Interpretation

[Prizebeatz1]

I was very fortunate. When I was very young, in kindergarden, a nun told us that "God" was the "green in the grass, and the warmth of the sun on our face, and love of our mom" … and things like that. And I believed this. Around that same time, I had a personal 'God-experience' that was very intense, but I was not frightened by it because I understood that God was good and that God loved us, and that was what I experienced.

Later, when I went to regular Catholic school, if one of the nuns or priests characterized God as dogmatic, judgmental, vengeful, scary, and so forth, as some of them tend to do, I didn't believe them. Because I had experienced God for myself, and I knew this was not the case. And as I got older, as soon as I could, I got clear of Catholicism (at about the age of 14). Because it seemed to me all they wanted to do was place themselves between me, and God, so they could tell me what to think, and what to do, and what not to do, according to their own will and desire. And I wasn't having any of it.

Once free from it, I took some time to work out for myself what I thought of Jesus, and I held onto what I thought was good and sensible, while dropping what I thought was ugly and irrational. And since then I've trimmed and amended my beliefs regularly.

So I was fortunate from the beginning to have been given the gift of my own autonomous 'sense' of God. And I had the tenacity to keep to it in spite of the many religious bullies I've encountered, since, who seem to think it's their place is stand between everyone else, and God, and dictate the terms of the relationship. And I just don't allow it. That upsets the absolutists, who think they are absolutely right about everything, and think everyone else should follow their dictates, but who cares? Their myopia is their own problem, not mine.

Finally someone who is being honest, real, genuine and true. You are most definitely on the right path. Don't stop. Thank you also for acknowledging that most people actually mean well with their intentions.

 

[nikolai_42]

Finally someone who is being honest, real, genuine and true. You are most definitely on the right path. Don't stop. Thank you also for acknowledging that most people actually mean with their intentions.

Just because something sounds "good and sensible" doesn't make it right. God is not made in man's image...

These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.
Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.
Psalm 50:21-22

And from the lips of Jesus :

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:27

The point being that the Lord is not pointing us inward but outward to Him - who is utterly different than man and who is to be ruler - not blending our identity with His to such an extent that we can't distinguish between the two.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Okay. Some of us were raised Catholic and they take the eating flesh and drinking blood literal. That is my background so that is where I'm coming from.

I get that. I know a wee bit about Romanism and understand the confusion that will ensue when adopting the views of an apostate church.

So how does this relate to truth? The claim is there is only one truth. Do you think there is more than one way of seeing the same truth? If so, then one could feasibly be more accurate than another. Correct? Can we judge for ourselves or is it more important we go along with the status quo or tradition or what the church says?

Indeed, there is only one truth, God's truth, for He is the Truth Maker. Seeing all the truth contained in a propositional statement from Scripture may not be within the grasp of every believer, as I have indicated previously in discussing the innate perspicuity of Scripture. So of course the degree to which one can glean truth is dependent upon the believer's abilities, gifts, and so on. We have the Old Testament as evidence. The saints of the OT had but a typological understanding of salvation, whereas with the coming of our Lord, the New Testament saints and onward have the more fuller understanding. Both groups of saints possessed truths, yet the latter more perfect truths.

Further, one cannot see something therein that is and is not for the same thing at the same time for this would be a violation of the basic understanding of the logical law of non-contradiction.

To the example of the Supper, the blood and the flesh of our Lord cannot be physically real and not physically real at the same time. It must be one or the other, Rome's mystical notions of transubstantiation, notwithstanding.

We do not interpret the truths of Scripture in isolation. Scripture is clear that we do so in community of the saints. Your view is much like the bumper sticker that reads:

"God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

Whereas what I am trying to convey is a bumper sticker that reads:

"God said it. That settles it."

The most important question in this life for us all are Who is God? and Who is Jesus Christ?

Where do we find the answers to these two vital questions? In the Scripture.

To whom was Scripture given and received? To the Bride of our Lord, the church.

