Origin of reality (was Re: ...VULGARITY...TOWARDS THE BOSS!)
John Hyde
In article <31D888...@aber.ac.uk> Marc Forrester <me...@aber.ac.uk> writes:
>Brian Fletcher wrote:
>> You are perfectly correct. There is no such THING as God, for God is
>> beyond all THINGS but all things are in God.There never HAS BEEN God
>> or Never WILL BE God, but there always IS God. See; you new more than
>> you thought after all!!! <grin>
>
>Hmm. You could say that about the universe, couldn't you?
>Beyond all things, but all things are in the universe,
>therefore the universe is not a thing.
>Depends how you define 'a thing' really.
>
>No was, no will be, just is.. Well, that's nothing to do with God,
>that's just a way of looking at time in general. Covers everything.
>
>So what actually is 'god', then? Is it a useful concept?
>Would it not be easier to just say 'Everything'?
Marc, you are closer to a realization of the true nature of reality
than probably even you are aware.
To teach that God created the universe is an extremely simplistic
concession to the limited degree to which revelation has been
successful on this world. God is the primordial pre-reality Universal
Fabric of Eternity, which contains all the potentials for all that
ever was, is, and will be.
God did not actually create the universe. God, the I AM, the
Primordial Essence, made a decision to distill out of it's infinitude
that which is personal, which brings into existence the Eternal Son,
and that which is non-personal but real (as compared to potential),
which brings into existence the Isle of Paradise (the pattern for all
material reality).
However, at the conclusion of this first creative episode, the
primordial I AM is still unchanged. The Infinite Potential is still
no less infinite (a concept that even our mathematicians can grasp;
an infinite set minus any sub-infinte set still results in the
original set being infinite).
The "first" act of the Father-Son partnership repercussed in emergence
of a co-equal being capable of uniting Spirit (the Eternal Son) with
matter (the Isle of Paradise), via the medium of "mind." This
co-equal Originator of Mind is the Infinite Spirit.
Quick review:
1. The Father = the I AM, Original Source of all reality.
2. The Eternal Son = the pattern personality and Source of all spirit
realities.
3. The Isle of Paradise = "Abode" of the Trinity, absolute pattern
for all material reality.
4. The Infinite Spirit = Original Mind Source and last being to come
into existence on a level of parity-equality to God the Father.
All are non-time events, time being a subset of eternity, and the set
of "all time" being not equal to (in other words, less than) the set
of "eternity." (It helps to look at them as "pre-time" occurrances).
The Son can also be viewed as one aspect of the Father, and the Spirit
can be viewed as the joint will of the Father-Son. But, back to your
question:
Upon the appearance of the Trinity, the Father retired from all active
universe creativity. The Son and the Spirit then created the
transcendental beings who are responsible for planning and creating
the universe as we know it. The Father only concurs in and supports
their endeavors.
As to the "God is" argument:
No one has ever been able to contact God except in the intensely real
eternal NOW. All beings have origins which can, through origins of
origins, be traced back to the Trinity (as the angels testify). The
Infinite Spirit testifies that upon attainment of consciousness, only
the Father and the Son existed. The Eternal Son testifies that he is
from God. And God has nothing to say regarding anything of this
nature (probably because no one would understand anyway). So, the
whole concept of the origin of the Trinity (such as the explanation
given above) is a philosophical construct based on the meagerly
available evidence (evidence which a non-believer is likely to discard
anyway).
As to your last question regarding the usefulness of the God-concept:
God does actively and individually engage in essentially one creative
act only - the bestowal of personality. Only the Father is
superpersonal and indeed an infinite personality. (The Eternal Son is
Absolute personality). It is the personality bestowed upon us by God
himself directly which allows us to use our minds in such a fashion as
to be able to transcend that very mind.
As a crude illustration: Do you "own" your mind? Do you "use" your
mind? What part of you is using that mind? Your mind?
You see, it becomes hopelessly circular if you don't recognize that
some part of you transcends the mind you are using. When the physical
brain dies, it is the personality which is transported to the next
life.
So, you are right - God is just "everything."
You may not agree with the answers given, but I wanted you to know
that a wholly self-consistent set of answers do exist.
--
John C. Hyde eus...@exu.ericsson.se
"Only a brave person is able honestly to accept, and fearlessly to face,
what a sincere and logical mind discovers." -Rodan of Alexandria
Brian Fletcher
>
>As a crude illustration: Do you "own" your mind? Do you "use" your
>mind? What part of you is using that mind? Your mind?
>
>You see, it becomes hopelessly circular if you don't recognize that
>some part of you transcends the mind you are using. When the physical
>brain dies, it is the personality which is transported to the next
>life.
>
>So, you are right - God is just "everything."
>
>
>You may not agree with the answers given, but I wanted you to know
>that a wholly self-consistent set of answers do exist.
>
>--
Phew!!!! That is brilliant John.I read it quickly.and needed to lie down
and have a cup of Zen tea.<grin>
It is just as well that all roads lead to'Rome'because I would never have
been able to understand the road map.
One of the great aspects of my stage of the journey,is that I can now
celebrate the different views and methods and not feel threatened by them.
jkn...@hightec.saarlink.de
In talk.atheism John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote:
: Marc Forrester <me...@aber.ac.uk> writes:
[snip]
: >So what actually is 'god', then? Is it a useful concept?
: >Would it not be easier to just say 'Everything'?
: Marc, you are closer to a realization of the true nature of reality
: than probably even you are aware.
John, do you *know* the "true nature of reality"?
: To teach that God created the universe is an extremely simplistic
: concession to the limited degree to which revelation has been
: successful on this world.
Hmmm. It seems a bit premature to concede this as a given.
: God is the primordial pre-reality Universal Fabric of Eternity, which
: contains all the potentials for all that ever was, is, and will be.
Either you are proposing the Spinozan god with certain multi/
metadimensional characteristics, or you believe some actual sixth
dimensional being exists who was somehow directly interacted with
the universe. Given what follows, I assume you mean the latter. I
wonder how you arrived at that conclusion, and whether or not you
believe this god has communicated specific wishes for humanity?
: God did not actually create the universe. God, the I AM, the
: Primordial Essence, made a decision to distill out of it's infinitude
A conscious decision?
: that which is personal, which brings into existence the Eternal Son,
What is the Eternal Son? Given the references later, I can only
assume you mean that "entity" which Christians call Jesus.
: and that which is non-personal but real (as compared to potential),
: which brings into existence the Isle of Paradise (the pattern for all
: material reality).
So the "Isle of Paradise" is the prototype for matter?
: However, at the conclusion of this first creative episode, the
: primordial I AM is still unchanged. The Infinite Potential is still
: no less infinite (a concept that even our mathematicians can grasp;
: an infinite set minus any sub-infinte set still results in the
: original set being infinite).
The first creative episode was creating "our universe"?
: The "first" act of the Father-Son partnership repercussed in emergence
: of a co-equal being capable of uniting Spirit (the Eternal Son) with
: matter (the Isle of Paradise), via the medium of "mind." This
: co-equal Originator of Mind is the Infinite Spirit.
I think I have understood your presentation, but I wonder what
makes your assertions valid? Why should I believe you?
[snipped: Quick review]
: All are non-time events, time being a subset of eternity, and the set
: of "all time" being not equal to (in other words, less than) the set
: of "eternity." (It helps to look at them as "pre-time" occurrances).
Pre-time?
: The Son can also be viewed as one aspect of the Father, and the Spirit
: can be viewed as the joint will of the Father-Son. But, back to your
: question:
: Upon the appearance of the Trinity, the Father retired from all active
: universe creativity. The Son and the Spirit then created the
: transcendental beings who are responsible for planning and creating
: the universe as we know it. The Father only concurs in and supports
: their endeavors.
Hmmm. Sort of a universe engineering scheme with God given the
charge of the planning department. ;^)
: As to the "God is" argument:
: No one has ever been able to contact God except in the intensely real
: eternal NOW. All beings have origins which can, through origins of
: origins, be traced back to the Trinity (as the angels testify). The
I have seen some interesting family trees, but none that go
back *that* far.
: Infinite Spirit testifies that upon attainment of consciousness, only
: the Father and the Son existed. The Eternal Son testifies that he is
: from God. And God has nothing to say regarding anything of this
: nature (probably because no one would understand anyway). So, the
So God takes the fifth and these other two guys give sworn
statements. Since the Bible had not been written, what book
did they swear upon?
: whole concept of the origin of the Trinity (such as the explanation
: given above) is a philosophical construct based on the meagerly
: available evidence (evidence which a non-believer is likely to discard
: anyway).
Since you say there is not much evidence supporting your
claim, perhaps you could post a comprehensive list of the
"evidence"? As a non-believer, I might very well disgard
it, but I might better understand your as yet unsupported
claims.
: As to your last question regarding the usefulness of the God-concept:
: God does actively and individually engage in essentially one creative
: act only - the bestowal of personality. Only the Father is
I suppose as an omnipotent being, God chooses the parents,
the environment and the experience each person has to make
up his/her personality. It seems unfair then that he would
hold us accountable for "sin".
: superpersonal and indeed an infinite personality. (The Eternal Son is
: Absolute personality). It is the personality bestowed upon us by God
: himself directly which allows us to use our minds in such a fashion as
: to be able to transcend that very mind.
: As a crude illustration: Do you "own" your mind? Do you "use" your
: mind? What part of you is using that mind? Your mind?
Are you getting the concepts of brain and mind confused?
I am my mind. My whole body "uses" my brain, including my
"mind" which resides in the brain.
: You see, it becomes hopelessly circular if you don't recognize that
: some part of you transcends the mind you are using. When the physical
Why must some part of me transcend the BRAIN that I am using?
: brain dies, it is the personality which is transported to the next
: life.
My "mind", (i.e. that part of me that is self-aware) resides
in the brain. When the brain dies I die with it.
: So, you are right - God is just "everything."
Hmmm. You have claimed God has a consciousness (not to mention
an eternal son and "holy ghost"). Where does this consciousness,
i.e. God's "mind") reside? Does s/he have an eternal brain?
I really can't tell if you are postulating a collective
intelligence, or a separate entity. Please explain.
: You may not agree with the answers given, but I wanted you to know
: that a wholly self-consistent set of answers do exist.
Self-consistent? At the moment your "answers" are merely
unsupported assertions and speculation. I am sure you are
aware that there are hundreds of millions of people who
claim that they have such "answers" as well, only these
"answers" contradict your theory. Please provide some
evidence, or at least show the reasoning behind your
statements.
Take Care
Jim (jknopf@ hightec.saarlink.de)
=========================================\ I said all this,
/\ "So remember when you're feeling very \\ but if you ask
//\\ small and insecure, How amazingly un- \\ my Boss, he'll
// \\ likely is your birth, And pray that \\ either deny it,
// || \\ there's intelligent life somewhere up \\ or take credit,
// ||_ \\ in space, Cause there's bugger-all \\ depending on if
// / || \ \\ down here on Earth." \\ it made sense
// /__||__\ \\ -Monty Python: The Meaning of Life \\ or not.
========================================================\
John Hyde
Hello, Jim.
In article <4rqm14$k...@hades.rz.uni-sb.de> jkn...@hightec.saarlink.de () writes:
>
>In talk.atheism John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote:
>: Marc Forrester <me...@aber.ac.uk> writes:
>: >So what actually is 'god', then? Is it a useful concept?
>: >Would it not be easier to just say 'Everything'?
>: Marc, you are closer to a realization of the true nature of reality
>: than probably even you are aware.
>
>John, do you *know* the "true nature of reality"?
I *know* that the assumption that "reality = matter, and everything
else flows from that fundamental assumption" is decidedly
one-dimensional, inadequate, and outright erroneous.
Finite reality is revealed to exist on three levels: material,
mindal, and spiritual. All three are interrelated as to function.
>: God is the primordial pre-reality Universal Fabric of Eternity, which
>: contains all the potentials for all that ever was, is, and will be.
>
>Either you are proposing the Spinozan god with certain multi/
>metadimensional characteristics, or you believe some actual sixth
>dimensional being exists who was somehow directly interacted with
>the universe. Given what follows, I assume you mean the latter.
If you could elaborate, I could try to fit the explanation into your
paradigm. I suspect that I am proposing a bit of both.
