completely accurate. It also means there may be even more understanding to be gained about them than what we currently have.***
"If it is not modelling by trial and error, then what is it? I mean from in the beginning - obviously you have a written standard to model after, but what about those who came before the written standard?
Oral tradition, bolstered by subsequent occasional direct experiences.
Could you give me a couple of accurate examples?
In the Bible, we have many, many examples, Mosese, Joshua...Jesus himself."
***Yes, but none of them were Christian. Which is sort of my point, prior to Christianty there were still ways to commune with God. I don't see anything which would prove to me that has changed since the coming of Christianity. This is not to say Christianity is a "wrong path" only that there are other paths as well.
It is my belief that we are on this earth to learn. There are individual lessons, societal lessons, etc. When we come to a fork in the road, which path we choose may make a huge difference to us, but to God - well He will make sure we learn what He wants us to, regardless of the path we chose. Some lessons will just be harder for us to grasp.****
"I disagree with number 8. You would be amazed at what the human mind can do in an attempt to fight for survival and sanity.
One can be coerced to CONFESS something, but one cannot be coerced to BELIEVE something. There is always the choice not to believe."
****I still disagree with you here. Fear, for example can be a great way of manipulating people into believing something, TWI used it all of the time. Additionally, in our own attempts to rationalize and justify, we often convince ourselves to believe things that under different circumstances, we would not have believed.
A good example of this is the opposite of believing - denial. It is a way of protecting ourselves emotionally or mentally when we can't face the truth. I watched my mother do this over and over again - I remember my sister coming home puking drunk on a regular basis. My grandmother and I tried to tell my mother my sister had a drinking problem. My mom refused to see it until at 15, my sister was brought home by the police.
At times, we will do the same thing with believing. Ever read any of the news stories where police have found a dead body inside a home, where it had been for days or weeks, because the surviving spouse wanted to believe the person was still alive?***
"Yes, one always has the free will to change one's mind, change one's believing. Don't confuse free will with freedom of action. Religion was outlawed in the former Soviet Union, but despite 70 years of Communist oppression, Russian Christianity was not extinguished. It survived, bolshevism didn't. "
****If one lives their entire life without having ever heard of Christianity or Christ, how can one confess Jesus as Lord? Can a person be Christian without accepting/confessing Jesus as Lord?********
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Zixar,
I am feeling uncomfortable with the direction our conversation has taken. I have put myself in the position of trying to convince you that Christianity is wrong, instead of simply explaining why I no longer choose to consider myself Christian.
It was my doing and I apologize. You need not answer my questions in the previous post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Abigail: Funny, I didn't get that at all. I thought you were just playing a rhetorical devil's advocate. I've got no problems with your line of questioning if you wish to continue.
It's just a little busy here this afternoon...
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Well I was, kinda, Zix. But sometimes I get a little caught up in these debates and instead of trying to learn and impart ideas, I just want to win.
Somehow winning just for the sake of winning, or trying to, has lost it's appeal.
However, I would enjoy conversing with you and even debating if there is learning going on along with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Don't stop, Abi, your doing just fine.
Please, put it out there. Who cares if you think others won't understand you, that has never stopped you before. If we don't understand it or question it or dismiss it, that will help you clarify your stance, and the ability to comunicate it, hopefully. And dare I say, that at times one's comprehension of your ideas is in part due to your ability to expess them clearly, or lack there of. But, if there is a formula, I would like to know it. I'm sure everyone would.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
To be clear... It is able to be measured, thru experiments to find it's charge, mass, it's nature as a wavelength, its wavelength, etc.
Note. Louis DeBroglie's hypothesis would have been tossed aside if the Davisson-Germer Experiment was never performed or did not confirm it. That is the way science works for the most part. The only reason that science as a whole accepts the idea of an electron or its particle/wave duality, is because it can be observed on some level.
Another interesting fact. Before we new what air was or a sneeze was or wind was, they were thought to be spirits in many cultures including that of the Bible. Hence, "God Bless You" after a sneeze. Much later on, we found out what air consists of, why it moves, why it is cold at times and hot at others, what makes us sick, what an allergen is, how it all affects us, and on and on and on....all by hypothesising, experimenting, and observing, as well as the occasional "happy accident". Faith in the sneezing spirit, turned out to be false. So has the spirit of the wind and air and many other things that were once thought to be spirit. Our certainty of thier existence has pushed spirit our into the "super-natural" were it can not be disproved, or proved for that matter. How convenient.
So we are at an impasse.
That is unless Zix posts his formula.
Actually, I just reread that post and realised that there is no need to post it. because...
So I guess the whole "As evidenced by previous discussions of similar topics, math just makes some folks' heads hurt, and analogies just make their eyes cross" was not needed, since Zix doesn't totaly understand it himself.
Which gives abi's point of...
...a little more weight.