Why the church? For it is only therein that salvation (not the punctiliar decision made, signing of a pledge card, answering an altar call, etc.) is possible, hence the familar statement. (extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal (Not big "C" Catholic) under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; (1 Cor. 1:2, 1 Cor. 12:12-13, Ps. 2:8, Rev. 7:9, Rom. 15:9-12) and of their children: (1 Cor. 7:14, Acts 2:39, Ezek. 16:20-21, Rom. 11:16, Gen. 3:15, Gen. 17:7) and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, (Matt. 13:47, Isa. 9:7) the house and family of God, (Eph. 2:19, Eph. 3:15) out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (Acts 2:47)

The visible church has an ideal quality to it, meaning that if it were possible it would perfectly represent the true church, which contains only saints. So, the statement extra ecclesiam nulla salus is speaking principally of of the true church, of whom Christ our Lord is the head.

Wherever He is the true Lord, there is the one and only place of salvation, and all believers are permanent citizens of that kingdom. Clearly, then, outside of that church, there is no salvation, inside that church there is all salvation.

There is a sacramental connection between the church militant and church triumphant, but one is the Sign, the other the thing Signified. The statement extra ecclesiam nulla salus warns those who forsake the visible church that they do so at their peril. Where else will one find the Gospel but in the church? But if the church forsakes the gospel, as has Rome, then salvation will be found outside it, until the faithful church be re-formed around the gospel once again.

Note carefully that while I say there is no salvation outside of the Church, it is of paramount importance to understand this correctly. It does not say that no one shall be saved outside the Church, nor does it say that there is no saved person outside the Church; rather, salvation is not outside of her. Salvation is what God gives to His Church. That is why we must seek it there and not anywhere outside of the Church. Neither do I say anywhere that whoever withdraws himself from the Church cannot be saved, but rather that this is ordinarily contrary to the ordinance of God.

AMR

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Just because something sounds "good and sensible" doesn't make it right. God is not made in man's image...

These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.
Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.
Psalm 50:21-22

And from the lips of Jesus :

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:27

The point being that the Lord is not pointing us inward but outward to Him - who is utterly different than man and who is to be ruler - not blending our identity with His to such an extent that we can't distinguish between the two.

Is being right so important that we are willing to forfeit our own soul?... the infinite and eternal part of us with un-calculable value? If we don't take this part of us into account then why WOULDN'T we feel separated from God? The belief in separation is a self-imposed prison. We end up feeling diminished and worthless. Hell is the result. Remember, the true identity is an unconditional stillness and timeless presence. It just IS. It is one with the Great I Am. It has no desire to hold on to a belief or an identity. The action of reaching and grasping or pushing away from this is what creates the hell.

I do understand your concern however. I had the very same thoughts when I first started learning about all this. In fact I tried to avoid, ignore and repress it. I had no idea what it was and I was scared. The priests didn't have any answers so it forced me to find out for myself. In time something bigger than me took over my life and starting showing me things I would not have otherwise known. There was so much joy pouring from the depths of my being that I couldn't control it. Supreme light and love burst forth out of me in an explosion that reached to the furthest reaches of the universe and I absolutely knew it was the equivalent of the resurrection of Jesus. I automatically knew that all this love was meant to extend everywhere and to be shared with everything unconditionally.

So the need to be right and the desire to hold on to beliefs is long gone from my repertoire replaced by nothing but omniscient and omnipotent love of the most high quality and purity. I have been called to stand up and speak as an example to show that this is the destiny of every single one of us as well.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

...the true identity is an unconditional stillness and timeless presence.
.....It just IS.
...............It is one with the Great I Am.
......................It has no desire to hold on to a belief or an identity.

The action of reaching and grasping or pushing away from this is what creates the hell.

...In time something bigger than me took over my life and starting showing me things I would not have otherwise known.
.......There was so much joy pouring from the depths of my being that I couldn't control it.
.........Supreme light and love burst forth out of me
...................in an explosion that reached
..........................to the furthest reaches of the universe and I absolutely knew
...............................it was the equivalent of the resurrection of Jesus.

...I automatically knew that all this love was meant to extend everywhere and to be shared with everything unconditionally.
..........nothing but omniscient and omnipotent love of the most high quality and purity.
..................I have been called to stand up and speak as an example...

"Other" Sigh.

A word salad of metaphysical moon-beams from New Age cosmic humanism is not the answer to your quest to not feeling "diminished and worthless."