But God is the Source of the potentials out of which the universe was
formed. God is also self-conscious, and, at least in potential, can
interact with the universe in any manner of his choosing (as long as
it doesn't result in a self-contradiction, a violation of other
pre-ordained universe laws).
>I wonder ... whether or not you
>believe this god has communicated specific wishes for humanity?
Only on an individualized basis. That is, God will reveal general
outlooks to any individual person who earnestly and sincerely and
persistently and intelligently seeks Divine Wisdom. But as to
humanity as a whole, those affairs are in the hands of our collective
individualities.
>: God did not actually create the universe. God, the I AM, the
>: Primordial Essence, made a decision to distill out of it's infinitude
>
>A conscious decision?
One assumes so.
A "will" decision might be a better terminology, since to claim that
the decision is "conscious" might imply that God could make
"unconscious" decisions (an oxymoron, given the way that God is here
defined).
>: that which is personal, which brings into existence the Eternal Son,
>
>What is the Eternal Son? Given the references later, I can only
>assume you mean that "entity" which Christians call Jesus.
Close enough.
>So the "Isle of Paradise" is the prototype for matter?
Yes.
>: However, at the conclusion of this first creative episode, the
>: primordial I AM is still unchanged. The Infinite Potential is still
>: no less infinite (a concept that even our mathematicians can grasp;
>: an infinite set minus any sub-infinte set still results in the
>: original set being infinite).
>
>The first creative episode was creating "our universe"?
The "first" creative episode was for the "the I AM" to self-segregate
into "the Infinite One" and "the Infinitude," which resulted in the
appearance of the absolute pattern personality, the Eternal Son, and
the absolute of matter, the Isle of Paradise. But at the end of this
cycle of eternity, the I AM was no less infinite than before.
>: The "first" act of the Father-Son partnership repercussed in emergence
>: of a co-equal being capable of uniting Spirit (the Eternal Son) with
>: matter (the Isle of Paradise), via the medium of "mind." This
>: co-equal Originator of Mind is the Infinite Spirit.
>
>I think I have understood your presentation, but I wonder what
>makes your assertions valid? Why should I believe you?
This is a scenario which can be used as a vehicle for effectively
dealing with most of the major differences between science,
philosophy, and religion today. The above scenario is definitely not
science, but neither is it religion. It is a philosophical postulate
which can bridge the differences between religion and science.
The strength of such an approach is partially illustrated by the
following passage from _The Urantia Book_:
======================================================================
In such a far-flung universe of universes there is always great danger
of succumbing to the error of the circumscribed viewpoint, to the evil
inherent in a segmentalized conception of reality and divinity.
The true perspective of any reality problem--human or divine,
terrestrial or cosmic--can be had only by the full and unprejudiced
study and correlation of three phases of universe reality: origin,
history, and destiny. The proper understanding of these three
experiential realities affords the basis for a wise estimate of the
current status.
When the human mind undertakes to follow the philosophic technique of
starting from the lower to approach the higher, whether in biology or
theology, it is always in danger of committing four errors of
reasoning:
1. It may utterly fail to perceive the final and completed
evolutionary goal of either personal attainment or cosmic destiny.
2. It may commit the supreme philosophical blunder by oversimplifying
cosmic evolutionary (experiential) reality, thus leading to the
distortion of facts, to the perversion of truth, and to the
misconception of destinies.
3. The study of causation is the perusal of history. But the knowledge
of how a being becomes does not necessarily provide an intelligent
understanding of the present status and true character of such a
being.
4. History alone fails adequately to reveal future development--
destiny. Finite origins are helpful, but only divine causes reveal
final effects. Eternal ends are not shown in time beginnings. The
present can be truly interpreted only in the light of the correlated
past and future.
======================================================================
>: All beings have origins which can, through origins of
>: origins, be traced back to the Trinity (as the angels testify).
>
>I have seen some interesting family trees, but none that go
>back *that* far.
That's because we have been handicapped by the paradigms of the
ancients. Back in days before easy reproduction of books (and all the
numerous repercussions resulting therefrom, including universal
education, the emergence of the scientific method of nature
investigation, and the general conservation of knowledge that formerly
would have been lost), the revelators were constrained to present
highly simplistic cosmologies, due to the need of presenting the more
urgent spiritual teachings in some detail (love your neighbor,
forgiveness, industriousness, etc).
If the revelations were too extensive, the bulk of the information
conveyed would be lost, or, creedalized to the point where the
original teachings become unrecognizable (which was often the case).
The simplistic viewpoint that God created angels and then man, that
there are basically three levels of universe activity, might have been
appropriate when the word "universe" used to mean something like "my
village plus the villages I haven't yet visited." Now, thanks in part
to sci-fi, we really *can* imagine "other dimensions" of existence, as
well as a well-populated universe with diverse levels and orders of
intelligent beings.
>Since you say there is not much evidence supporting your
>claim, perhaps you could post a comprehensive list of the
>"evidence"? As a non-believer, I might very well disgard
>it, but I might better understand your as yet unsupported
>claims.
In the case of testimony, the testimony is the evidence. You might be
interested in the numerous parallels between ancient "religions" and
modern revelations. For instance, the teachings of the Trinity
survive in the Hindu religion in much-adulterated form.
However, you may want to locate a copy of _The Urantia Book_. This
is, IMO, genuine extra-human revelation at its finest: a detailed and
comprehensive overview of the history of this world, plus an
introduction to a cosmology fitting for mankind's journey into the
third millenium A.D.
>: God does actively and individually engage in essentially one
>: creative act only - the bestowal of personality.
>
>I suppose as an omnipotent being, God chooses the parents,
>the environment and the experience each person has to make
>up his/her personality.
You make many, many assumptions (I assume). :-)
Parents are not "chosen," they just "are." You know, "things happen"
(like procreation), and that results in parents.
Personality is something superadditive to the human mind. Personality
is one of the highest realities in the universe, and therefore is
difficult of explanation. But humans are endowed with the personality
gift from God, and no two personalities are alike, in all the universe
of universes.
> It seems unfair then that he would hold us accountable for "sin".
If we were only electrochemical creatures, we would be wholly bound by
the laws of electrochemistry as it pertains to biology. Even the
postulated quantum uncertainty would not result in true
self-determination, for we would again be subject to the uncertainty,
not the master of it. It is the gift of personality that makes us
true freewill beings, and thus makes us accountable for our decisions
and the actions resulting therefrom.
>: As a crude illustration: Do you "own" your mind? Do you "use" your
>: mind? What part of you is using that mind? Your mind?
>Are you getting the concepts of brain and mind confused?
>I am my mind. My whole body "uses" my brain, including my
>"mind" which resides in the brain.
This assumption, while not incorrect, is not complete, either. At
least, that is the case from my perspective.
>: You see, it becomes hopelessly circular if you don't recognize that
>: some part of you transcends the mind you are using. When the physical
>
>Why must some part of me transcend the BRAIN that I am using?
If mind comes from brain, as you say, then how can brain claim to own
itself? Are we all slightly schizophrenic? Is there the "I" sector
of the brain, and the "mind" sector of the brain? When you say "my
mind," or "my brain," is it that part of the brain that is not "mind,"
but rather "I," that is claiming ownership?
>: So, you are right - God is just "everything."
>
>Hmmm. You have claimed God has a consciousness (not to mention
>an eternal son and "holy ghost").
No "holy ghost" mentioned in my posting, my friend. The specific term
I used was "Infinite Spirit" to designate the Third Person of Deity.
Remember, you are referring to an almost hopelessly simplistic
theology in your attempts to understand the presentation I am making.
The theology of the Christian Bible is largely true, but it is almost
radically sparse, and there are numerous untruths intermixed therein.
>Where does this consciousness, i.e. God's "mind" reside? Does s/he
>have an eternal brain?
Can you not conceive of mind without brain? Could pure thought exist
without the presence of an electrochemical organ, or, for that matter,
a material organ of any type? (In your paradigm?)
BTW, you get points for recognizing that God does not have the
"gender" attribute. God's being referred to as "he" is rather
arbitrary, although there is somewhat of a reason for making that
arbitrary decision.
>Please provide some evidence, or at least show the reasoning behind
>your statements.
If these matters are truly of interest you, you will be rewarded
beyond your wildest imagination. I heartily recommend you locate a
copy of _The Urantia Book_, and then we can talk again in about a
year.
Marty
Dear John, Marc and Brian:
Your discussion intrigued me so please forgive me for entering
this thread late. John, I do have some problems with your replies to
Brian and perhaps I have misunderstood you. I will deal with each
point (pardon me but I am going to snip those sections with which I
agree or cover).
On 3 Jul 1996 17:27:50 -0500, you wrote:
>In article <31D888...@aber.ac.uk> Marc Forrester <me...@aber.ac.uk> writes:
>>Brian Fletcher wrote:
>>> You are perfectly correct. There is no such THING as God, for God is
>>> beyond all THINGS but all things are in God.
Actually, I think you will find the Bible says all things are in His
presence. What you have described would be more akin to a
polytheistic or materialistic model of God, not a Biblical one. To
say that God is in everything does not do justice to all that God is.
God is transcendent (beyond us) and imminent (with us). He knows us
at our worst and our secret thoughts are not hidden from Him. He
loves us in spite of our pettiness and though He cannot abide our sin
(all sin stems from our selfish nature) He paid a price to rescue us
from eternity without Him.
>>So what actually is 'god', then? Is it a useful concept?
I think so, even though if left as only a concept (Fire Insurance) it
tends to be misused (Notice, I did not say He tends to be misused).
>>Would it not be easier to just say 'Everything'?
Not really. Since God is Spirit and immaterial, there is much (sin
for instance) which is excluded.
>To teach that God created the universe is an extremely simplistic
>concession to the limited degree to which revelation has been
>successful on this world. God is the primordial pre-reality Universal
>Fabric of Eternity, which contains all the potentials for all that
>ever was, is, and will be.
If you mean that God could conceive of all that could ever be then I
can agree, otherwise I would have to say that your statement can mean
too many things, and could be applied to most any sovereign God and
not merely the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
>God did not actually create the universe.
Unless you believe the Bible.
>God, the I AM, the
>Primordial Essence, made a decision to distill out of it's infinitude
>that which is personal, which brings into existence the Eternal Son,
But the Bible makes clear that the Son is eternal having dwelled for
all time (and before) with the Father (John 1:1-5 for instance). The
Son cannot be eternal if at some point the Father "made a decision" to
bring Him into existence. The God and Son you are talking about, are
not the ones mentioned in the Bible.
>and that which is non-personal but real (as compared to potential),
>which brings into existence the Isle of Paradise (the pattern for all
>material reality).
Is the Isle of Paradise, "Eden" or "Heaven"? If so, then what
material reality shows this pattern? I think it would be a good spot
for my next vacation.
>The "first" act of the Father-Son partnership repercussed in emergence
>of a co-equal being capable of uniting Spirit (the Eternal Son) with
>matter (the Isle of Paradise), via the medium of "mind." This
>co-equal Originator of Mind is the Infinite Spirit.
You should know the Bible also clearly delineates the eternality of
the Spirit so this emerged spirit is not the Holy Spirit.
I assume you don't mean this, but your second sentence above says that
the Spirit originated the mind. If that is true then your Father and
Son did not have minds before the emergence of your spirit.
>Upon the appearance of the Trinity, the Father retired from all active
>universe creativity. The Son and the Spirit then created the
>transcendental beings who are responsible for planning and creating
>the universe as we know it. The Father only concurs in and supports
>their endeavors.
Not Biblically. Yes, the Son created all things but the Father is
still very active and is credited by the Son as the source of His
power during His earthly ministries. You might want to read J. I.
Packers _Knowing God_ for a clear readable Biblical understanding of
the Reformed view of who God is and what He does. Your beliefs sound
very nice but are at best, speculative theology, and at worst, heresy.
No one gets burned at the stake anymore (or ever should have been) but
that does not mean that saying that in "I am a Christian" one can mean
anything they choose to define it as. I hope this is not too harsh,
but I hope you would wish to have a better understanding of Our Lord
and Savior so that when you do witness to those who do not know Him,
you are describing the right God. To lead someone to the wrong Jesus
can be hazardous to their, and your, eternity.
