Looking Beyond a Monochromatic Faith…

[TheInvisibleDan]

There's a copy of the gospel of Judas online:

http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgos...spelofJudas.pdf

I just got back from the mall a few hours ago - thanks Bramble for the link!

The hardcopy is well worth it (for about $20, not bad for a new hardcover), which

includes background annotations and alternate meanings for certain words and places.

This is a very cool work so far. A Jesus who laughs too. Love it.

And I fired up my homemade "Theremin" the first time this evening for its "test drive", and played some

weird Jimi-Hendrix/Outer Limits kinda stuff to celebrate the occassion.

Lost texts. Weird music. Life doesn't get any better than this! :)

Danny

[Xena]

Monocromatic is easier than a rainbow. Monochromatic was probably invented for people who were genuinely unable to comprehend a rainbow. Aw, shoot, nobody comprehends a rainbow. But some foks really need the black and white, straight lines, think-in-a-box sort of faith --- or else they would have no faith at all, no morality, no communication with God. The sad part is that MOST people are probably capable of moving way beyond monochromatic thinking ... but they don't ... because it's easier to just stay mainstream.

Here's a piece of the last chapter of Job, as written in the Message Bible. Sir Guess - does this relate to what you're teaching us?

"Job answered God: I'm convinced: You can do anything and everything. Nothing and no one can upset your plans. You asked, 'Who is this muddying the water, ignorantly confusing the issue, second-guessing my purposes?' I admit it. I was the one. I babbled on about things far beyond me, made small talk about wonders way over my head. You told me, 'Listen, and let me do the talking. Let me ask the questions. You give the answers.' I admit I once lived by rumors of you; now I have it all firsthand - from my own eyes and ears! I'm sorry - forgive me. I'll never do that again, I promise! I'll never again live on crusts of hearsay, crumbs of rumor."

-Xena (PS Dan, You're not really invisible. Your light is too bright.)

[TheInvisibleDan]

-Xena (PS Dan, You're not really invisible. Your light is too bright.)

Xena,

Someone once told me that I didn't know how to handle compliments.

I still don't know (lol).

That's sweet of you. Thank you.

BTW, your namesake is a great show. I have the first season on dvd. :)

Danny

[sirguessalot]

hehe..danny

maybe we need better mirrors

xena, yeah...i think that is a really cool scripture

seems to fit very well

in some "divine" or "ultimate" moral sense,

any evil thing is also 100% true

regardless of its relative or current value

simply because IT is

it is a true thing

and everything being also originally true,

makes everything also originally good,

regardless of its present composition

so what makes it evil?

evil is born from discordant degrees of monochromatic good

...the muddying of the water

so that a monochromatic perspective may be true

but it lacks depth of causal awareness

which includes self-awareness

and so tends to cause more discord

rather than less

which is then...NOT good

and monochrome is not just one kind of black-and-white thinking

but a spectrum of different kinds of black and white thinking

that naturally find discord when they go bump in the night with other

but to be able to see causal truth as a spectrum

is to be able to untangle knots more peacefully

and avoid causing more discord

Edited April 10, 2006 by sirguessalot

[sirguessalot]

something i posted on the current manifestations thread in the About the Way forum

that seems to fit here as well

i want to offer a quick sample of an idea of how the manifestations might actually make more sense:

1) if left in the order Paul wrote them

2) if looked at in terms of always already present nature of reality (all of which is already always spiritual), and not some exclusive gift given to an exclusive group...but the everpresent truth of God (that man simply falls asleep to when we enter any sort of monochromatic worldview/Godview.)

3) if looked at in terms of sequential unfolding...how each manifestation comes through the previous manifestations, and builds upon the quality and nature of the previous manifestations, and so the quality of the resultant stack of manifestations can be traced back through them all...maybe think "conveyor belt" or "spiritual continuum"

ok...

1) word of wisdom = asking a question. the foundations of our spiritual self always starts with a simple question. A crying newborn is the earliest example i can think of. The art of asking a newer and better question on the spot.

2) word of knowledge = finding an answer...which naturally comes through word of wisdom, and hopefully produces more and better "words of wisdom."