The New Age isn’t new. Rather virtually every facet of New Age movement is a revival of a feature of ancient paganism or an element borrowed from modern religious aberrations such as Theosophy, Swedenborgianism, Transcendentalism, Spiritualism, Christian Science, and New Thought mixed in varied combinations with other elements of Eastern religions.

That mind-blowing mystical transformation of yours accompanied with the New Age "basic energy" (healing force, orgone energy, odic force, mana, prana) with its light and joy pouring our of you is a sad counterfeit of the one, true, new birth of the Christian. Our Lord is not some Cosmic Principle by which we all strive to achieve "Christ consciousness." Nor is everything one, and the ultimate One is God, despite your obvious pantheism. Your purpose is not to re-own the Godlikeness within you; the perfect love, the perfect wisdom, the perfect understanding, the perfect intelligence, thinking that when you do that, you create back to that old, that essential oneness, which is consciousness. No, we are not really gods.

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

"Other" Sigh.

A word salad of metaphysical moon-beams from New Age cosmic humanism is not the answer to your quest to not feeling "diminished and worthless."

The New Age isn’t new. Rather virtually every facet of New Age movement is a revival of a feature of ancient paganism or an element borrowed from modern religious aberrations such as Theosophy, Swedenborgianism, Transcendentalism, Spiritualism, Christian Science, and New Thought mixed in varied combinations with other elements of Eastern religions.

That mind-blowing mystical transformation of yours accompanied with the New Age "basic energy" (healing force, orgone energy, odic force, mana, prana) with its light and joy pouring our of you is a sad counterfeit of the one, true, new birth of the Christian. Our Lord is not some Cosmic Principle by which we all strive to achieve "Christ consciousness". Nor is everything one, and the ultimate One is God, despite your obvious pantheism. Your purpose is not to re-own the Godlikeness within you; the perfect love, the perfect wisdom, the perfect understanding, the perfect intelligence, thinking that when you do that, you create back to that old, that essential oneness, which is consciousness. No, we are not really gods.

AMR

Good post.

 

[nikolai_42]

Is being right so important that we are willing to forfeit our own soul?...

This one quote alone underscores the great deception that traps so many in an endless pursuit of ecstasy and nothingness (and, paradoxically, self-fulfillment). The very notion that being right could come at the cost of one's own soul is in service of a desire for harmony - harmony of one's feelings with what "is". The very fact that one can be at peace with a stilled mind when there is no anchor of truth to guide it should set off alarm bells all over the place. Truth reigns in the universe and is true and consistent from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest galaxy. The same is true spiritually. It is a great deception to believe that one transcends truth by being. And it is somewhat of a surprise to me that one who holds that Christ is symbolic would overlook the cold, hard fact that Jesus said this about Himself :

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6

How could He be the truth if He were not right? How can one even begin to speak of truth if there is no right and wrong? No - the Christian life is not one of merely "being right". Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies (I Corinthians 8:1). Both are true, but one deals with the way truth is held. And the same apostle tells us in the famous passage on love, that it "rejoices in {or with} the truth" (I Cor 13:6). So the truth can be treated as a set of cold, hard facts - or it can be weaved together to show it's consistency and point the way to the Savior. But if the scriptures and the Savior of whom they speak can't be consistent (i.e. I can't be "right" about them) then truth dissolves in a formless void. What if, when you got to high school, you were told that all the rules of grammar you learned in grade school were optional and now you are told that there is no right way to express yourself? No right and wrong. No consistency. The foundations are torn out from beneath your feet and you are floating about - being tossed around with ever whim of every other person who wants to spit out whatever comes to his mind - because, after all, there are no rules...no right and wrong. Of course, then there is no way to gauge a proper interpretation. Someone could spout out a nonsense string of words but not mean what the dictionary says they mean - nor hold to any sort of sentence structure - and you wouldn't even be able to tell if they meant the unintelligible gobbledygook they actually said. Or even if someone said something that conformed with what you learned in grade school - now that the rules of interpretation are gone, you have no way of knowing if they mean what they said because even if you ask them if they are being literal, their answer could mean anything (much as your question to them could be interpreted to be...anything). This is just an analogy that truth doesn't all of a sudden become something altogether different that defies or denies its own fundamental propositions. But if you toss them out - just like with the grammar rules - you find yourself without any solid ground.