>As to the "God is" argument:
>No one has ever been able to contact God except in the intensely real
>eternal NOW.
I have no idea what this means. How does it relate to prayer, and
God's revelation to us through the Holy Spirit, His Word and His
Incarnation?
>All beings have origins which can, through origins of
>origins, be traced back to the Trinity (as the angels testify). The
>Infinite Spirit testifies that upon attainment of consciousness, only
>the Father and the Son existed. The Eternal Son testifies that he is
>from God. And God has nothing to say regarding anything of this
>nature (probably because no one would understand anyway).
Are you saying that God could not relate to us in a manner which we
could understand? What about the Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and the
Prophets? If we can trust the Bible then we know that your last
statement needs clarification.
> So, the
>whole concept of the origin of the Trinity (such as the explanation
>given above) is a philosophical construct based on the meagerly
>available evidence (evidence which a non-believer is likely to discard
>anyway).
Whether or not a nonbeliever would care is moot. The Trinity is based
upon the whole of scripture and is not a philosophical construct, nor
does it much resemble the explanation you have created. You really
need to spend more time in scripture studying these things of which
you write. I do not say this to be mean, but to invite you to read
and learn. You seem to be writing from the position of a Christian,
yet your words do not reflect Biblical revelation. With your grasp of
language and logic you would greatly enjoy a couple of books and
groups I could recommend.
>As to your last question regarding the usefulness of the God-concept:
>God does actively and individually engage in essentially one creative
>act only - the bestowal of personality. Only the Father is
>superpersonal and indeed an infinite personality. (The Eternal Son is
>Absolute personality). It is the personality bestowed upon us by God
>himself directly which allows us to use our minds in such a fashion as
>to be able to transcend that very mind.
This is not a Christian view.
>You may not agree with the answers given, but I wanted you to know
>that a wholly self-consistent set of answers do exist.
This is true. Unfortunately, they were not presented in this letter
from a Biblical standpoint. Since I do not have the initial post, I
would enjoy reading it. I realize that believing the Bible is not in
vogue today, but I would gladly bring that outdated view to the
discussion.
To God be the glory,
j martin faulkner
Brian Fletcher
In article <4s792a$k...@news.campus.mci.net>,
jfau...@uncc.campus.mci.net says...
Welcome to the thread.
He (I prefer Hu...but thats another story) sends out waves of
love.We ride those waves back through a journey of concious
awakening.We grow in love ,we move on.
>>>So what actually is 'god', then? Is it a useful concept?
>
>I think so, even though if left as only a concept (Fire Insurance)
it
>tends to be misused (Notice, I did not say He tends to be
misused).
>
>>>Would it not be easier to just say 'Everything'?
>
>Not really. Since God is Spirit and immaterial, there is much
(sin
>for instance) which is excluded.
Sin is a human perspective used by manipulators to
breed,fear,anxiety.No wonder Jesus used to get angry(in a loving
way,like a good parent).He kept repeating"you will reap what you
so,time and time again.Now there are concepts of mortal sin and
eternal damnation.We learn to "Do Greater Works Than I" with a lot
more discrimination and empathy when we keep having to clean up our
own mess.
>>To teach that God created the universe is an extremely simplistic
>>concession to the limited degree to which revelation has been
>>successful on this world. God is the primordial pre-reality
Universal
>>Fabric of Eternity, which contains all the potentials for all
that
>>ever was, is, and will be.
>
>If you mean that God could conceive of all that could ever be then
I
>can agree, otherwise I would have to say that your statement can
mean
>too many things, and could be applied to most any sovereign God
and
>not merely the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Many make a claim.They all ultimately learn.
>>God did not actually create the universe.
The universal mind conceptualized about God,and tries to fit It
into mental imagary.An important step on the way.!!!
>Unless you believe the Bible.
>
>>God, the I AM, the
>>Primordial Essence, made a decision to distill out of it's
infinitude
>>that which is personal, which brings into existence the Eternal
Son,
>
>But the Bible makes clear that the Son is eternal having dwelled
for
>all time (and before) with the Father (John 1:1-5 for instance).
The
>Son cannot be eternal if at some point the Father "made a
decision" to
>bring Him into existence. The God and Son you are talking about,
are
>not the ones mentioned in the Bible.
The Bible was written in Poetic terms.The SON of MAN (HU MAN);you
and I are THE SON OF MAN.We always have been and always will be.WE
ARE EACH WAKEING UP TO THIS REALITY and always have been.Th Kingdom
of God Is At Hand.IT always has been.Boy....do people have trouble
with this one!!!(This is difficult for the mind to grasp.Poetry
speaks to the soul).There is no use dwelling in the garden Of Eden
unless you know you are there!!!
>>and that which is non-personal but real (as compared to
potential),
>>which brings into existence the Isle of Paradise (the pattern for
all
>>material reality).
>
>Is the Isle of Paradise, "Eden" or "Heaven"? If so, then what
>material reality shows this pattern? I think it would be a good
spot
>for my next vacation.
There is no coincidence that tourism is the largest growing
industry in the world.People are anxiously looking outside for what
is inside.Remember how deflated you feel when you come back from
holiday.It is amazing how exquisite life is when you look through
heavenly(loving) eyes!!!!!
>>The "first" act of the Father-Son partnership repercussed in
emergence
>>of a co-equal being capable of uniting Spirit (the Eternal Son)
with
>>matter (the Isle of Paradise), via the medium of "mind." This
>>co-equal Originator of Mind is the Infinite Spirit.
>
>You should know the Bible also clearly delineates the eternality
of
>the Spirit so this emerged spirit is not the Holy Spirit.
>I assume you don't mean this, but your second sentence above says
that
>the Spirit originated the mind. If that is true then your Father
and
>Son did not have minds before the emergence of your spirit.
Spirit is the essence we "ride" back to God.WE transend the
mind.The mind lives only in time,not in eternity;...*now*
You honesty will take you closer.You can`t have an "idea" of what
it means any more than you can have an idea of the scent of
roses.Yuo have to experience.God makes sure you will regardless of
your beliefs.That is how Divine Love works.
How does it relate to prayer, and
>God's revelation to us through the Holy Spirit, His Word and His
>Incarnation?
Prayer demonstrates lack of confidence in Gods wisdom.My will not
Thyne.God works in mysterious ways,but also provides the keys to
the mystery.I promise you.You ARE an incarnation of God.
>>All beings have origins which can, through origins of
>>origins, be traced back to the Trinity (as the angels testify).
The
>>Infinite Spirit testifies that upon attainment of consciousness,
only
>>the Father and the Son existed. The Eternal Son testifies that
he is
>>from God. And God has nothing to say regarding anything of this
>>nature (probably because no one would understand anyway).
>
>Are you saying that God could not relate to us in a manner which
we
>could understand? What about the Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and
the
>Prophets? If we can trust the Bible then we know that your last
>statement needs clarification.
We get what we need when we need it,God knows.Trust God
directly,not others viewpoints no matter where they come from.Love
them for their views just as God does.
>> So, the
>>whole concept of the origin of the Trinity (such as the
explanation
>>given above) is a philosophical construct based on the meagerly
>>available evidence (evidence which a non-believer is likely to
discard
>>anyway).
>
>Whether or not a nonbeliever would care is moot. The Trinity is
based
>upon the whole of scripture and is not a philosophical construct,
nor
>does it much resemble the explanation you have created. You
really
>need to spend more time in scripture studying these things of
which
>you write. I do not say this to be mean, but to invite you to
read
>and learn. You seem to be writing from the position of a
Christian,
>yet your words do not reflect Biblical revelation.
That is why I wrote the previous statement.We were"created"
differently.We are each unique,and yet many get flustered by the
differences,part of which are viewpoints.Learn to celebrate those
different views.You will learn to love and embrace them.
YOU ARE THE GLORY.........THIS YOU MUST *KNOW*(and will,so relax)
Marty
Dear Brian:
Pardon as I cut to the chase, but I've snipped all but our
own exchange from the post.
> > Marty wrote:
> Brian Fletcher wrote:
> He (I prefer Hu...but thats another story) sends out waves of
> love.We ride those waves back through a journey of concious
> awakening.We grow in love ,we move on.
> Sin is a human perspective used by manipulators to
> breed,fear,anxiety.
Sorry Brian, but we have gained our knowledge of sin from God,
therefor sin is not a human, but universal perspective.
> No wonder Jesus used to get angry(in a loving
> way,like a good parent).He kept repeating"you will reap what you
> so,time and time again.Now there are concepts of mortal sin and
> eternal damnation.We learn to "Do Greater Works Than I" with a lot
> more discrimination and empathy when we keep having to clean up our
> own mess.
If we were able to "clean up our own mess" then there was no need
for Christ to die upon the cross. This view you have espoused is
called Pelegianism and is not a Christian position.
> The universal mind conceptualized about God,and tries to fit It
> into mental imagary.An important step on the way.!!!
Is this the way you are talking about?
Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but
the end thereof are the ways of death."
> The
> >Son cannot be eternal if at some point the Father "made a
> decision" to
> >bring Him into existence. The God and Son you are talking about,
> are
> >not the ones mentioned in the Bible.
>
> The Bible was written in Poetic terms.The SON of MAN (HU MAN);you
> and I are THE SON OF MAN.
I think not. Perhaps you should read this description of what the
Son of Man looks like:
Revelation 1:13 "And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one
like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment
down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a
golden girdle.
1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as
white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of
fire;
1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they
burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound
of many waters."
> We always have been and always will be.
Only in God's foreknowledge. This belief you are referring to is not
Christian, but Mormon.
>WE ARE EACH WAKEING UP TO THIS REALITY and always have been.Th Kingdom
> of God Is At Hand.IT always has been.Boy....do people have trouble
> with this one!!!(This is difficult for the mind to grasp.Poetry
> speaks to the soul).There is no use dwelling in the garden Of Eden
> unless you know you are there!!!
I think you have confused the God of the Bible with the God you
worship.
They bear no resemblance to one another.
> >I assume you don't mean this, but your second sentence above says
> that
> >the Spirit originated the mind. If that is true then your Father
> and
> >Son did not have minds before the emergence of your spirit.
>
> Spirit is the essence we "ride" back to God.WE transend the
> mind.The mind lives only in time,not in eternity;...*now*
Your concept of who the spirit is cannot be supported from scripture.
> Prayer demonstrates lack of confidence in Gods wisdom.My will not
> Thyne.God works in mysterious ways,but also provides the keys to
> the mystery.I promise you.You ARE an incarnation of God.
If what you say is so then why are encouraged to pray in the Bible.
God would not encourage us not to trust Him, when the very basis of
Christianity is faith. The Bible say that there was enmity between
me and God before Christ became my Savior. The Bible says that I
was God's enemy until Christ's blood cleansed me of my sins. None
of that agrees with what you have said above.
> We get what we need when we need it, God knows.Trust God
> directly,not others viewpoints no matter where they come from.Love
> them for their views just as God does.
But I do love all. It is simply that there must be a bottom line.
Since God is a God of order, which is obvious when viewing His
creation, it stands to reason that He must have a bottom line.
That bottom line is His word. It is not a collection of meta-
physical poetry, but a guide to life and worship. You have
clearly rejected that part of it.
> That is why I wrote the previous statement.We were"created"
> differently.We are each unique,and yet many get flustered by the
> differences,part of which are viewpoints.Learn to celebrate those
> different views.You will learn to love and embrace them.
I can still love you, and abhor the way you have twisted the truth
of God. At the point where our viewpoints disagree with God, we are
wrong and need to repent (turn around) and agree with the One who
made us.
Brian, You are not a Christian. I do not say that out of meanness,
or to pass judgment upon you. It's like telling a horse that he
is not a sheep. It is just a plain fact that you do not worship the
God described in the Bible, and beliefs disagree with the
commandments of God.
Are you a Mormon? Are you a Christian or Religion Scientist?
Do you even belong to an organized group or do you just come
up with this stuff by yourself? Do you belong to a Liberal Church
that denies the foundational doctrines of Christianity as described
in God's word? If so then go to a good Conservative or Evangelical
Church and talk to the Pastor there and learn about Christianity.
It is not too late to accept the truth and save yourself from the
wrath to come.