3) faith = the results of all our questions and answers...which is something we can rely on, and have confidence in. Faith is never perfect, and always has an element of gambling. In this sense....science IS what is meant by faith, especially when our private questions and answers are compared. Faith is that which has been proven.

4) gifts of healing...the results of better questions, answers, and faith (science) naturally leads to better ways of being born, living, diet, wellness, wholeness, healing and dying. Better medicine. Which says a lot for the importance of quality in the previous 3 manifestations. We may not even always know why healing and wholeness comes...and who cares...its a gift, regardless.

5) miracles...the results of all the previous 4...great advancements and wonders in healing, science, answers...even amazing new questions we may have never thought to ask come like miracles. When we apply all the previous together...things tend to break loose. And who cares why...if it works, it works . if it doesnt, it doesnt.

6) prophecy, forecasting, predictions...with the increase in quality of the all the previous 5, greater patterns and trends emerge. This is where we sense how every thing moves in waves, tides, and seasons.

7) discerning of spirits...the art of science of studying the super patterns and super trends in terms of spectrums of reality, and of whole truths with many parts.

8) speaking in tongues...the art and science of speaking of the spectrum of reality. In this sense, each level of the spectrum is a "tongue," or voice, or tone of an "angel."

9) interpretation of tongues...the art and science of explaining the overall spectrum, which is to explain Christ as the inward man, and its relationship to the outer world. To speak of the Christ, is to speak of all "angels" at once, as a whole, and how they work in harmony.

again, it seems as if each manifestations comes through each other in an unfolding manner

but also...tend to support each other in the reverse order as they unfold

peace

[CM]

9 was there in acts 2 but 1 was the catalyst

the rest progressed as they progressed

[Goey]

Todd,

You recently posted this:

ya know...i still kinda wonder why some of the most vocal advocates of biblical absoluteness avoid this kind of topic, but will jump at the chance to argue doctrine on other threads, over the same old kinds of things

Ok, I will play for a while And maybe later I will tell you why I have avoided your threads. But first, so that that I am not wongly labled, understand that I do not advocate biblical absoluteness. However I do have a great respect for the Bible as a primary source for faith and practice and may draw from it in my part of this discussion.

anyway...

like i've said before

i think one of the biggest doctrinal and practical failures of fundamentalist efforts

is the monochromatic nature of the doctrines

it seems to severly dullen our ability to interpret life in general

...particularly on the same levels as those heroes of old whose writings and stories we seem to like to bash over each other's heads

Todd can you please expound here a bit? May I suggest that you give some examples of what you perceive to be monochromatic doctrines? And then relate how/why these doctrines are monochromatic in nature and, how/ why adhering to them may dull the ability to interpret life. What would you do, in a practical sense, to correct these doctrines?

My purpose for the above , in case you are wondering, is not to draw out a doctrine and then defend it with the Bible, but instead so that I can get a better grip on what you are saying (in more practical terms).

Edited April 16, 2006 by Goey

[sirguessalot]

thanks Goey

Todd can you please expound here a bit? May I suggest that you give some examples of what you perceive to be monochromatic doctrines? And then relate how/why these doctrines are monochromatic in nature and, how/ why adhering to them may dull the ability to interpret life. What would you do, in a practical sense, to correct these doctrines?

well. i have written a lot on this and other threads already..but i'll give it another shot anyway

ok, an example of monochromatic 2)...a doctrine whose drive for wholeness is founded on getting people to join (and stay in) an exclusive group.

Now...the actual nature of this joining and the nature of the group can vary wildly. From racism, to bibliolatry, to national pride, etc

And the doctrine can and does include all kinds of sub-interests from the spectrum...even nazis care about eating. But the bottomline of the doctrine gives it a distinctive cap. We may have compassion, but our compassion is limited to the bounds of our group doctrine. We may have individualism, but it is only allowed to be expressed within the bounds of our group doctrine. etc... It is fundamentally about membership, which is only one step beyond egoic selfishness of 1). And this membership can described as christian, islamic, buddhist, atheist, sports-fanatics, mac-users, gender-based, diet-based, music genre fans, etc...but membership is the "deal-breaker" for rewards, values, etc...