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
Psalm 11:3

So while there are certainly times where the literal sense carries some metaphorical or allegorical properties - what is expressed is no less true and doesn't change.

For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Malachi 3:6

If He doesn't change, then neither does His truth. And if He says X and you interpret it as "not X" or "elephant", then what you call "truth" is eminently changeable (indeed, it is defined by being changeable). That doesn't deny spiritual application or that our reality that we see being a poor representation of the reality we will find when we meet Him before the Throne - but it will be absolutely true what we know. True...but incomplete.

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
I Corinthians 13:9-12

You may say that you are putting away childish things by "becoming one" with God. But if the God with whom you are uniting defies the things you were taught "as a child" (as it were), how is He to be trusted? Childish things are immature...incomplete. Not incorrect. As with the grammar example, if childish things are wrong, you can't build upon them to mature things. If you cast them away entirely, you have to build a new foundation. And it seems as though you have no foundation because you have rejected what is plainly taught in scripture.

In one of my first posts to you, I mentioned the man of sin. You find that in 2 Thessalonians 2. Consider this in light of your statement I quoted at the beginning of this post.

And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2 Thessalonians 2:8-12

Verse 11 is a fairly clear statement that, in fact, knowing and believing what is right about God is absolutely critical to your soul. Being right is not what destroys a man - rather it is holding that truth in your hands and heart and rejecting it...

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Romans 1:18-25

 

[Prizebeatz1]

"Other" Sigh.

A word salad of metaphysical moon-beams from New Age cosmic humanism is not the answer to your quest to not feeling "diminished and worthless."

The New Age isn’t new. Rather virtually every facet of New Age movement is a revival of a feature of ancient paganism or an element borrowed from modern religious aberrations such as Theosophy, Swedenborgianism, Transcendentalism, Spiritualism, Christian Science, and New Thought mixed in varied combinations with other elements of Eastern religions.

That mind-blowing mystical transformation of yours accompanied with the New Age "basic energy" (healing force, orgone energy, odic force, mana, prana) with its light and joy pouring our of you is a sad counterfeit of the one, true, new birth of the Christian. Our Lord is not some Cosmic Principle by which we all strive to achieve "Christ consciousness." Nor is everything one, and the ultimate One is God, despite your obvious pantheism. Your purpose is not to re-own the Godlikeness within you; the perfect love, the perfect wisdom, the perfect understanding, the perfect intelligence, thinking that when you do that, you create back to that old, that essential oneness, which is consciousness. No, we are not really gods.

AMR

Again, one of many ways to see the same truth. Also don't rule out the option that we are one with the truth.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

This one quote alone underscores the great deception that traps so many in an endless pursuit of ecstasy and nothingness (and, paradoxically, self-fulfillment). The very notion that being right could come at the cost of one's own soul is in service of a desire for harmony - harmony of one's feelings with what "is". The very fact that one can be at peace with a stilled mind when there is no anchor of truth to guide it should set off alarm bells all over the place. Truth reigns in the universe and is true and consistent from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest galaxy. The same is true spiritually. It is a great deception to believe that one transcends truth by being. And it is somewhat of a surprise to me that one who holds that Christ is symbolic would overlook the cold, hard fact that Jesus said this about Himself :

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6

How could He be the truth if He were not right? How can one even begin to speak of truth if there is no right and wrong? No - the Christian life is not one of merely "being right". Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies (I Corinthians 8:1). Both are true, but one deals with the way truth is held. And the same apostle tells us in the famous passage on love, that it "rejoices in {or with} the truth" (I Cor 13:6). So the truth can be treated as a set of cold, hard facts - or it can be weaved together to show it's consistency and point the way to the Savior. But if the scriptures and the Savior of whom they speak can't be consistent (i.e. I can't be "right" about them) then truth dissolves in a formless void. What if, when you got to high school, you were told that all the rules of grammar you learned in grade school were optional and now you are told that there is no right way to express yourself? No right and wrong. No consistency. The foundations are torn out from beneath your feet and you are floating about - being tossed around with ever whim of every other person who wants to spit out whatever comes to his mind - because, after all, there are no rules...no right and wrong. Of course, then there is no way to gauge a proper interpretation. Someone could spout out a nonsense string of words but not mean what the dictionary says they mean - nor hold to any sort of sentence structure - and you wouldn't even be able to tell if they meant the unintelligible gobbledygook they actually said. Or even if someone said something that conformed with what you learned in grade school - now that the rules of interpretation are gone, you have no way of knowing if they mean what they said because even if you ask them if they are being literal, their answer could mean anything (much as your question to them could be interpreted to be...anything). This is just an analogy that truth doesn't all of a sudden become something altogether different that defies or denies its own fundamental propositions. But if you toss them out - just like with the grammar rules - you find yourself without any solid ground.