In other words, not knowing all the constants and variables or even knowing how many there are we can not claim that prayer is only ansered for Christians. Not only that but since we can not prove the existence of God (Christian or otherwise) then we can not prove any of its attributes and can not claim its religious affiliation, if you will. The fact that the concept of God is based on faith means that everything about that god is based on faith. Or as Zix and I both put it, "a guess". The more involved one gets in a religious belief system the more you build one guess upon another. I am not talking about a religious phylosophy, but its theology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Yeah! What Lindy said!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Speaking of theories and religion, I found this yesterday and thought it was rather strange but intersting - figured this was as good a place as any to post it. . .
I have been doing some reading and research on Kabala (or however you spell it - so many different ways it seems). I sort of stumbled ino this by accident because a lot of parables and Jewish folk tales seem to stem from it or seem to be a way of trying to make it more understandable. A lot of it either goes over my head or simply doesn't make sense to me.
I was reading a website the other day, and what I realized was that what they were describing as the basic tree and how it functions was very much like the way our brains functions physically - the paths and neurons, etc. Which is pretty amazing considering when it was written. I haven't researched it further yet, but I am planning to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Apparently I am not the only one who has seen this correlation. Zix, I am very interested in your thoughts on this, as our resident science guy.
"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the ten sefirot the soul derives its corresponding ten soul-powers, all of which have names identical to the sefirot. The soul is expressed and manifested through its powers, of which there are two general categories -- the transcendent or encompassing powers, and the particular, or immanent powers (corresponding to the transcendent keter and the remaining immanent sefirot, respectively). The transcendent or super-conscious powers of the soul are called delight (oneg) and will (ratzon), corresponding to the inner and outer dimensions of keter mentioned above.
The particular or immanent powers are subdivided into intellect and emotions. The three intellectual powers are chochma, wisdom or creative intellect; bina, understanding or developmental intellect; and daat, which is knowledge or conclusive, synthesizing intellect.
" ...immanent powers are subdivided into intellect and emotions"
Chochma
Chochma is the creative and generally unpredictable power of the soul which is manifested in spontaneous insights or inspiration -- an intuitive flash of intellectual illumination which has not yet been processed or developed by the understanding power of bina.
The creative power which illuminates chochma derives from the concealed level of keter -- "and chochma emerges from nothingness" (Job 28:12), that is, from the hidden keter. The reason that chochma is able to act as a receptacle for the flash of divine revelation is that in its inner essence is also "nothingness". That is, the inner essence of chochma is self-nullification (bitul).
This is why the Zohar characterizes the nature of chochma by one of the permutations of the word chochma itself -- koach ma -- the "potential to be 'what' (i.e. undefined and therefore boundless)". In this state of bitul, a person will not experience his own being as an independent creation. Rather, his consciousness is focused on G-d's omnipresence.
Bina
Bina, usually translated as "understanding", is the cognitive faculty that develops and articulates the seminal energy of chochma so that the latter becomes known, in a detailed conceptual way, through bina. Bina is also the inductive and deductive faculty of understanding (or deducing) one thing from another, thus expanding the point of chochma into a multi-dimensional conceptual system. The Zohar therefore symbolizes chochma and bina and their relationship as "the supernal point (chochma) within its palace (bina)" (Zohar 1, 6A). However, bina is not merely an adjunct to chochma, it involves as well the ability to intuit a more inclusive reality that than encoded within chochma itself.
Bina is also the ability to explain the concept to another person, thus "reproducing" it. In this sense bina is referred to as "the mother of children" (Psalms 113:9).
" Daat is the ability to integrate and harmonize diametrically opposed views"
Daat
Daat (knowledge) is the third faculty of the intellect. It is the ability to integrate and harmonize diametrically opposed views or states of being. As mentioned above, when keter is counted, daat is not, and vice versa. In terms of the soul powers, daat in fact plays a dual role: On the one hand, daat is the power which binds together the powers of chochma and bina. In this capacity it is called daat elyon (higher daat), which generally remains in a state of concealment. As such it is identified with keter. On the other hand, daat serves as the bridge between the opposing domains of the intellect and the emotional attributes of the soul. In this capacity it is called daat tachton (lower daat). Daat is not merely another stage of intellect; it enables one to convert understanding into the vitality and inspiration of the emotions and actions. In this sense, the Zohar, refers to daat as "the key to the six [emotions]" (Zohar 3, 22a).
A person who possesses daat will therefore exhibit rational, mature behavior, whereas one who lacks daat is emotionally immature and will probably be plagued by inner emotional conflict.
Chesed
Chesed (love, kindness) is the first emotional attribute of the soul. Its motivating force is love and benevolence. Chesed is also sometimes called gedula (largesse), for it nurtures the other attributes of the soul into full development and maturity. The Zohar therefore refers to it as "the first day [i.e. the first attribute] which accompanies all the other days [of Creation]" (Zohar 1, 46a).