To God be the glory,
j martin faulkner
Marty
Dear John:
Thank you for your letter. I do believe that you have
misinterpreted
the point and thrust of my letter. I was writing to correct the
errors
Brian had made in his creative elucidation of the Trinity. Since it
was
a Christian position he was misrepresenting, I answered to correct
this
error. As I made clear in my post (with apologies for my late entry)
that I am an Orthodox Christian and that would be reflected in my
post.
I do not expect you to agree with me and make a similar testimony of
faith. But I would hope that you will allow me to correct the error
propounded by one whose profession was of a doctrine he did not
understand. I only cross posted to the others in the thread so that
they
to would at least know that what they were hearing in no way resembled
the Biblical teaching. You will note that I did not seek to bore you
with the corrected doctrine, all though I would have done so if
someone
had asked.
About the rest of your letter.
John Hyde wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Faulkner (or Martin or J. Martin or j. martin or whatever),
>
> While I appreciate that you are confused by the material I posted, I
> guess that the reason for your confusion is the assumption that the
> Christian Bible is the final and only authoritative word on the
> subject of God.
Again, I made it clear that I believe that the Christian Bible is
final
and authoritative. I made no such demands that anyone else accept it
as such.
> I myself believe much differently, for many reasons, including the
> following:
>
> 1. The Bible is a book. No book could ever begin to adequately
> explain or describe the inifinitude of the Creator. Any book that
> could even begin to effectively approach such a subject could only
> do so in a suggestive manner, one which would stimulate the
> individual believer onto a road of self-discovery of the living God.
Your point leads to obvious questions.
You say the Bible is a (one) book. My Bible contains sixty-six books
by many different authors and written (originally) in several
different
languages. Do you believe the Bible to be only one book?
No book could ever adequately describe infinity. The Bible does not
even try except to metaphorically explain that God is infinite. What
the Bible does do is describe God's moral character, God's dealings
with man, man's dealings with man and God's plan for our life and
salvation. What more would we need? How could a loving God offer us
less?
> 2. The Bible is too "fallible" for me to take in an authoritative
> manner. I believe that there is much truth in the Bible, even truths
> of a transcendent nature. But there is also much that is patently
> untrue. BTW, there are sound and acceptable reasons for all of this.
The Bible is not a science book and somewhat less a book of history,
but
archeological evidence has backed up the Bible time and time again.
When you say there is much that is patently untrue, you are offering
a nonsequitor. Every time I have researched a Biblical untruth, I
have
found a presupposition that demanded the Bible contradict itself.
Perhaps there is no evidence (or disputed evidence) for an event
having
happened, but proof does not prove that it did or di not happen.
I really would like to see this evidence of untruth (I am not being
sarcastic, that is not my style).
> 3. Jesus himself implies that the most important characteristic to
> bring to the table of religious inquiry is faith. He rarely refers
> to "scripture," and then usually only to rebut a scripture-based
> argumentative attack. If I were unable to read, that would in no
> way lessen my ability to commune with God.
Funny, in the Bible Jesus says "It is written" (the common phrase used
Rabbinically before quoting the Pentateuch) no less than twenty-seven
times. When you include all of His other quotes from OT authors,
you know that Jesus must have committed great amounts of scripture to
memory. Jesus indeed placed a great emphasis upon faith, but it was
not a faith of simple verbal agreement, but a faith put into action.
You could indeed commune with God if you were unable to read, but
your knowledge of Him would be greatly limited to your own
understanding
(assuming you ignored the Biblical requirement of regularly hearing
[Rom 10:17] the word of God). Such a limitation would restrict all
your understanding of God to your own experience and imagination, but
also would allow you to rationalize any behavior you found expedient
as being the will of God.
Have you ever really read the Bible in it's entirety, studying it to
weigh its value?
> 4. Jesus was amazed at the small-mindedness of the "lawyers," those
> who tried to argue for their interpretation of God based on
> "scriptural" writings. Jesus makes it abundantly clear that he
> advocates the library of living experience over the written words of
> ancient holy men, as a means of approaching God.
Where is this?
That Christ places great emphasis upon our daily walk is consistent
with
the rest of the Bible, but to imply that He at the same time holds the
study of the Bible in low regard is simply not anything I have read.
Can you provide chapter and verse for this?
> Therefore, Martin, I must perforce discard most of your argumentative
> rebuttals in the following:
<snip>
I never asked you to accept these premises. I would hope however that
you will answer the questions I have posed. To do less implies that
you do not wish to examine or discuss your beliefs, a position which
is
inconsistent with your posting of these letters on a public newsgroup.
Simply put, I am a Christian, and I can and will defend my faith
whenever it is misrepresented (straw man). This does not make me
better than non-Christians. It does not mean that I am a good person
and non-Christians are not. It only says that I have taken the time
to
learn about the issues concerning Christianity as elucidated in the
Bible.
My points were not meant to be argumentative, but were written as a
defense of Biblical principles misrepresented by one who did not
understand them. I hope I have not offended you by my directness, but
tact is not my strong suit. I really am not mean, judgmental,
perverse
or scheming. I only wanted to clear up what was, to me, an obvious
error.
John Wheeler
jfau...@uncc.campus.mci.net (Marty) wrote:
>Sorry Brian, but we have gained our knowledge of sin from God,
>therefor sin is not a human, but universal perspective.
I've taken the liberty of 'snipping' the rest of your article, simply
because there's nothing beyond this utterly incredible declaration
worthy of further comment or rebuttal.
Do tell, where do you get off thinking you can make such an utterly
false and totally unsubstantiated allegation?? *You do not speak for
*me by *any 'authority' -- presupposed 'divine' or otherwise. I am
one of the 'we' (since you didn't define it further), and, as one of
the 'we' I do here and now state you are absolutely incorrect, i.e.
"wrong."
I've gained my knowledge of right and wrong from my own experience --
not from any 'god.' I can recall, for example, my grandmother warning
me not to touch the hot stove, which I chose to ignore, and I paid the
price, burning my hand. That 'experience' didn't come from any 'god'
nor did my grandmother's knowledge of "hot stoves can burn skin" come
from any 'god.'
I spent the first fifty years of my life in 'fear' of 'god' -- a life,
I may add, was filled with fear, guilt and anxiety. Today, I live a
life free from such, er, "crap" (for lack of a more succinct word
found generally acceptable in polite company). And I may add, my life
is, as I would describe it, "having found a new freedom and a new
happiness" such as I've never before experienced. How, you may ask,
can I have accomplished such without 'god'?? Gee, that's real easy:
there is no 'god' and this life is *the life I have -- to be lived and
enjoyed to its fullest potential -- within, of course, the limitations
imposed by society (laws) and nature (natural laws). "Reality" is the
ultimate high, but I must admit, it's a concept way beyond the 'true
believer' who simply cannot live this life without living a life
deluded into thinking there's 'more to come.'
Alas, but I do feel this message a waste of time; attempting to rebut
nonesense with sense is like trying to punish the wind for having the
unmitigated gall to make a leaf flutter.
John Wheeler - kips...@io.com - http://www.io.com/~kipstips/jw.htm
***************************************************
* A man said to the Universe: "Sir, I exist!" *
* "However," replied the universe, "the fact has *
* not created in me a sense of obligation." *
* -Stephen Crane *
***************************************************
John Hyde
In article <4s792a$k...@news.campus.mci.net> jfau...@uncc.campus.mci.net (Marty) writes:
>Dear John, Marc and Brian:
> Your discussion intrigued me so please forgive me for entering
>this thread late. John, I do have some problems with your replies to
>Brian and perhaps I have misunderstood you.
Hello, Mr. Faulkner (or Martin or J. Martin or j. martin or whatever),
While I appreciate that you are confused by the material I posted, I
guess that the reason for your confusion is the assumption that the
Christian Bible is the final and only authoritative word on the
subject of God.
I myself believe much differently, for many reasons, including the
following:
1. The Bible is a book. No book could ever begin to adequately
explain or describe the inifinitude of the Creator. Any book that
could even begin to effectively approach such a subject could only
do so in a suggestive manner, one which would stimulate the
individual believer onto a road of self-discovery of the living God.
2. The Bible is too "fallible" for me to take in an authoritative
manner. I believe that there is much truth in the Bible, even truths
of a transcendent nature. But there is also much that is patently
untrue. BTW, there are sound and acceptable reasons for all of this.
3. Jesus himself implies that the most important characteristic to
bring to the table of religious inquiry is faith. He rarely refers
to "scripture," and then usually only to rebut a scripture-based
argumentative attack. If I were unable to read, that would in no
way lessen my ability to commune with God.
4. Jesus was amazed at the small-mindedness of the "lawyers," those
who tried to argue for their interpretation of God based on
"scriptural" writings. Jesus makes it abundantly clear that he
advocates the library of living experience over the written words of
ancient holy men, as a means of approaching God.
Therefore, Martin, I must perforce discard most of your argumentative
rebuttals in the following:
>On 3 Jul 1996 17:27:50 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>In article <31D888...@aber.ac.uk> Marc Forrester <me...@aber.ac.uk> writes:
>>>Brian Fletcher wrote:
>>>> You are perfectly correct. There is no such THING as God, for God
>>>> is beyond all THINGS but all things are in God.
>
> Actually, I think you will find the Bible says all things are in His
> presence. What you have described would be more akin to a polytheistic
> or materialistic model of God, not a Biblical one.
All things are indeed in God, for "in him we live, and move, and
have our being."
> To say that God is
> in everything does not do justice to all that God is.
Neither could any other words written by mere men. So what do we do,
just end all discussion of the nature of God?
> God is transcendent (beyond us) and imminent (with us).
Agreed.
> >To teach that God created the universe is an extremely simplistic
> >concession to the limited degree to which revelation has been
> >successful on this world. God is the primordial pre-reality Universal
> >Fabric of Eternity, which contains all the potentials for all that
> >ever was, is, and will be.
>
> If you mean that God could conceive of all that could ever be then I can
> agree, otherwise I would have to say that your statement can mean too
> many things, and could be applied to most any sovereign God and not
> merely the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
There is only one sovereign God, so your point is moot. I'm sure that
you must agree with this.
But "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" is also the God of Marc,
Brian, Martin, and John, and of every intelligent will creature in the
vast inhabited universe, even of those persons who do not acknowledge
God's matchless love.
> >God, the I AM, the
> >Primordial Essence, made a decision to distill out of it's infinitude
> >that which is personal, which brings into existence the Eternal Son,
>
> But the Bible makes clear that the Son is eternal having dwelled for all
> time (and before) with the Father (John 1:1-5 for instance). The Son
> cannot be eternal if at some point the Father "made a decision" to bring
> Him into existence. The God and Son you are talking about, are not the
> ones mentioned in the Bible.
Yet it is clear that the Son is of (from) the Father, for any number
reasons, including the name-designations given, "Father" and " Son."
Additionally, I very carefully chose the wording above ("distill out
of it's infinitude") to suggest that the Son was always there, which
is also both fact and truth.
If you had read the entire posting, you should have noted that the
origin scenarios given for the Son and the Spirit are pre-time events.
Thus, while the Son sprang from the Father and the Spirit came from
both the Father and the Son, it is nevertheless also true that all
three are co-eternal.
> >which brings into existence the Isle of Paradise (the pattern for all
> >material reality).
>
> Is the Isle of Paradise, "Eden" or "Heaven"? If so, then what material
> reality shows this pattern?
The Isle of Paradise is the absolute focal point for all material
reality, the "geograpical center of infinity." But, since it is not
"Biblical," you probably are not interested in further discussion on
this matter.
> I think it would be a good spot for my next vacation.
You would be as unaware of the presence of God there as you are here.
> >The "first" act of the Father-Son partnership repercussed in emergence
> >of a co-equal being capable of uniting Spirit (the Eternal Son) with
> >matter (the Isle of Paradise), via the medium of "mind." This
> >co-equal Originator of Mind is the Infinite Spirit.
>
> You should know the Bible also clearly delineates the eternality of the
> Spirit so this emerged spirit is not the Holy Spirit.
> I assume you don't mean this, but your second sentence above says that
> the Spirit originated the mind. If that is true then your Father and
> Son did not have minds before the emergence of your spirit.