Why it is monochromatic is because there is nothing wrong with membership, just as there is nothing wrong with the color orange...but when (1) individuallity is rejected or suppressed, or (3) actual good achievements outside of the group are discredited, or when (4) compassion itself is twisted to suit the needs of the group...yes, our ability to intepret life will be dull...as in lacking sharpness, lacking distinctions...like having dirt on all those other particular lenses.

Its like putting on a specific kind of glasses. One may be looking at the full spectrum reality, but can only see and evaluate it in terms of how it relates to their favorite color...and all its relative gradients of blacks and whites

what i would do to correct these doctrines, has no one simple answer. But to give you a simple answer, i would start by unfolding the doctrine a bit more, so the doctrine holders can see where membership fits in a spectrum, so as not to remove it. But to restore it to "the wholeness."

...

another example of monochromatic #3...would be a doctrine that will only accept things that are proven. "Forget the value of myths and legends, forget the value of creativity, forget the value of radical compassion...but what is tested and proven in a controlled environment...that is ALL that is important and valuable. Everything else is worth less."

this shade of belief is based on truth, and exists for a true reason. We dont want to get fooled. But when it becomes our sole note on the flute...so to speak...we have a monochromatic doctrine..or rule for life.

As much as a large segment of our population suffers from monochromatic membership, perhaps even a larger segment (including some of the membershippers) suffer from this workaholicism, achievement addiction, extreme skepticism, etc...

I think a lot of what we saw in TWi was an overlapping of monochromatic #2 and #3. We were anal about our biblical membership (2)...to the point of wanting the theology to fit with an exact science (3). And so all that mattered was "the word," (2) and how perfect we could get it (3).

...

of course, no one person or group is completely monochromatic.

its the LEADER of our consciousness that i am speaking of...our Lord..the dominant aspect

and the doctrinal (formal or informal) lense thru which we view the world.

and it can get trickier...where one can say that science is what they believe to be the most valuable...but the LEADING reason for this belief...is because it is valuable to them, personally, and serves them personally. So now we have a person driven by 1) but claiming 3) (in a sense)

...

imagine (Behold!), if you will...that you and i are already living rainbows...already all colors of the spectrum.

But when we live only from one of the "colors" most of the time...we are being monochromatic, in those times

and i say "most of the time" because certain situations can send us into another color real quick. Such as things that gets us angry...such as what happens when we feel personally offended...when are not normally like that...but something that draws out our "red goggles."

but this is a temporary shift ...because when the situation is done..we will return to our favorite everyday color again

more later...

Edited April 16, 2006 by sirguessalot

[sirguessalot]

heerz another monochromatic problem that comes in with level 4)

when we simply value everything and everyone in the world so much, that we come to hate all distinctions

we reject all notions of hierarchies, we reject all attempts at classifications

we reject the value of economy and science

we reject the value of membership

we reject the value of individualism

but in our hypocrisy...we actually cause a breeding ground for narcissism

and we are blind to the membership we have just created

and we are blind to the gifts of business and science

we see it when people gas up their car and stop at a coffee shop on their way to a protest

this is what i would call monochromatic green

an attempt at radical inclusivity...that forgets to include a whole lot of important things

[sirguessalot]

what i think we should want

is wellnes in each aspect of our being

which, i believe, starts with simply being aware of them

and of how they are all important and harmonize

and not only how this may be true inside of each of us

but how society is then also a collection of all of us

[sirguessalot]

to expand on a paste from an earlier post in this thread:

1) we care about ourselves

2) we care about our group

3) we care about accomplishment

4) we care about every living thing, including ecological concerns

5) we care about organizing and connecting as much as we can

6) we care about what is new and emerging

7) we care about awareness itself

and so take a look at this list as if were 7 switches

and consider what it might look like, for example

if a person or culture had only switches #2 and #3 on

or perhaps only switches #1 and #4 on

or perhaps only switch #7 on

and so...

what is it to be whole?

or sound?

so...perhaps we can be "monochromatic" in more than one way

for example...in terms of the above list of expanding levels of care...