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
Psalm 11:3

So while there are certainly times where the literal sense carries some metaphorical or allegorical properties - what is expressed is no less true and doesn't change.

For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Malachi 3:6

If He doesn't change, then neither does His truth. And if He says X and you interpret it as "not X" or "elephant", then what you call "truth" is eminently changeable (indeed, it is defined by being changeable). That doesn't deny spiritual application or that our reality that we see being a poor representation of the reality we will find when we meet Him before the Throne - but it will be absolutely true what we know. True...but incomplete.

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
I Corinthians 13:9-12

You may say that you are putting away childish things by "becoming one" with God. But if the God with whom you are uniting defies the things you were taught "as a child" (as it were), how is He to be trusted? Childish things are immature...incomplete. Not incorrect. As with the grammar example, if childish things are wrong, you can't build upon them to mature things. If you cast them away entirely, you have to build a new foundation. And it seems as though you have no foundation because you have rejected what is plainly taught in scripture.

In one of my first posts to you, I mentioned the man of sin. You find that in 2 Thessalonians 2. Consider this in light of your statement I quoted at the beginning of this post.

And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2 Thessalonians 2:8-12

Verse 11 is a fairly clear statement that, in fact, knowing and believing what is right about God is absolutely critical to your soul. Being right is not what destroys a man - rather it is holding that truth in your hands and heart and rejecting it...

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Romans 1:18-25

One of many ways to see and relate to the truth. Why wouldn't there be more?

 

[nikolai_42]

One of many ways to see and relate to the truth. Why wouldn't there be more?

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Matthew 7:13-14

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Matthew 7:13-14

I think you are taking huge bites out of the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil. I have had my own experience of entering through the narrow gate. If you don't think it's right then that is your problem, not mine. There is an unconscious judgement that I am wrong and you tend to judge yourself in the same way. Thus the need for a someone or something to come save you. Have you not learned your lesson from the Garden of Eden? Do you not understand the downfall of mankind?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

New Age Moonbeams

New Age Moonbeams

Again, one of many ways to see the same truth. Also don't rule out the option that we are one with the truth.

Notice the New Age conviction that all spiritual paths lead to the same goal. Even though these different paths may appear contradictory, they really are not. But no New Age disciple really believes that all paths are equal. All of them reject at least one spiritual path, that of biblical Christianity. If some paths can be dangerous, does that not imply that some paths are wrong? In the final analysis one must wonder whether any path leads to the top or whether the ‘top’ of the mountain—Truth—floats freely in the clouds to be reached only by mystical illumination or channeled messages. The relativism so dear to New Age hearts suffers from a serious inconsistency.

New Agers talk about values such as etherialization and planetization, which appears to reflect concern for humans and human values. But that is all it is—a façade. Missing from New Age thinking is any cognizance of the necessary role that objective and universal ethical standards play in proper human conduct. Do I have duties to my brothers and sisters within the world community? What are those duties? Where do they come from? If they are as relative as the “truth” New Agers talk about, why should I fulfill those duties? Should human beings really tell the truth? Should they really keep their promises? What is the ground of these moral obligations?

New Agers believe, there are numerous means of arriving at Truth, distinguished by their efficiency more than their rightness. Yet they are indifferent to the problem they have created here. Since humans can never know what the “Truth” (with a capital T) is, how can New Agers possibly know when any practice or belief has brought them closer to the Truth? Does one not have to know the Truth before he can know that he has arrived?