"Mind" as men and angels understand it makes its first appearance with
the Infinite Spirit. The Father and the Son are somehow "minded," but
with a means of thought that, for lack of a better term, is
denominated as "pre-mind," ancestral to mind as we know it.
> Your beliefs sound very nice but are at
> best, speculative theology, and at worst, heresy.
You cannot know that. Your assessment is mere speculation.
And, what is heresy? A word which, for me, defines a cultural norm
which many have had the audacity to deviate from over the centuries,
including the Old Testament prophets and Jesus himself.
Your judgementalism does not square well with the teachings of the
Master. You have been taught too much by men, and not enough by
the spirit of God that lives within you.
> No one gets burned at
> the stake anymore (or ever should have been) but that does not mean that
> saying that in "I am a Christian" one can mean anything they choose to
> define it as.
I don't recall having made such a claim. Re-read the posting. I
believe in the Father, the Son, the Spirit, the Trinity, guardian
angels, and the Lucifer rebellion; and I believe that Jesus was Deity
incarnated in human likeness. But otherwise, you may attach whatever
label to me that you prefer, "Christian," "heretic," or whatever else,
it matters not. You are not my judge - I'll meet my judge after this
body of flesh and blood dies, if not sooner.
> I hope this is not too harsh, but I hope you would wish
> to have a better understanding of Our Lord and Savior so that when you
> do witness to those who do not know Him, you are describing the right
> God. To lead someone to the wrong Jesus can be hazardous to their, and
> your, eternity.
It is a grave mistake to use fear as a tactic for the promotion of the
ideals of the Master. There is little that a believer can do that
plays more into the hands of the deceiver than to use evil to preach
good.
> >All beings have origins which can, through origins of
> >origins, be traced back to the Trinity (as the angels testify). The
> >Infinite Spirit testifies that upon attainment of consciousness, only
> >the Father and the Son existed. The Eternal Son testifies that he is
> >from God. And God has nothing to say regarding anything of this
> >nature (probably because no one would understand anyway).
>
> Are you saying that God could not relate to us in a manner which we
> could understand? What about the Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and the
> Prophets? .... your last statement needs clarification.
God does not state from whence he came. The first being to have any
sort of origin is the Son, who is of and from the Father, yet
nevertheless is co-eternal with the Father.
> > So, the
> >whole concept of the origin of the Trinity (such as the explanation
> >given above) is a philosophical construct based on the meagerly
> >available evidence (evidence which a non-believer is likely to discard
> >anyway).
>
> Whether or not a nonbeliever would care is moot.
That's what bugs me about Bibliophiles, "Bible-worshippers." I was
replying to a nonbeliever, so it most definitely is not moot. Look at
the context, man.
> The Trinity is based
> upon the whole of scripture and is not a philosophical construct, nor
> does it much resemble the explanation you have created.
The Trinity is not based on anything: total reality originates from
the actions of the Trinity. The Trinity just "IS". But, to the human
mind, the Trinity is largely an abstraction. The three members of the
Paradise Trinity are contactible as individuals, even by mortal man,
but the Trinity is about as contactible as a corporation, for the
Trinity is (among other things) the cooperative functioning of the
three members, each of whom are personalities, personalized
individuals.
Howevere, I did not originally write that the Trinity is a
philosophical construct - I wrote (re-read the above) that the
_origin_ of the Trinity is a philosophical construct. The "origin"
scenario, such as that given above, is a concession to the mortal need
to postulate a "beginning." >From the standpoint of Ultimate Reality,
the Trinity has not "origin," for it is eternal.
> You really need to spend more time in scripture studying these
> things of which you write.
I know exactly what I am doing, and am prepared to deal with the
consequences resulting therefrom. I am not motivated by fear in my
discussions regarding God, and am motivated by the desire to share the
wonderousness of His magnificent character.
Marty
Dear John:
Since you have entered at the middle of a discussion I entered
at the middle of I think perhaps you should have read my first post
before my second. I entered the thread plainly stating that I was
an orthodox Christian, it is my hope that you will bear that in mind
and realize that as non-Christian you are not expected to agree with,
or adhere to my views.
John Wheeler wrote:
>
> jfau...@uncc.campus.mci.net (Marty) wrote:
>
> >Sorry Brian, but we have gained our knowledge of sin from God,
> >therefor sin is not a human, but universal perspective.
>
> I've taken the liberty of 'snipping' the rest of your article, simply
> because there's nothing beyond this utterly incredible declaration
> worthy of further comment or rebuttal.
But if you would have read the previous discussion between Brian and I
you would have realized the position I was taking was consistent with
the thread of our earlier post.
> Do tell, where do you get off thinking you can make such an utterly
> false and totally unsubstantiated allegation??
Biblically it is quite accurate, and that is the position I have taken
and plain language since I first entered this thread.
>*You do not speak for
> *me by *any 'authority' -- presupposed 'divine' or otherwise. I am
> one of the 'we' (since you didn't define it further), and, as one of
> the 'we' I do here and now state you are absolutely incorrect, i.e.
> "wrong."
Here, I am afraid you are wrong. I stated plainly in my first post
where I was coming from and who I represented. As far as speaking for
you, I never at any time suggested that I did. Nor would I unless you
had previously made a statement of faith commensurate with
Christianity,
and even then, only if it was a fundamental doctrine.
> I've gained my knowledge of right and wrong from my own experience --
> not from any 'god.' I can recall, for example, my grandmother warning
> me not to touch the hot stove, which I chose to ignore, and I paid the
> price, burning my hand. That 'experience' didn't come from any 'god'
> nor did my grandmother's knowledge of "hot stoves can burn skin" come
> from any 'god.'
Do you actually think that complex moral issues are as simply learned
and
understood? If so, then let me pose a question to you: If I jump into
the middle of a conversation between two adults who are to attack one
of
them for a statement that did not offend the other (because the other
understood the context and background of the comment) am I justified
in
so doing? Why is my incomplete understanding of the conversation
morally
superior to those who are involved in it?
> I spent the first fifty years of my life in 'fear' of 'god' -- a life,
> I may add, was filled with fear, guilt and anxiety. Today, I live a
> life free from such, er, "crap" (for lack of a more succinct word
> found generally acceptable in polite company).
I apologize for the harm religion has done to you. There are many who
have likewise harmed by the legalistic machinations of men, calling
upon
the name of a God they do not know.
> And I may add, my life
> is, as I would describe it, "having found a new freedom and a new
> happiness" such as I've never before experienced.
I am not surprised. You have been involved with religion and you got
burned. I am sorry that yours is not a remarkable story. It is
unfortunate that you were made to pay for the errors (sins) of men.
> How, you may ask,
> can I have accomplished such without 'god'?? Gee, that's real easy:
> there is no 'god' and this life is *the life I have -- to be lived and
> enjoyed to its fullest potential -- within, of course, the limitations
> imposed by society (laws) and nature (natural laws).
Since you were burned by religion you rejected God because you held
Him
responsible. That is natural, but not logical. It is blaming the
designer of a flawless car because of the poor maintenance it
received.
> "Reality" is the
> ultimate high, but I must admit, it's a concept way beyond the 'true
> believer' who simply cannot live this life without living a life
> deluded into thinking there's 'more to come.'
Oh, you think of God as a Fire Insurance salesman. That is a common
belief, but then Goebbel's said, (paraphrase) the bigger the lie, the
easier it is to sell. To distill the infinite into such a small
package
should seem incongruous, yet some still accept it.
> Alas, but I do feel this message a waste of time; attempting to rebut
> nonesense with sense is like trying to punish the wind for having the
> unmitigated gall to make a leaf flutter.
John, you really should read my first letter. If you wish to discuss
the existence of God, we can.
John Hyde
In article <4sbmrv$g...@news.campus.mci.net> jfau...@uncc.campus.mci.net (Marty) writes:
>Dear Brian:
> Pardon as I cut to the chase, but I've snipped all but our
>own exchange from the post.
>
>> breed,fear,anxiety.
>
>Sorry Brian, but we have gained our knowledge of sin from God,
>therefor sin is not a human, but universal perspective.
You are both partially correct.
Sin was originally defined in Jesus' day as deliberate disloyalty
to Deity (God), conscious rebellion against the Divine will. So,
Marty is correct in that sin is certainly defined IN RELATION to God.
But in modern times, the definitions of evil and sin have become
confused, and "fear of sin" has been grossly abused as a manipulation
tactic by self-professed "religious" leaders.
In reality, it is absurd to fear our own freewill actions.
>If we were able to "clean up our own mess" then there was no need
>for Christ to die upon the cross.
"It is wrong to think of God as being coaxed into loving his children
because of the sacrifices of his Sons or the intercession of his
subordinate creatures..."
"The erroneous supposition that the righteousness of God was
irreconcilable with the selfless love of the heavenly Father,
presupposed absence of unity in the nature of Deity and led directly
to the elaboration of the atonement doctrine, which is a philosophic
assault upon both the unity and the free-willness of God."
"The barbarous idea of appeasing an angry God, of propitiating an
offended Lord, of winning the favor of Deity through sacrifices and
penance and even by the shedding of blood, represents a religion
wholly puerile and primitive, a philosophy unworthy of an enlightened
age of science and truth. Such beliefs are utterly repulsive to the
celestial beings and the divine rulers who serve and reign in the
universes. It is an affront to God to believe, hold, or teach that
innocent blood must be shed in order to win his favor or to divert the
fictitious divine wrath."
All three quotes from _The Urantia Book_.
>Since God is a God of order, which is obvious when viewing His
>creation, it stands to reason that He must have a bottom line.
>That bottom line is His word.
God's word is written on the tablets of our hearts (Old Testament,
Isaiah, I believe).
Brian Fletcher
>I spent the first fifty years of my life in 'fear' of 'god' -- a life,
>I may add, was filled with fear, guilt and anxiety. Today, I live a
>life free from such, er, "crap" (for lack of a more succinct word
>found generally acceptable in polite company). And I may add, my life
>is, as I would describe it, "having found a new freedom and a new
>happiness" such as I've never before experienced. How, you may ask,
>can I have accomplished such without 'god'?? Gee, that's real easy:
>there is no 'god' and this life is *the life I have -- to be lived and
>enjoyed to its fullest potential -- within, of course, the limitations
>imposed by society (laws) and nature (natural laws). "Reality" is the
>ultimate high, but I must admit, it's a concept way beyond the 'true
>believer' who simply cannot live this life without living a life
>deluded into thinking there's 'more to come.'
>
>Alas, but I do feel this message a waste of time; attempting to rebut
>nonesense with sense is like trying to punish the wind for having the
>unmitigated gall to make a leaf flutter.
>
Well said John.You have grown "through" the illusions or "crap" as you so
poetically put it.Bearing in mind that crap is another name for
"fertilizer".If somebody had told you when you were up to your armpits in
it,that there was more to come and it gets better and better,you may well
have told them to go and...........***.
There are many that have travelled beyond this stage.I`ve no doubt that
when you were at that earlier stage you mixed with people in a similar
frame of mind.They are the types that miss you and would like to call you
back(otherwise they might have to acknowledge that there is something
better further down the road).Ever packed up smoking around
smokers<grin>Let them be.They are like children growing up.
I like your analogy about the tree,but bear in mind that without the wind
,the tree would not have reason to grow strong!
You have described a great inner growth.Ironically,many "original"
teachers,(not their followers) talked about going within to find
heaven....a rose by any other name!!!
Kevin W. Davidson
[some non-christian newsgroups deleted]
John Hyde previously wrote an article appearing in talk.religion.misc:
>You are both partially correct.
>Sin was originally defined in Jesus' day as deliberate disloyalty
>to Deity (God), conscious rebellion against the Divine will. So,
>Marty is correct in that sin is certainly defined IN RELATION to God.
John, I have just looked through all of the references to SIN in
the gospels, and I cannot reconcile what I see there with the way
you describe it, above. Just one example will serve to represent
the others:
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would not have sin.
But now that you say, 'We see,' your sin remains. [John 9:41]
Indeed, the New Testament says that being totally free from sin
is impossible ("If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves").
...
>"The erroneous supposition that the righteousness of God was
>irreconcilable with the selfless love of the heavenly Father,...
I would agree here.
For more on my views about the Atonement, see the article Atonement.html
on the web page below.