...if only #1 and #2 are the ones that are mostly fully "open"

we might look like a selfish sports fanatic

but we do not care to accomplish much ourselves...#3

and we do not care (#4) much about anything outside of these two circles (self and group)

and we may not care to know much about much else...#5

and we may not care to be creative...#6

and we are more or less lacking self-awareness...#7

...if only #4 and #6 are the ones that are mostly fully "open"

we might look like an isolated soft-spoken starving artist

but our own health may suffer for lack of self care...#1

and we may be a loner...because we dont care for membership...#2

and we dont really care about accomplishment...#3

and we dont really care to know much about anything else...#5

and we dont really care to know more about ourselves...#7

...extreme case...if only #7 is mostly fully "open"...all our problems our compounded

and we might look like a crazy old man living in an abandoned building

we dont care about ourselves...so our health is suffering and we might stink real bad...#1

we dont care about membership..and so we are loners...#2

we dont care about accomplishment and are poor...#3

we dont care about anyone cuz we are mean ole cusses...#4

we dont care to know squat, so we are ignorant...#5

we dont care to be creative about anything...so we cant do anything new anyway...#6

but...we are mostly aware of all these aspects of self (#7) and so are more or less up to our necks in hell

and so...what is it to "work out" our own salvation?

and what is it to "have an evil spirit?"

...i think this kind of thing brings up all kinds of interesting questions...biblically and otherwise

Edited April 16, 2006 by sirguessalot

[sirguessalot]

some scripture to go with it

Rev 1:4

John to the seven churches which are in Asia:

Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is,

and which was, and which is to come,

and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne

1:5a

And from Jesus Christ

who is the faithful witness,

and the first begotten of the dead,

and the prince of the kings of the earth.

Unto him that loved us,

and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

something i find interesting about this

is how Jesus the Christ (the demonstrator of "Christ in us") is called "the faithful witness"

...that highest aspect WITHIN us that is always observing, always aware

(if interested...look at the message to church #7, and see what comes into view immediately after that message)

1:12

And I turned to see the voice that spake with me.

And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks

something i find interesting about this

is how he had to "turn" to see the 7

and this turn was like repent

or convert

or REturn

or turn back

which is also like turning inward, like turning one's face inside out

or, according to some rabbis..."to look at things from the other side of God's face"

which is pretty much the purpose of meditation and contemplation

....when we stop looking solely into the exterior for Christ

from Strongs...

transitively:

to turn to

to the worship of the true God

to cause to return, to bring back

to the love and obedience of God

to the love for the children

to love wisdom and righteousness

intransitively

to turn to one's self

to turn one's self about, turn back

to return, turn back, come back

if it is true that Christ is within us here and now

and Christ is the only way to God

and when this writer somehow turned in a way to see Christ

and also saw 7 golden candlesticks

where are these 7 spirits?

and how do we get there?

and where is this throne of God?

and what is it to speak in "tongues of fire?"

is there not a "tongue of flame" atop each of the 7 candles?

(once they are lit, of course)

...

Goey, I hope this helps you see a practical sense in all this, and a bit more about where I am coming from

Edited April 16, 2006 by sirguessalot

[allan w.]

Your last post sort of 'stole my thunder' Sir G. We live in a monochromatic world by sheer nature and consequences. The original paradise was lost, along with it's connection to God because of sin.

The closest it has come to its' original glory was when 'God was with us' 2000 years ago.

The full color spectrum happens again with 'new heaven and earth'.

Until then, eye cannot see nor ear hear what God has prepared for them who love Him.

Until then we see through a glass 'monochromatically'.

Until then we do not know even as we are known.

[CM]

and that's the thing ain't it allan

to see the revelation of Jesus Christ

a closed book to most

opened when lived and seen

and the new heavens and earth

Jesus Christ opened the door Now

who dares to freely think about spirit

which opens the things that God has prepared

it's already there, waiting to be seen

[Goey]

ok, an example of monochromatic 2)...a doctrine whose drive for wholeness is founded on getting people to join (and stay in) an exclusive group.

Now...the actual nature of this joining and the nature of the group can vary wildly. From racism, to bibliolatry, to national pride, etc

I was hoping for something more specific here, so I will provide some specific examples for discussion ans see how they may fit.