The mindless relativism New Agers adopt must, sooner or later, collide with basic human values. New Agers refuse to admin that they have limits to their tolerance for other people’s karma. One wonders what they would think and do if some other individual (who in their view is as much god as they) should choose to break into their home, steal their property, threaten their children. Is there no point at which they would scream “Stop”? Sure they would, and at that point they begin to plunder the Christian's worldview all the while clinging to their moral relativism. Once the New Ager recognizes that good and evil are not the same and that truth and error are not the same, they are on their way to reintroducing reason into their lives.

Yes, New Agers do have a belief system. But, as we have seen in this thread they are not obliged to insist that their beliefs are true. Indeed, they avow, any religious/spiritual belief is at best only one of many possible ways of arriving at the Truth (with a capital T). But, given that the Truth is unknowable, it is hard to see how anyone could ever come to knowledge that he has arrived at the Truth or even, presumably, is on the right path. But since one path is as good as another, this should eventually be no problem, except for the seemingly contradictory claim that some paths are better than others and, what is even worse, that some paths may be downright dangerous.

"Other" Sigh.

AMR

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Notice the New Age conviction that all spiritual paths lead to the same goal. Even though these different paths may appear contradictory, they really are not. But no New Age disciple really believes that all paths are equal. All of them reject at least one spiritual path, that of biblical Christianity. If some paths can be dangerous, does that not imply that some paths are wrong? In the final analysis one must wonder whether any path leads to the top or whether the ‘top’ of the mountain—Truth—floats freely in the clouds to be reached only by mystical illumination or channeled messages. The relativism so dear to New Age hearts suffers from a serious inconsistency.

New Agers talk about values such as etherialization and planetization, which appears to reflect concern for humans and human values. But that is all it is—a façade. Missing from New Age thinking is any cognizance of the necessary role that objective and universal ethical standards play in proper human conduct. Do I have duties to my brothers and sisters within the world community? What are those duties? Where do they come from? If they are as relative as the “truth” New Agers talk about, why should I fulfill those duties? Should human beings really tell the truth? Should they really keep their promises? What is the ground of these moral obligations?

New Agers believe, there are numerous means of arriving at Truth, distinguished by their efficiency more than their rightness. Yet they are indifferent to the problem they have created here. Since humans can never know what the “Truth” (with a capital T) is, how can New Agers possibly know when any practice or belief has brought them closer to the Truth? Does one not have to know the Truth before he can know that he has arrived?

The mindless relativism New Agers adopt must, sooner or later, collide with basic human values. New Agers refuse to admin that they have limits to their tolerance for other people’s karma. One wonders what they would think and do if some other individual (who in their view is as much god as they) should choose to break into their home, steal their property, threaten their children. Is there no point at which they would scream “Stop”? Sure they would, and at that point they begin to plunder the Christian's worldview all the while clinging to their moral relativism. Once the New Ager recognizes that good and evil are not the same and that truth and error are not the same, they are on their way to reintroducing reason into their lives.

Yes, New Agers do have a belief system. But, as we have seen in this thread they are not obliged to insist that their beliefs are true. Indeed, they avow, any religious/spiritual belief is at best only one of many possible ways of arriving at the Truth (with a capital T). But, given that the Truth is unknowable, it is hard to see how anyone could ever come to knowledge that he has arrived at the Truth or even, presumably, is on the right path. But since one path is as good as another, this should eventually be no problem, except for the seemingly contradictory claim that some paths are better than others and, what is even worse, that some paths may be downright dangerous.

"Other" Sigh.

AMR

And what is your definition of truth?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And what is your definition of truth?

Ignoring all my other on point observations of your position that go without a response as you continue to move the goal posts each time...

Truth is what the Triune God knows, as all truth is the God's truth, since God is the metaphysical foundation of all that is true. Hence, truth should equal, represent, and match the way things really are, that is, reality. That is, truth corresponds to objective reality—what God says it is—not opinion.

Reality is the way things really are—for God so declared our reality—independent of human subjective experience and man-made conventions. This reality does not rule out the need for subjective application of truth in one's life. In other words, truth is discovered, not invented.