--
Kevin (kwda...@mercury.interpath.com) | http://www.interpath.com/~kwdavids/
"Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other" 1 Corinthians 10:24
John Hyde
In article <4smf3j$n...@news.campus.mci.net> jfau...@uncc.campus.mci.net (Marty) writes:
>John created
>a model for a trinity like he wished it to be, not how it is.
Bzzzzt. Go back to go, do not collect $200.
According to "logic", a bald-faced assertion is not a valid proof. I
only mention this bacause you have the gall to appeal to logic later
in the paragraph from which the above sentence is drawn, to-wit:
> His
>defense for doing this was that it was a philosophical construct.
>This makes no sense at all, because a philosophical construct must be
>built upon a logic base.
What logic class did _you_ take?
> It is illogical to redefine words (such as
>Trinity) within a philosophical treatise without a clear statement.
I did _not_ redefine the Paradise Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit,
in that posting. Just because YOU cannot reconcile what I wrote with
what you believe does not make your assertions global fact.
I know you mean well, Marty, but you are very, very confused.
> What has surprised me is the
>number of attacks I have received from within this thread.
>... and though I have sent them an apology and sincerely
>repented any judgmental spirit within me, they have not written me
>back. I can only assume that they cannot forgive me.
Perhaps they did not write you back because they considered your
apology to have closed the matter.
>One other letter impugned
>my intelligence and faith (I have come to expect that from atheists,
>agnostics and spiritually enlightened non-Christians) because I showed
>their philosophical construct to be logically flawed.
I assume you are referring to me.
My accusation is that only the weak of faith rely more on the Bible
than on God. I stand by it, and now state it publicly. God is
greater than any written book, and is certainly capable of revealing
himself to those who are willing to exercise intelligent,
reason-restrained, robust faith.
Only one who fears evil much more than their love of God could
possibly disagree with this. If you believe God is omnipotent, then
the above outlook flows naturally therefrom. Otherwise, you do not
completely trust in your Maker.
In addition, your concept of "logic" is not that which is even
commonly accepted, let alone rigidly usable as a proof or disproof (as
evidenced by your comments to-date).
>If you wish to believe in natural law, that is OK by me. I will
>believe in the Lawgiver.
But your _faith_ (that which dominates your life outlook) is in the
BIBLE. You have placed the Lawgiver in a secondary position, you have
assumed that he is less than omnipotent.
>To disagree with the Bible (the
>point at which our [as Christians] understanding of God begins) forces
>the conclusion that the first revelation, and therefor God, was
wrong.
And you actually have the gall to lecture about proper logic?
>To be a Christian, God's word must be God's word
According to the Bible which you claim so earnestly to believe in,
God's word was made FLESH, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Those
who claim that God's word was made BOOK are, at best, confused, and at
worst, disingenuous. (My thanks to someone who recently posted
something similar).
>To God (not me) be the glory,
>j martin faulkner
As I said, it's obvious that you mean well, but you've been fed way
too much falsehood by those of questionable motives, and, like many,
you've believed the words of men as to how to best interpret the
Bible, rather than going directly to the Source.
Just throw the book away, and exercise some REAL faith.
Jonathan Monckton
How does one speak of God tothose who do not have ecclesistical / church
speak? Reality, truth, love and beauty? What is it that drives us
through life asking questions? Are we different rom animals or are we
similar in our quest fro self preservation until we reach the point of no
return and oblivion? Help!
Johnny Monckton
--
Working for those marginalised by their churches and damaged by religion.
Seeking support for personal devotions, renewed faith and fresh insights.
The Shepherd's Trust, A UK registered charity 1011122
Brian Fletcher
In article <4secab$q...@news.campus.mci.net>, jfau...@uncc.campus.mci.net
says...
>
>Dear John:
>
> Thank you for your letter. I do believe that you have
>misinterpreted
>the point and thrust of my letter. I was writing to correct the
>errors
>Brian had made in his creative elucidation of the Trinity. Since it
>was
>a Christian position he was misrepresenting, I answered to correct
>this
>error.
Which Christian position was I misrepresenting.There are many
interpretations to choose from.Please do not misunderstand me.One of the
most sacred laws is "thou shall not invade another person`s space".I
respect that totally.I`m interested in your view.
>
>You say the Bible is a (one) book. My Bible contains sixty-six books
>by many different authors and written (originally) in several
>different
>languages. Do you believe the Bible to be only one book?
>
If poetry is "interpreted within the same language" it looses its
spirit.Ever heard "modern" Shakespear brrrrrrr,cold as ice.
Never mind when it is is translated from culture to culture,language to
language,century to century.This is perfectly normal.Paying homage to this
natural law,there is always a representation of "The Living Word" on this
planet.
That very statement tends to stimulate the "defenders of the faith" to
arms.Fortunately,these days,more figuratively than literally.But the
latter is a fairly modern phenomenon.It is also the reason that the "so
called' New Age (nothing new here!!!) can exist without bloodshed. Of
course the "old guard" fight to the bitter end still crying "heretic" and
"blasphemer".Again perfectly natural.
As the spiritual"inner" receptivity unfolds,the "outer" teachings have to
reflect that perception.,eg in Biblical days to talk about "relative
time","curved space",and endless other realities,such as space
travel,*Internet* that we today take for granted,would not have gone very
far.No more than today talking about sheep and shepherds is not all that
relevant(unless of course you live in New Zealand....only jokeing Kiwi
land!!!).
Take the"water into wine" story.If witnessing that would win you over to
eternal heaven,it would be pretty simple to set up,and worth the effort.To
even suggest the interpratation that Jesus in fact insisted at that famous
wedding that the "lower"class,who would normally not be allowed to indulge
(as was their custom) should be allowed to partake,and,in fact won the
day.That very suggestion would be seen as "heresy".Can you imagine the
hangovers...another practicle lesson learned.<grin>
>
>> 3. Jesus himself implies that the most important characteristic to
>> bring to the table of religious inquiry is faith. He rarely refers
>> to "scripture," and then usually only to rebut a scripture-based
>> argumentative attack. If I were unable to read, that would in no
>> way lessen my ability to commune with God.
>
>Funny, in the Bible Jesus says "It is written" (the common phrase used
>Rabbinically before quoting the Pentateuch) no less than twenty-seven
>times. When you include all of His other quotes from OT authors,
>you know that Jesus must have committed great amounts of scripture to
>memory. Jesus indeed placed a great emphasis upon faith, but it was
>not a faith of simple verbal agreement, but a faith put into action.
>You could indeed commune with God if you were unable to read, but
>your knowledge of Him would be greatly limited to your own
>understanding
We each realize God in a unique way.
>(assuming you ignored the Biblical requirement of regularly hearing
>[Rom 10:17] the word of God).
The"living Word" variously known as the "sound current"."shabbad","Holy
Spirit"(a rose by any other name),that which Jesus stated was within him
is what is refered to here,not words on a piece of paper.(This is why
fundementalists learn to "sing "the Koran.)So it doesn`t loose it`s
power.Now there is a paradox to contemplate on!!!Especially when you
observe the Islamic fundamentalist.I can here the response already.(That`s
because they don`t follow the real God....give me strength!!!!) Try
relating to the word "fundamentalist" not Islam.
>
>> 4. Jesus was amazed at the small-mindedness of the "lawyers," those
>> who tried to argue for their interpretation of God based on
>> "scriptural" writings. Jesus makes it abundantly clear that he
>> advocates the library of living experience over the written words of
>> ancient holy men, as a means of approaching God.
>
Somethings never change!!!
>
>My points were not meant to be argumentative, but were written as a
>defense of Biblical principles misrepresented by one who did not
>understand them. I hope I have not offended you by my directness, but
>tact is not my strong suit. I really am not mean, judgmental,
>perverse
>or scheming. I only wanted to clear up what was, to me, an obvious
>error.
>
I for one appreciate your directness.I like that level of communication.
In that spirit,I would ask you that your comment "to me ,it was an obvious
error"(respected!!) combined with "I am not judgmental",seems
contradictory.
Fletch.
Marty
Dear Brian:
It will probably be easier to take your questions in order.
Brian Fletcher wrote:
> jfau...@uncc.campus.mci.net
> says...
> >I was writing to correct the
> >errors
> >Brian had made in his creative elucidation of the Trinity. Since it
> >was
> >a Christian position he was misrepresenting, I answered to correct
> >this
> >error.
>
> Which Christian position was I misrepresenting.
You weren't, John Hyde was (I misread who was posting). John created
a model for a trinity like he wished it to be, not how it is. His
defense for doing this was that it was a philosophical construct.
This makes no sense at all, because a philosophical construct must be
built upon a logic base. It is illogical to redefine words (such as
Trinity) within a philosophical treatise without a clear statement.
None existed. One might not agree that such a redefinition
without explanation is illogical. But if I say "a cow is," and then
describe a horse, one would agree I am being illogical.
> There are many
> interpretations to choose from.
Not concerning the Triune nature of God. There are misstatements that
show a lack of knowledge concerning the Biblical revelation, but,
since
the term "Trinity" is a proper noun specific to the orthodox Christian
religions view of God, there is only one definition which is correct.
An example would be if one described the "Eiffel Tower" to someone who
had never seen a picture of it, or heard a description of it; if you
described the "Empire State Building," it would be illogical, even if
you described it as philosophical construct.
> Please do not misunderstand me.One of the
> most sacred laws is "thou shall not invade another person`s space".
I am sorry, could you give me chapter and verse for that one?
If I misrepresent one of the tenets of your faith in a public forum
(like say an unmoderated newsgroup), do you not have the right to
point
out that I was not correct.
> I respect that totally.I`m interested in your view.
Sorry Brian. Of course you are and I am interested in yours whether
or not I agree with it. An open forum that is available to all views
is the purpose of a group such as this. Though there are a many
flamers
who are only looking for a point upon which they can leap to attack,
you are not one, and hopefully neither am I. What has surprised me is
the
number of attacks I have received from within this thread. I am
blessed
though that one of the attackers has since apologized (he
misunderstood
my second post to you) and explained that he is an atheist who thought
I
was laying upon him the burden of sin (not my job; any Christian
should
know that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts and for me to try it
would
be to usurp the authority of God [not a good thing]). A Christian
attacked me for being judgmental (saying you weren't a Christian, when
you agree are not), and though I have sent them an apology and
sincerely
repented any judgmental spirit within me, they have not written me
back.
I can only assume that they cannot forgive me. One other letter
impugned
my intelligence and faith (I have come to expect that from atheists,
agnostics and spiritually enlightened non-Christians) because I showed
their philosophical construct to be logically flawed.
> >You say the Bible is a (one) book. My Bible contains sixty-six books
> >by many different authors and written (originally) in several
> >different
> >languages. Do you believe the Bible to be only one book?
> >
> If poetry is "interpreted within the same language" it looses its
> spirit.Ever heard "modern" Shakespear brrrrrrr,cold as ice.
I'm sorry, but I disagree (with qualification). Although it is
possible to
pervert the beauty and grace of a work of art through the imposition
of
modern stylings and language, likewise it is possible to effectively
render in translation the spirit and essence of truth through
thoughtful
and careful attention to the original. Have you ever seen one of
those
pictures of a Renaissance master that has been restored? The original
colors return with all of the brilliance and life that the artist gave
them in his creative brush with the muse.
> Never mind when it is is translated from culture to culture,language to
> language,century to century.
This never occurred with the Bible. There are so many ancient and
near
ancient copies available in the original language to the modern
translator
that translating from any but the oldest best texts or modern versions
taken from these texts (still in the original Greek, Hebrew and
Aramaic)
is unthinkable. Lest you think that these are late editions, there
are
over 120 copies of the Bible (or parts thereof) still in existence
that
predate AD 500. To add to that there are over 36,000 quotes from the
NT
alone written in letters and books by Christian authors before AD 300.
These texts and quotes differ from the NIV Bible I own in less that
0.8%,
so the reliability of my Bible is better than even the commercially
available Shakespeare (NOT "modern," but original) at your local
store.
> This is perfectly normal.Paying homage to this
> natural law,there is always a representation of "The Living Word" on this
> planet.
If you wish to believe in natural law, that is OK by me. I will
believe in
the Lawgiver.