Sunday before last, about 5 of us men were at the local store/truck stop having coffee and general discussion. Another fellow came in on his way to church. There are 2 churchs here - one Baptist and one Church of Christ. He is from the Church of Christ. Anyway he began to chide us for not attending church - not just any church but the Church of Christ. He said that the Church of Christ is the only true church and that the rest are all going to hell. I won't tell you how I reacted to that But anyway it seems that according to that doctrine "salvation" requires attendance within a particular denomination, in this case the denominational Church of Christ.

Here is another doctrine that I would like to offer and see how it flies. It is that of the exclusivity of Christianty itself - that salvation is only through Jesus Christ. How does this one score on the color scale? As a Christian should I reject the idea that salvation is only though Jesus Christ? Does this doctrine dumb folks down and dull their abilty to interpret life? -- It would seem to be monochromatic...

Edited April 16, 2006 by Goey

[sirguessalot]

Here is another doctrine that I would like to offer and see how it flies. It is that of the exclusivity of Christianty itself - that salvation is only through Jesus Christ. How does this one score on the color scale? As a Christian should I reject the idea that salvation is only though Jesus Christ? Does this doctrine dumb folks down and dull their abilty to interpret life? -- It would seem to be monochromatic...

First, i would hafta say that really there is no such thing as a singular "Christianity" that agrees on the nature of salvation or Jesus Christ. And as it sits, the idea that "salvation is only through Jesus Christ" is empty of meaning, and requires someone to explain what they think that means, practically, doctrinally...which pretty quickly reveals the lack of singularity that i mentioned.

i would also go as far as to say that the idea that "salvation is only through Jesus Christ" can come from and be intepreted at each and every level of the spectrum.

in other words...the meaning of that idea is determined by one's frequency, or combination of frequencies

here are some very simple ideas of what i mean by this, using the same basic model:

(and by no means exhaustive...one could unpack each of these indefinately)

if "salvation is only through Jesus Christ" is believed to mean that my own personal savior will grant me my personal wishes and desires and saves me from hell when i die, no matter what anyone one else says or does...one is speaking from 1). This doctrine is as diverse as there are people.

or if "salvation is only through Jesus Christ" is believed to mean that by some specific manner of evoking that specific name from an exclusive book will make you a part of an exclusive group, and get your name on an exclusive list, either now or after you die, and that we must get others to join this group in order for them to be "saved"......one is speaking from 2). This doctrine is as diverse as there are groups in this category.

or if "salvation is only through Jesus Christ" is believed to mean a logical response to the historic records, where one has sampled some of beliefs of the world and saw that this one made the most sense, and is the best foundation in an age of reason...one is speaking from 3).

or if "salvation is only through Jesus Christ" is believed to mean that one must live and express the same level of selfless and universal love and compassion that he did in order to follow in his footsteps to the afterlife...one is speaking from 4). btw...I believe this is where we really start getting beyond mere ways of translating...and into the transformational aspects of "Jesus as Lord." To practice universal compassion is to be a disciple of compassion. And there is no law against this. And although it doesn't sound like much...it was a very new idea to most of first century culture.

or if "salvation is only through Jesus Christ" is believed to mean that Jesus the Christ taught and demonstrated a specific caliber of doctrines and practices that were after lineages greater than himself, and unless one also practices and lives at that level of spiritual work, one will not experience the level of wholeness he described and experienced, one is speaking from 5) and beyond.

...

but keep in mind, that all previous "levels of faith" can remain intact as we climb the ladder

...because they get grafted in to the bigger spectrum, and stripped of their exclusive identification with that "color"

no longer is 1) a desire for selfish salvation, but a desire for personal wholeness and healthy self-care as it relates to the spectrum.

no longer is 2) a desire for exclusive membership, but a greater inclusive membership (which i believe is a huge paradox of the bible message...to deal with doctrinal and spiritual racism, mostly).

no longer is 3) a desire for the most rational answer, but a way to support the spectrum with greater rationality, and a way to expand the divine mystery

etc...

its when we climb the ladder and reject the earlier levels is when they come back to haunt us

Edited April 16, 2006 by sirguessalot

[sirguessalot]

Your last post sort of 'stole my thunder' Sir G. We live in a monochromatic world by sheer nature and consequences. The original paradise was lost, along with it's connection to God because of sin.

The closest it has come to its' original glory was when 'God was with us' 2000 years ago.