I am not implying that man knows all truth perfectly or does not have to work very hard at comprehending it. Furthermore, anyone denying the reality of truth has made a self-defeating statement.

What we know is directly connected to God's revelation. We can exercise our God-given rational capacities, through empirical observation, including science, and from understanding and reflecting upon God's unique propositional revelation—Scripture. Whether one is a rationalist (priority to reason) or an empiricist (priority to the five senses), we can trust properly functioning senses or reasoning minds because God serves as the necessary epistemological ground of both.

At this point we may ask, "What is knowledge?"

Knowledge is properly justified true belief.

Examine the statement in reverse.

belief - No one can know something unless he or she believes it. For example, we cannot know Jesus is Lord unless we believe it.

true - We can only know things that are true. A person may think he knows something to be true, but, in fact, be wrong. Or a person may know of something false that is indeed false. But this person can only actually and authentically know something if it is indeed true.

justified - We can believe something to be true—that is in fact true—but this would not constitute knowledge if it lacks a proper justification. For example, a wild guess that ends up being correct would not be knowledge, for knowledge involves some sort of confirmation or evidence, that is, proper justification. Here I speak of what philosophers call foundationalism. From foundationalism, we may claim that beliefs that stand on their own without appealing to other convictions for justification are called properly basic beliefs. Beliefs are properly basic when they are either self-evident (true on the face of it), logically necessary, inescapable, or incorrigible (expressing an immediate state of consciousness).

So we can state that knowledge means believing what is true with proper justification. We must further state that human reason cannot reveal anything, but it can defend what has been revealed by the Truth-Maker, the Triune God.

Despite the preceding we must recognize that man's knowledge is limited and affected by sin. Our noetic (cognitive and/or belief forming) faculties are to some degree impaired by sin and thus, so is our intelligence and rationality. This is a debated topic among theologians, some arguing that the noetic effects of sin relate moreso to our moral nature than our cognitive. While sin impacts us for the worse, it is still warranted to claim that the laws of logic (principles of correct reasoning) are not impacted. This means to me that these laws remain cognitively necessary, ontologically real, and irrefutable. Again, I caution here that I am not advocating that the laws of logic can bring about a proper relationship with God. Indeed, we require God's grace to soften our hearts, illuminate our minds, and incline our wills to believe.

We are finite creatures, so unlike God, we have limitations in our essence, our being, with regard to knowledge and rational comprehension. This means that pure rationalism (all things can be discovered through human reasoning and logic) is impossible. We may know things, but we cannot know things as God knows things.

Despite the claims of some believers with good intentions of defending the faith, who argue that faith is a "leap", I claim there are four reasons supporting that our faith involves knowledge and is compatible with reason.
(1) There is an objective source and foundation for knowledge, reason, and rationality—a personal and rational Triune God.
(2) Christian truth claims do not violate the basic laws and principles of reason.
(3) Scripture teaches us to seek knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and the values of discernment, testing, and reflection are promoted in Scripture.
(4) The truths of our faith also correspond to and are supported by evidence, facts, and reason.

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

And what is your definition of truth?

What's your definition of someone who asks questions, but don't care
if they get answered?

 

[Prizebeatz1]

What's your definition of someone who asks questions, but don't care
if they get answered?

Are you saying I don't care about the answers? If I didn't care I wouldn't bother to ask in the first place. BTW, in case you didn't notice, your post didn't contribute much toward the topic of the thread.

 

[nikolai_42]

I think you are taking huge bites out of the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil. I have had my own experience of entering through the narrow gate. If you don't think it's right then that is your problem, not mine. There is an unconscious judgement that I am wrong and you tend to judge yourself in the same way. Thus the need for a someone or something to come save you. Have you not learned your lesson from the Garden of Eden? Do you not understand the downfall of mankind?

Knowledge for its own sake doesn't save - it's true. But if "truth" contradicts "Truth", it just ain't true. But it strikes me as a little odd that you think being able to identify evil and good from scripture (clearly and unambiguously, that is) is partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when God Himself gave us unambiguous and clear commandments (that we can't keep) and the nature of the temptation in the garden seems to veer towards appealing to man's desires :

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3:1-5

This is what the New Age teaches and far closer to what you are espousing (becoming one with God) than what I have said regarding truth and the scriptures.