> That very statement tends to stimulate the "defenders of the faith" to
> arms.Fortunately,these days,more figuratively than literally.But the
> latter is a fairly modern phenomenon.It is also the reason that the "so
> called' New Age (nothing new here!!!) can exist without bloodshed. Of
> course the "old guard" fight to the bitter end still crying "heretic" and
> "blasphemer".Again perfectly natural.
What so many Christians fail to understand is that you can only be a
heretic if you claim to "be" a Christian, and teach false doctrine.
Although a non-Christian can blaspheme God, they cannot be heretics.
> As the spiritual"inner" receptivity unfolds,the "outer" teachings have to
> reflect that perception.,eg in Biblical days to talk about "relative
> time","curved space",and endless other realities,such as space
> travel,*Internet* that we today take for granted,would not have gone very
> far.No more than today talking about sheep and shepherds is not all that
> relevant(unless of course you live in New Zealand....only jokeing Kiwi
> land!!!).
You are not making a case for modern revelation that disagrees with
the
Bible are you? I mean, it's OK for you to believe that since you do
not
believe the Bible and do not trust it's revelation or transmission.
But a
Christian cannot take that position. To disagree with the Bible (the
point at which our [as Christians] understanding of God begins) forces
the conclusion that the first revelation, and therefor God, was wrong.
If God was wrong, then He is not perfect. If He is not perfect, then
He
is not God. You see the dilemma. To be a Christian, God's word must
be
God's word (John Spong not withstanding). If it were wrong then it
would cease to be God's word and we would cease to be Christians.
> Take the"water into wine" story.If witnessing that would win you over to
> eternal heaven,it would be pretty simple to set up,and worth the effort.To
> even suggest the interpratation that Jesus in fact insisted at that famous
> wedding that the "lower"class,who would normally not be allowed to indulge
> (as was their custom) should be allowed to partake,and,in fact won the
> day.That very suggestion would be seen as "heresy".Can you imagine the
> hangovers...another practicle lesson learned.<grin>
Good point ;-), but that's what happens when you let people in. They
insist
on imposing their own rules of conduct upon the rest and call it God's
will
(seems like the Pharisees did that too). Alas, if only people would
look
to God as the logical First Cause and Sustainer of all things and quit
demanding He make Himself over in their image. Isn't the image of God
as
revealed in the Bible good enough?
<Snip > Long passage, no comments by Fletch.
> >Jesus indeed placed a great emphasis upon faith, but it was
> >not a faith of simple verbal agreement, but a faith put into action.
> >You could indeed commune with God if you were unable to read, but
> >your knowledge of Him would be greatly limited by your own
> >understanding.
>
> We each realize God in a unique way.
>
> >(assuming you ignored the Biblical requirement of regularly hearing
> >[Rom 10:17] the word of God).
>
> The"living Word" variously known as the "sound current"."shabbad","Holy
> Spirit"(a rose by any other name),
[Biblically speaking, the Living Word is always Christ, and Christ
alone].
> that which Jesus stated was within him
> is what is refered to here,not words on a piece of paper.(This is why
> fundementalists learn to "sing "the Koran.)So it doesn`t loose it`s
> power.Now there is a paradox to contemplate on!!!Especially when you
> observe the Islamic fundamentalist.I can here the response already.(That`s
> because they don`t follow the real God....give me strength!!!!) Try
> relating to the word "fundamentalist" not Islam.
My Islamic fundamentalist friends would probably take more offense to
that
then I. They know where I stand, and I they. Yet still we can remain
friends and some have been so for years. I have found no place in the
word of God that says it should not be so, and so it is.
> >> 4. Jesus was amazed at the small-mindedness of the "lawyers," those
> >> who tried to argue for their interpretation of God based on
> >> "scriptural" writings. Jesus makes it abundantly clear that he
> >> advocates the library of living experience over the written words of
> >> ancient holy men, as a means of approaching God.
> >
> Somethings never change!!!
I did not speak to this in the last letter, but it seems odd that you
so
willingly quote (paraphrase actually) Jesus when He agrees with you,
and
reject Him when He does not. Is that logical?
> >My points were not meant to be argumentative, but were written as a
> >defense of Biblical principles misrepresented by one who did not
> >understand them. I hope I have not offended you by my directness, but
> >tact is not my strong suit. I really am not mean, judgmental,
> >perverse
> >or scheming. I only wanted to clear up what was, to me, an obvious
> >error.
> >
> I for one appreciate your directness.I like that level of communication.
> In that spirit,I would ask you that your comment "to me ,it was an obvious
> error"(respected!!) combined with "I am not judgmental",seems
> contradictory.
Is it judgemental to say that two plus two is not five. My contention
has
always been to speak the truth directly without guile or rancor in
defense
of my faith and to correct the misconceptions about the Trinity that
occurred
within this thread. I have spoken to the issues and answered the
questions
put to me. When wrong or misunderstood, I did my best to apologize or
explain my position without recrimination or innuendo. When attacked,
I
did not retaliate. I have only sought to speak the truth in love. I
have
done nothing in secret or made derogatory comments about any man. The
most
provocative statement I have made was to state that I am afraid you
beliefs
are based upon speculative theology, and no rebuttal has been offered
(actually, said I was wrong, insulted my intelligence and made a snide
remark about my faith: this is the logical equivalent of saying "Oh
yeah!").
I guess I am judgmental in that I know that if it walks like a duck,
looks like a duck and has feathers...
Nonetheless, I enjoy writing to you and I hope it continues.
To God (not me) be the glory,
j martin faulkner
John Hyde
In article <monckton-180...@31.chandler.mailbox.co.uk> monc...@mailbox.co.uk (Jonathan Monckton) writes:
>How does one speak of God tothose who do not have ecclesistical / church
>speak?
Good question there, Johnny.
It is helpful, when possible, to begin by defining the terminology.
For instance, when approaching an atheist, begin by discussing what
God is. An alternate approach is to begin with attributes ("God loves
you") and let the terms define themselves in the mind of the listener.
I can really appreciate your problem, given that my wife was raised
in Russia, a country that was not only officially atheistic, but
where religious terms were either removed from the dictionary, or
else re-defined in a derogatory fashion. Words such as "deity" and
"spirit" did not exist in her vocabulary, except that "spirit" was
loosely understood to be a belief in hallucinations. "Faith" was
defined as a form of psychosis.
However, a problem just as large as one you ask is "how to refine
the antiquated definitions of those who already believe?"
When I say the word "God," I picture a self-aware, self-directed,
transcendent personality who is also the underlying fabric of all
forms of reality, a sort of Infinte Potential awaiting and engaged in
infinite self-actualization. Meanwhile, others picture a jealous
tribal deity (the tribe of Fundamentalist Christians) who is sending
all who do accept a certain interpretation of their bible to a place
of eternal torment.
IMO, the biggest obstacle to the conversion of unbelievers is the
un-God-like behavior of so many self-professed believers.
> Reality, truth, love and beauty?
There are two types of non-believers (excluding robust agnostics),
IMO. One type has already decided that love is inherent in the
electrochemical reactions in the brain, despite the fact that their
only real argument is that "I observe that to be the case, so
therefore it is" (not dissimilar to the flat-earth argument, IMO).
This type is typically as dogmatic as any religious fundamentalist,
and is, IMO, not ready to accept any differing outlook.
The other type of non-believer has typically never thought about
such matters, but may have recently started to give some consideration
to the greater affairs of mortal (and universal) existence.
Frequently, it requires a life crisis to jar a person out of their
complacence (a complacent person can be jarred, a robust agnostic
is a person who is vehemently disinterested, and usually cannot be
jarred out of their "don't care" state).
To the person who has just begun their first tentative questionings,
I believe that it is appropriate to give only as much "truth" as
that person is prepared to accept. Now, admittedly, this is a very
difficult assessment to make. But I've found that to overwhelm a
person is a sure way to turn off those first indications of a
sincere interest in the nature of Ultimate Reality.
> Working for those marginalised by their churches and damaged by religion.
> Seeking support for personal devotions, renewed faith and fresh insights.
> The Shepherd's Trust, A UK registered charity 1011122
I admire your efforts.
Brian Fletcher
Please do not misunderstand me.One of the
most sacred laws is "thou shall not invade another person`s space".
>
>I am sorry, could you give me chapter and verse for that one?
>If I misrepresent one of the tenets of your faith in a public forum
>(like say an unmoderated newsgroup), do you not have the right to
>point
>out that I was not correct.
I was stating this to illustrate my approach to anothers point of view,not
others of mine.To say their understanding is wrong,to me,is the same as
saying you are the wrong height or you were born at the wrong time or
place.An obserdity.
Chapter and verse???...judge not etc.I don`t have "a faith".
Though there are a many
flamers
who are only looking for a point upon which they can leap to attack,
I understand that to attack is a form of seeking.If they can "destroy"
anothers view they are comfortable that they have eliminated another
illusion.E x I = T(ruth).When they reach critical mass(not nescesarily the
Catholic version)<grin>,a paradyme shift takes place!!!
I can only assume that they cannot forgive me.
Does anothers opinion of your actions concern you?
One other letter
>impugned
>my intelligence and faith (I have come to expect that from atheists,
agnostics and spiritually enlightened non-Christians) because I showed
their philosophical construct to be logically flawed.
). Although it is
possible to
pervert the beauty and grace of a work of art through the imposition
of
modern stylings and language, likewise it is possible to effectively
>render in translation the spirit and essence of truth through
>thoughtful
>and careful attention to the original.
Part of my "shift" came about as an understanding that words are a
manifestation of awareness not a source.
What is your view of the events of the tower of Babel.
>
>These texts and quotes differ from the NIV Bible I own in less that
>0.8%,
>so the reliability of my Bible is better than even the commercially
>available Shakespeare (NOT "modern," but original) at your local
>store.
>
>> This is perfectly normal.Paying homage to this
>> natural law,there is always a representation of "The Living Word" on
this
>> planet.
>
>If you wish to believe in natural law, that is OK by me. I will
>believe in
>the Lawgiver.
To me,one infers the other.
>> That very statement tends to stimulate the "defenders of the faith" to
>> arms.Fortunately,these days,more figuratively than literally.But the
>> latter is a fairly modern phenomenon.It is also the reason that the "so
>> called' New Age (nothing new here!!!) can exist without bloodshed. Of
>> course the "old guard" fight to the bitter end still crying "heretic"
and
>> "blasphemer".Again perfectly natural.
>Although a non-Christian can blaspheme God, they cannot be heretics.
Heresy is to go against the authodox.Salman Rushtie would prefer your
version,I`m sure!!!
>> As the spiritual"inner" receptivity unfolds,the "outer" teachings have
to
>> reflect that perception.,eg in Biblical days to talk about "relative
>> time","curved space",and endless other realities,such as space
>> travel,*Internet* that we today take for granted,would not have gone
very
>> far.No more than today talking about sheep and shepherds is not all
that
>> relevant(unless of course you live in New Zealand....only jokeing Kiwi
>> land!!!).
>
>You are not making a case for modern revelation that disagrees with
>the
>Bible are you?
I know the Bible,the only contradiction is interpretation.See above.
I mean, it's OK for you to believe that since you do
>not
>believe the Bible and do not trust it's revelation or transmission.
It would be more accurate to say we have a different understanding.Care to
put up a few examples.I will give you alt.viewpoints if
appropriate..E.g."The sins of the father"etc...Could be most
enlightening!!!.
>But a
>Christian cannot take that position. To disagree with the Bible (the
>point at which our [as Christians] understanding of God begins) forces
>the conclusion that the first revelation, and therefor God, was wrong.
>If God was wrong, then He is not perfect. If He is not perfect, then
>He
>is not God. You see the dilemma. To be a Christian, God's word must
>be
>God's word (John Spong not withstanding). If it were wrong then it
>would cease to be God's word and we would cease to be Christians.
You are a fan of logic.I don`t understand that you could logically
conclude that there are not as many interpretations of the Bible as there
are denominations.I do see the dilema,clearly.
. Isn't the image of God
>as
>revealed in the Bible good enough?
Which particular"image".A God of vengence...("is mine sayeth the lord")
or
)
><Snip > Long passage, no comments by Fletch.