The full color spectrum happens again with 'new heaven and earth'.

Until then, eye cannot see nor ear hear what God has prepared for them who love Him.

Until then we see through a glass 'monochromatically'.

Until then we do not know even as we are known.

allan, is it possible what you are waiting for is already here? now?

and as long as you believe it is in the future, you may never bother to look?

which would also pretty much guarantee that it remains in your future?

[sirguessalot]

even our ideas of "salvation" can come through a spectrum of meaning

1) salvation = MY rescue, MY answered prayers, MY afterlife

2) salvation = "I'm in the afterlife club" or "i'm in the moral club"

3) salvation = a sound foundation for civilization

4) salvation = our hearts are fully open, we are free from hate

5) salvation = we are free from ignorance and prejudice

6) salvation = wholeness/holistic wellness in all parts

7) salvation = I AMness/free of duality/presence

again, a very simple run thru

could apply to islamic notions of "salvation"

jewish notions of salvation

buddhist notions of salvation

etc...

Edited April 16, 2006 by sirguessalot

[Goey]

First, i would hafta say that really there is no such thing as a singular "Christianity" that agrees on the nature of salvation or Jesus Christ. And as it sits, the idea that "salvation is only through Jesus Christ" is empty of meaning, and requires someone to explain what they think that means, practically, doctrinally...which pretty quickly reveals the lack of singularity that i mentioned.

I disagree that it it empty of meaning as it sits. It seems you have offered your personal esoteric meanings and unnecessarily complicated what it commonly means to millions of Christians.

IMO, You have neatly dodged the question and responded with a plethora of esoterical jargon impossible to understand without a secret decoder ring.

This is why I don't particiate in your threads Todd.

I will kindly bow out.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Goey

[CM]

Goey,

"what it commonly means to millions of Christians. "

wouldn't this rule out many who do believe but are not in this category?

i don't think there is a common understanding of Jesus Christ

all walks of life -jews islam budhists christians and more have understanding

whether or not they see it as "Jesus Christ" is irrelevant

[CM]

in other words it's the understanding of salvation that is the question

to one there is one understanding to another there is another

and then to look at these understandings and consider them

in light of our own understanding would be comparing spiritual with spiritual

and quite possibly open up some new understanding of Jesus Christ

instead of the same old same old being fried to death on one side

[sirguessalot]

thanks for bowing out, Goey

and offering some explanations as to why you dont participate in my threads

but i also want to make it clear to all...

there is NO secret decoder ring

and Goey did NOT provide reference to the plethora of esoteric jargon i used

and he did NOT provide reference to what ive written that is "impossible" to understand

besides, just because someone can't understand a thing

does not make it impossible for everyone to understand

i gave quite a variety of detailed examples of what i am talking about

and...am still here

and more than able to clarify

[allan w.]

No, I don't believe 'paradise', 'nirvana', 'rainbow land' is here YET Sir G. Looking around the world with even a cursory glance shows us the reality of that, and even you yourself quoted out of the book of revelation !(and that is still future, aint it)

[Goey]

thanks for bowing out, Goey

and offering some explanations as to why you dont participate in my threads

but i also want to make it clear to all...

there is NO secret decoder ring

and Goey did NOT provide reference to the plethora of esoteric jargon i used

and he did NOT provide reference to what ive written that is "impossible" to understand

besides, just because someone can't understand a thing

does not make it impossible for everyone to understand

i gave quite a variety of detailed examples of what i am talking about

and...am still here

and more than able to clarify

You are welcome Todd.

I and I want to make it clear, that I did not consider that providing further examples would result in any beneficial dialog but would only have been met with further "esoteric jargon" requiring more explanation requests ...followed by more esoteric jargon .....etc. etc. etc.

Just because a person claims understanding of a thing and the ability to communicate it - doesn't mean that it is understandable by everyone or even that is understandable at all. Some things are simply nonsensical. Some things aren't.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Goey

[CM]

Just because you Goey do not understand

that don't make it nonsense

just nonsense to you

if you want to stay not understanding fine

you aren't asking any questions

just ride off with that kind of comment...

is that your Jesus Christ?

and btw-

didn't he say many things that many didn't understand?