As for the need for a Savior, it is clearly said in Ezekiel .... the soul that sinneth, it shall die. And the necessity for a Savior and the Savior's role is prophetically declared by Isaiah :

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Isaiah 53:3-7

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:10-11

EDIT : Isaiah 53 doesn't read like the Savior is an example - rather that He is THE Savior who saves by bearing our sins. For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Are you saying I don't care about the answers? If I didn't care I wouldn't bother to ask in the first place. BTW, in case you didn't notice, your post didn't contribute much toward the topic of the thread.

I think you're something of a know-it-all and are playing
mind games with your fellow posters. As I've said before,
I believe you to be something of a "spiritualist" rather than a
Christian. This is basically a Christian forum and your type of
belief system just doesn't fit in. You seem to think of
yourself as, quite the Wordsmith and use confusing
language. You're more of a cultist, than a person who desires
to discuss the Christian faith? What do you hope to accomplish
here?

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Knowledge for its own sake doesn't save - it's true. But if "truth" contradicts "Truth", it just ain't true. But it strikes me as a little odd that you think being able to identify evil and good from scripture (clearly and unambiguously, that is) is partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when God Himself gave us unambiguous and clear commandments (that we can't keep) and the nature of the temptation in the garden seems to veer towards appealing to man's desires :

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3:1-5

This is what the New Age teaches and far closer to what you are espousing (becoming one with God) than what I have said regarding truth and the scriptures.

As for the need for a Savior, it is clearly said in Ezekiel .... the soul that sinneth, it shall die. And the necessity for a Savior and the Savior's role is prophetically declared by Isaiah :

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Isaiah 53:3-7

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:10-11

EDIT : Isaiah 53 doesn't read like the Savior is an example - rather that He is THE Savior who saves by bearing our sins. For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

All valid viewpoints. Speaking from my experience, however, we travel down the slippery slopes of judgement because we are not aware of the true identity which is the source of true self-worth. The bottom line is we don't feel good enough about ourselves. We compensate by grasping onto beliefs and living up to ideals such as being a devout Catholic for example. What's missing is self-worth which by definition comes from within. This is not a lustful desire to satisfy animal appetite. True self-worth is a genuine sense of value, meaning, significance and importance. Scriptures are not a substitute for the real thing. True self-worth is inseparable from the here and now in this exact moment. It is unconditional, omni-present, unwavering, and indivisible because it reflects its source.

Without self-worth I might unconsciously bully other people. Multiply this by centuries and by billions of people and we get utter madness throughout human history. Gradually things get worse. The adversary is very good at not causing alarm or bringing attention to itself. It's portrayed as a serpent for a reason. We are tempted to bite the fruit because it gives the illusion of control. We push away what is bad and reach for what is good. There are unconscious pleasures of foundation, stability, comfort, protection, etc. We will not let these go because it feels like death. The personality is attached and fixated to whatever it thinks will help it survive. It avoids the black hole of infinite and eternal outer space at all costs. The black hole is the enemy as we bite the fruit and judge it as bad. The beliefs of the personality are designed to help it avoid the black hole but jumping into it is the narrow gate.

We are cast out of the Garden which is similar to our innocent state in childhood. We leave behind this part of ourselves and lose touch with the source of our natural joy and self-worth in favor of identifying with the personality. We hardly notice this to be a problem. The false versions of joy and self-worth don't last so we try harder to hold onto beliefs to compensate. We know there is something deeper missing. There's no replacement for true self-worth. The story of Jesus has been trying to tell us this but we miss the memo in favor of more convenient interpretations. Deduced from my own experience of course.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

I think you're something of a know-it-all and are playing
mind games with your fellow posters. As I've said before,
I believe you to be something of a "spiritualist" rather than a
Christian. This is basically a Christian forum and your type of
belief system just doesn't fit in. You seem to think of
yourself as, quite the Wordsmith and use confusing
language. You're more of a cultist, than a person who desires
to discuss the Christian faith? What do you hope to accomplish
here?

I'm offering information from my experience. I know there are people wanting to hear it. I would have wanted someone to do the same for me. Your words do have some truth to them but that is not going to stop me.