>
>> >Jesus indeed placed a great emphasis upon faith, but it was
>> >not a faith of simple verbal agreement, but a faith put into action.
>> >You could indeed commune with God if you were unable to read, but
>> >your knowledge of Him would be greatly limited by your own
>> >understanding.
>>
>> We each realize God in a unique way.
>>
>> >(assuming you ignored the Biblical requirement of regularly hearing
>> >[Rom 10:17] the word of God).
>>
>> The"living Word" variously known as the "sound current"."shabbad","Holy
>> Spirit"(a rose by any other name),
>
>[Biblically speaking, the Living Word is always Christ, and Christ
>alone].
>
>> that which Jesus stated was within him
>> is what is refered to here,not words on a piece of paper.(This is why
>> fundementalists learn to "sing "the Koran.)So it doesn`t loose it`s
>> power.Now there is a paradox to contemplate on!!!Especially when you
>> observe the Islamic fundamentalist.I can here the response
already.(That`s
>> because they don`t follow the real God....give me strength!!!!) Try
>> relating to the word "fundamentalist" not Islam.
>
>My Islamic fundamentalist friends would probably take more offense to
>that
>then I.
Not if they don`t support"women should not be seen or heard","blasphemers
should be killed","dying in a jihad takes you to heaven".This of course is
cultural.Another interpretation of the "written" word.I`m sure your
friends would take offence at the fact that these acts are done in the
name Allah.As any 'higher"(interesting lable don`t you think?) Christian
would take offence at similar acts in the name of Christ.
They know where I stand, and I they. Yet still we can remain
>friends and some have been so for years. I have found no place in the
>
>word of God that says it should not be so, and so it is.
Higher relationships respects others views.Logic progression,the highest
state,they are seen to be all aspects of the same truth.
>> >> 4. Jesus was amazed at the small-mindedness of the "lawyers," those
>> >> who tried to argue for their interpretation of God based on
>> >> "scriptural" writings. Jesus makes it abundantly clear that he
>> >> advocates the library of living experience over the written words of
>> >> ancient holy men, as a means of approaching God.
>> >
>> Somethings never change!!!
>
>I did not speak to this in the last letter, but it seems odd that you
>so
>willingly quote (paraphrase actually) Jesus when He agrees with you,
>and
>reject Him when He does not. Is that logical?
Not my posting,however is logical to say written words are not subject to
interpretation.If I am making a point I think it is appropriate to use the
common language.
>> >My points were not meant to be argumentative, but were written as a
>> >defense of Biblical principles misrepresented by one who did not
>> >understand them. I hope I have not offended you by my directness, but
>> >tact is not my strong suit. I really am not mean, judgmental,
>> >perverse
>> >or scheming. I only wanted to clear up what was, to me, an obvious
>> >error.
I do not give or take offence.Why do you say I do not understand.
>
....to correct the misconceptions about the Trinity that
>occurred
>within this thread.
You claim the Trinity.Shiva Brahma & Vishnu,the three within the three
within the three,Pythagarus.The three forces of life,the creative the
maintaining and the destructive.Once again different interpritations.
I have spoken to the issues and answered the
>questions
>put to me. When wrong or misunderstood, I did my best to apologize or
>
>explain my position without recrimination or innuendo. When attacked,
>I
>did not retaliate. I have only sought to speak the truth in love. I
>have
>done nothing in secret or made derogatory comments about any man. The
>most
>provocative statement I have made was to state that I am afraid you
>beliefs
>are based upon speculative theology, and no rebuttal has been offered
>(actually, said I was wrong, insulted my intelligence and made a snide
>
>remark about my faith: this is the logical equivalent of saying "Oh
>yeah!").
I will offer a clasic example to the paradoxical nature of semantics."You
are wrong to say I said you were wrong."You can see why the mind has been
described as a closed circle!!!
>I guess I am judgmental in that I know that if it walks like a duck,
>looks like a duck and has feathers...
If you looked at each piece of the duck under a microscope,would you
recognise "duck"?
The Australian aboriginiees have a wonderfull view.They dont refer to "a"
kangaroo;but,that which is kangaroo.The spirit that manifests itself as
kangaroo.I think your indiginous population have a similar view of
buffalo.
>Nonetheless, I enjoy writing to you and I hope it continues.
>
Here,here.
Fletch
Brian Fletcher
In article <monckton-180...@31.chandler.mailbox.co.uk>,
monc...@mailbox.co.uk says...
>
>How does one speak of God tothose who do not have ecclesistical / church
>through life asking questions? Are we different rom animals or are we
>similar in our quest fro self preservation until we reach the point of no
>return and oblivion? Help!
>
>Johnny Monckton
It is easier when you dont have to de code all that dogma.When you are
expressing life through those simple aspects,you are already talking to
God,the next step is to listen to God.
Answer to econd question--awakening memory of who we really are!!!
Animals are simply soul with a lesser expressions of the reality of
God.They are unfolding to.
You can listen to others views,and become a believer,or you can go to the
source and know.Mail me directly and I will point out a few techniques.
The answers are as close as your heartbeat.
I wish you well on your quest.
Fletch
Marty
Dear Brian:
Good to hear from you but I do not consider it wise to continue
this
thread.
Brian Fletcher wrote:
> Though there are a many
> >flamers
> >who are only looking for a point upon which they can leap to attack,
>
> I understand that to attack is a form of seeking.If they can "destroy"
> anothers view they are comfortable that they have eliminated another
> illusion.E x I = T(ruth).When they reach critical mass(not nescesarily the
> Catholic version)<grin>,a paradyme shift takes place!!!
I don't agree. I don't believe there are winners and losers per
se
in these types of discussions. If this were a competition then a
no-holds-
barred ad Hominem attack upon another who does not share my views
might be
considered a strategy choice. But a contest requires a winner and a
loser
and the realm of ideas does not readily lend itself to such easy
determinations and logic cautions against it.
The other day I found a copy of our post to each other cut to
ribbons
(all logical arguments removed) and in it snide personal attacks were
leveled at me (not at my arguments). The writer felt I had attacked
them
without cause and retaliated. I do not question their right to do so,
and
understand their actions realizing what I have done to help cause
them.
I am not into spitting contests (either for accuracy or distance ;-),
so I
choose not to answer. Likewise I am not into invading another's space
in
regard to arguments involving subjects I do not agree with, that are
not
Christian. I do not feel that it is my place to attack another's
faith,
no matter what my feelings about it are, yet I have somehow mistakenly
lead another to believe that is my intention. Since I only entered
into
this thread to clear up what I thought was a misconception concerning
the
Trinity, you can understand my chagrin when I learned that the
trinity discussed was not the Christian one. I invaded another's
space
without provocation and have caused offense without intention, and it
would be rude to continue to comment within their thread.
I am not averse to continuing our conversation, but I cannot do so
within this thread without the risk of causing further offense.
To God be the glory,
j martin faulkner
Jesus the Christ
jfau...@uncc.campus.mci.net (Marty) wrote:
:Dear Brian:
: Pardon as I cut to the chase, but I've snipped all but our
:own exchange from the post.
:> > Marty wrote:
:> Brian Fletcher wrote:
:> He (I prefer Hu...but thats another story) sends out waves of
:> love.We ride those waves back through a journey of concious
:> awakening.We grow in love ,we move on.
:> Sin is a human perspective used by manipulators to
:> breed,fear,anxiety.
:Sorry Brian, but we have gained our knowledge of sin from God,
:therefor sin is not a human, but universal perspective.
Sorry marty, but God gained his knowledge from the humans that
created him, therefore sin is a human concept.
:> No wonder Jesus used to get angry(in a loving
:> way,like a good parent).He kept repeating"you will reap what you
:> so,time and time again.Now there are concepts of mortal sin and
:> eternal damnation.We learn to "Do Greater Works Than I" with a lot
:> more discrimination and empathy when we keep having to clean up our
:> own mess.
:If we were able to "clean up our own mess" then there was no need
:for Christ to die upon the cross.
Christ dieing on the cross was pointless.
: This view you have espoused is
:called Pelegianism and is not a Christian position.
It must be good then.
:> The universal mind conceptualized about God,and tries to fit It
:> into mental imagary.An important step on the way.!!!
:Is this the way you are talking about?
:Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but
: the end thereof are the ways of death."
:> The Son cannot be eternal if at some point the Father "made a
:> decision" to bring Him into existence. The God and Son you are talking about,
:> are not the ones mentioned in the Bible.
:>
:> The Bible was written in Poetic terms.The SON of MAN (HU MAN);you
:> and I are THE SON OF MAN.
:I think not. Perhaps you should read this description of what the
:Son of Man looks like:
:Revelation 1:13 "And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one
: like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment
: down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a
: golden girdle.
: 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as
: white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of
: fire;
: 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they
: burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound
: of many waters."
He must have been hidious! No wonder he hides.
:> We always have been and always will be.
:Only in God's foreknowledge. This belief you are referring to is not
:Christian, but Mormon.
It's moron.
:>WE ARE EACH WAKEING UP TO THIS REALITY and always have been.
:>Th Kingdom
:> of God Is At Hand.IT always has been.Boy....do people have trouble
:> with this one!!!(This is difficult for the mind to grasp.Poetry
:> speaks to the soul).There is no use dwelling in the garden Of Eden
:> unless you know you are there!!!
:I think you have confused the God of the Bible with the God you
:worship.
The kingdom of God is in your hand, and something else, yuk.
:They bear no resemblance to one another.
:> >I assume you don't mean this, but your second sentence above says
:> that the Spirit originated the mind. If that is true then your Father
:> and Son did not have minds before the emergence of your spirit.
:>
:> Spirit is the essence we "ride" back to God.WE transend the
:> mind.The mind lives only in time,not in eternity;...*now*
:Your concept of who the spirit is cannot be supported from scripture.
Scripture is stupid anyway.
:> Prayer demonstrates lack of confidence in Gods wisdom.My will not
:> Thyne.God works in mysterious ways,but also provides the keys to
:> the mystery.I promise you.You ARE an incarnation of God.
:If what you say is so then why are encouraged to pray in the Bible.
:God would not encourage us not to trust Him, when the very basis of
:Christianity is faith.
Of course. God knows that we would never trust him if we knew what he
is really like.
: The Bible say that there was enmity between
:me and God before Christ became my Savior. The Bible says that I
:was God's enemy until Christ's blood cleansed me of my sins. None
:of that agrees with what you have said above.
God only did that because he is lonely and wants you to crawl to him.
:> We get what we need when we need it, God knows.Trust God
:> directly,not others viewpoints no matter where they come from.Love
:> them for their views just as God does.
:But I do love all. It is simply that there must be a bottom line.
Your bottom line needs a good kick.
:Since God is a God of order, which is obvious when viewing His
:creation, it stands to reason that He must have a bottom line.
Order? Where?
:That bottom line is His word. It is not a collection of meta-
:physical poetry, but a guide to life and worship. You have
:clearly rejected that part of it.
All sensable people reject the Babble.
:> That is why I wrote the previous statement.We were"created"
:> differently.We are each unique,and yet many get flustered by the
:> differences,part of which are viewpoints.Learn to celebrate those
:> different views.You will learn to love and embrace them.
:I can still love you, and abhor the way you have twisted the truth
:of God.
There is no truth of God. Stop misusing words.
: At the point where our viewpoints disagree with God, we are
:wrong and need to repent (turn around) and agree with the One who
:made us.
Never!
:Brian, You are not a Christian.
All the better for him.
:I do not say that out of meanness,
:or to pass judgment upon you. It's like telling a horse that he
:is not a sheep. It is just a plain fact that you do not worship the
:God described in the Bible, and beliefs disagree with the
:commandments of God.
All the better for him.
:Are you a Mormon?
Are you a moron?
: Are you a Christian or Religion Scientist?
:Do you even belong to an organized group or do you just come
:up with this stuff by yourself? Do you belong to a Liberal Church
:that denies the foundational doctrines of Christianity as described
:in God's word? If so then go to a good Conservative or Evangelical
:Church and talk to the Pastor there and learn about Christianity.
:It is not too late to accept the truth and save yourself from the
:wrath to come.
Maybe he thinks. Look up the word since I know you don't use it.
:To God be the glory,
:j martin faulkner
Heil Satan!