Of the three Patriarchs, Abraham embodied the quality of chesed, as the verse states, "Give....chesed to Abraham" (Micah 7:20). He is also referred to as "Abraham, My loving one" (Isaiah 41:8)
Gevura
Gevura (fortitude, restrictive power), associated with the force of din (severe divine judgment) restricts the benevolent expansiveness of chesed. As a soul-power it represents the emotional attribute of awe or fear. Whereas chesed dictates that one give generously and unconditionally, without concern for the intended recipient's worthiness to receive, gevura argues against doing so, for fear that the recipient is not worthy, or will misuse what he has been given. Accordingly, every opportunity to shower goodness upon someone is assessed in terms of the recipient's merit.
On the other hand, gevura is just as influential in motivating one courageously to uphold another's rights to the rewards which are legitimately his, even in the face of stiff opposition. Should divine justice dictate that someone be extended a particular benefit, the fear of Heaven impels one to do everything within one's power to facilitate it. Since gevura is concerned with maintaining proper measure and proportion within Creation, it works to defend the boundaries of the law, be they to one's advantage or disadvantage, requiring courage or trepidation.
As complimentary forces, chesed and gevura actually work together, establishing the rigorous standard of merit that endows subsequent overtures of chesed with genuine value and meaning for the recipient.
Gevura corresponds to the Patriarch Isaac, as in the verse "The One whom Isaac fears...." (Gen. 31:42, 53).
Tiferet
Tiferet (compassion) is the attribute of the soul which blends and harmonizes the-
" Tiferet corresponds to the Patriarch Jacob"
two polar opposites of chesed and gevura. Tiferet is also referred to as the attribute of truth, for it depends to some extent on the merit of the recipient. Nevertheless, ideally, tiferet tends towards chesed, and is therefore known as rachamim (mercy).
Tiferet corresponds to the Patriarch Jacob.
Netzach
Netzach has many meanings, referring to different aspects in the soul. It implies "victory" (nitzachon), "eternity" (nitzchiyut) and "orchestration" (nitzuach). Common to all these ideas is a sense of the initiative and persistence necessary in order to overcome the resistance to bringing thought and feeling into positive action. "Victory" assumes initiative; "eternity" implies persistence; and "orchestration" indicates a creative plan that deploys the other qualities in an intelligent way.
The quality of netzach in the soul is dependent upon the degree of confidence one has that he is doing what G-d wants of him.
Hod
Hod (surrender, acknowledgment) is the complementary soul-power to netzach. Whereas netzach thrusts forward, overcoming the barriers between the outflow of benevolence (from chesed) and the intended recipient; hod (a quality derived from gevura) ensures that the person's success is predicated on his acknowledging the divine source of his power and might. Hod therefore represents sincerity and innocence. The Zohar refers to this complementary relationship as "two halves of one body, like twins" (Zohar 3, 236a).
" Yesod combines all into a single creative act binding the giver and the recipient "
Yesod
Yesod is the quality which combines all the qualities which precede it into a single creative act binding the giver and the recipient into a single unit. In technical terms, yesod binds the higher sefirot to malchut, or heaven to earth. In the soul this represents a person's ability to bind himself to G-d's will and thus bring about the implementation of G-d's plan for Creation. Yesod also represents the tzadik (saintly person), regarding whom it is said: "The tzadik is the foundation (yesod) of the world" (Proverbs 10:25), for it is he who dedicates himself to fulfilling G-d's will and actualizing His plan for Creation.
" Malchut... receiving upon oneself the yoke of G-d's sovereignty"
Malchut
In terms of the powers of the soul, malchut represents receiving upon oneself the yoke of G-d's sovereignty, and acting in accordance with it, as a slave towards his master. Malchut thus experiences itself as a state of lowliness, for it possesses nothing of its own; it is aware that it receives all of its qualities from the other powers of the soul. At the same time, malchut also represents royalty and sovereignty. Only when a king humbly takes upon himself the yoke of Heaven, is he able to find the strength and wisdom to rule properly.
When man does good, his soul disseminates G-d's abundant goodness and reveals His greatness. Through man's good deeds, certain sefirot prevail. For instance, if a person displays compassion towards others, he causes tiferet to prevail. Thus, for example, Abraham represents kindness and love, which derive from the sefira of chesed, as explained above, for his deeds were concentrated in this direction.
From the "Fiftieth Gate" edition of the Zohar, Introduction "
Additionally, I found another website which goes into the neuro electronic impulses (if that is the right term) and how our breathing effects our heart, (from which these neuro impulses stem), the heart effects the brain and the brain the body - thus the benefits of meditation which starts with how we breath. . .
Interesting. Any thoughts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Hey wait a minute..................
I found the Book of the Prophet Iddo. Thats right its in the Bible tooo. The book of the Prophet Iddo. It's the things yah didnt do, in the book of the prophet Iddo I did I did I did
I didn't didn't do, they are all written down in the book of the prophet Iddo.
Just wait till I find the Book of the Prophet Jashur.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.