URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Love God Only
  HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Things of the Spirit
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 10251--------------------------------------------------
       Re: What IS Salvation?
       By: Kerry Date: January 28, 2015, 8:30 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=HOLLAND link=topic=960.msg10249#msg10249
       date=1422448593]
       No, Kerry.  God retains his sovereignty.  [/quote]Agreed, hence
       the importance of the covenants God made with men.   The partial
       exchange of identity  in a covenant means that to a certain
       extent God dwells in men; and to the same extent they possess
       the Spirit, they can lawfully direct its flow.  Thus a person
       with the Spirit himself can transmit it to others.
       [quote]There is, granted, the possibility of deception by
       proceeding alone, but reliance upon the aid of others can also
       result in deception.  Groups can and do make errors in respect
       to the Holy Spirit.  Groups can be more pernicious in the error
       given that they propagate the  errors more easily.  [/quote]
       You can't cheat an honest man, or to use more Biblical language,
       "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" or "My
       sheep hear my voice."
       I believe the person with an impure heart who seeks spiritual
       guidance and assistance from others will get what he wants.
       Sometimes this leads to total ruin if the person hardens his
       heart; but the chastening influence of satanic influences exist
       to nudge the person into repentance.  It is an error to believe
       God wishes to punish people or that He allows the demonic to
       punish people.  It is meant to correct, not punish.
       I had my experiences in what I would call false religion or
       mistaken religion.  I do not regret them.  They taught me
       something.  The things I regret are the things I've done to
       others -- some of which seem next to impossible to undo. I do
       not regret the things which happened to me as the result of my
       decisions.
       So I believe the various denominations all serve their purposes.
       Birds of a feather flock together; and people gravitate towards
       what they need to learn.  For example, there are people who
       detest thinking for themselves, yet they want to know it all.
       This type of person will be attracted to a denomination that is
       dogmatic and authoritative.  He may be bruised by it.  I suspect
       most people are if they are in that kind of church.  It's to the
       glory of God.  They can stay in it until they see how foolish
       they have been to want ready-made answers at the expense of
       thinking for themselves -- and at the expense of coming to know,
       really know, instead of adopting dogmas which have no evidence
       for their validity except empty assertions. You could go on and
       on with the varieties of denominations and perhaps analyze them
       and catalogue them by personality types.  I believe you would
       find that people either stay in flawed religions until they are
       crushed or decide to become more responsible for their own
       thoughts, feelings and deeds.
       An additional benefit of flawed religion is that it tends to
       prevent some catastrophes in life even if the person is obeying
       commandments without understanding.
       I would also say there is not a single person on this earth  who
       can claim truthfully that he has contacted Heaven by himself
       without the aid of another.   Even if he were on a desert
       island, I would say he benefited by the prayers of the
       righteous.   The first impartation of the Spirit is by hearing
       the Word.  The seed is planted so.  Now often men are involved
       -- godly men with pure tongues (or pure enough to get the
       message out) -- who inform others about God and His Love by
       speaking.  This is exercising dominion over the earth.  The
       hearer is free to accept or reject.  But who really preaches the
       Gospel?  I say it's the angel in Heaven that John wrote about.
       Someone may hear another human talking about the Gospel, but for
       the hearer to hear truly, he must wonder if that is right.  Is
       there a God out there?  A God of Love and Mercy?  He is in
       darkness and does not know; but when he turns, turns, turns,
       looking and seeking, then back comes the answer and he hears the
       Mighty Angel in Heaven who has the everlasting Gospel.
       [quote]"That he is there with them."[/quote]Yes.  And if you're
       in a church with the spirit of the antichrist and you are
       seeking the spirit of the antichrist, that is what you will get.
       
       [quote]The Spirit does beckon towards community.  In the
       expression of love that is in Christ and moves outward upon the
       workings of the Spirit leads to th working of the value of
       relationships.  But, it would seem that the immediacy of the
       Spirit in the consciousness of the believer must still and
       always make it a "Jesus and me" thing.  [/quote]
       I can't see that.  Let us use Paul's metaphor of the body.
       Suppose I am a toe on the foot.  I am not directly connected to
       the head.  My place in the body is being attached to the foot.
       If the head perceives the body is hungry and needs food, it may
       direct the feet to get moving so the whole body can get food.
       For me to obey the head, I have to act in unity with other parts
       of the foot -- and with the other foot too.
       Suppose I get in me -- the toe has a thorn.  I can depend on the
       head to handle this.  For the well being of the rest of the
       body, the head will try to solve my problem for me.  Again the
       eyes will likely play a role, and the fingers too.  I can also
       count on the body to heal the wound.
       This seems carried out in my spiritual life.  My experiences
       with Jesus himself are rare. What I believe is that I am
       relating to Jesus indirectly by relating to others.  If you give
       someone a cup of water in the name of Jesus, it's the same as
       doing it to Jesus.  If we turn away from suffering, it's as  if
       we have turned our back on Jesus.
       It also seems perilous to me to crave a personal relationship
       with Jesus too much when it is his wish that we love one
       another.  The peril comes about because a flattering spirit can
       more easily deceive us if we fail to put enough emphasis on
       loving our neighbor and think we can slide by if we have a
       relationship with Jesus.  One can fall into self-deception,
       believing almost any idea that crosses the mind came from Jesus.
       The standard must be Love; and how can we know that if we do
       not keep ourselves grounded in reality and analyze our actions
       towards others honestly.  I believe the best way to insure our
       relationship with Jesus is to obey his commandment to love one
       another.
       [quote]I don't see it, Kerry.  I do not see the need of the
       washing of the flesh to symbolize an inner working of the
       Spirit.  To me physical baptism always leads to a position where
       there is an ecclesiastical hierarchy that demands a control over
       the ritual and, thru it, control over others.[/quote]
       It need not lead to that.  Paul said he baptized a few people;
       but in general, he was like Jesus in avoiding baptizing himself.
       
       One must wonder at the usual Catholic practice however of having
       Bishops perform baptisms.  Their theological position is that
       anyone can do it, even a pagan could if his intention was
       correct. I rather doubt that a pagan could summon up the right
       intention; but I would also say the intention of the person
       being baptized might be sufficient.  They prefer Bishops first
       of all, then priests, and then anyone in orders, and then any
       Christian, and finally anyone at all.  As you know, they also
       teach that if physical baptism is impossible, spiritual baptism
       can occur.
       My own belief is that it sends a slightly flawed impression of
       baptism to have Bishops do it. I think it would be better to
       have members of the congregation do it since that would
       emphasize the community more.  While we probably disagree about
       the usefulness of having a hierarchy,  I think baptism, being
       the introduction of someone into the Body of Christ, does not
       require someone of "high station."  Submitting self to someone
       of  humbler station seems more fitting.  One thing for sure,
       John the Baptist was not clothed in silk or gold vestments.
       Matthew 11:7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the
       multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness
       to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
       8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft
       raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings'
       houses.
       Can you imagine how the hypocrites who went out to be baptized
       were probably grinding their teeth at asking someone dressed
       like John to baptize them?
       The utility of the practice lies, I think, in the same
       metaphysics that sympathetic magic involves.  When someone is
       awake, we can be fairly certain his soul is in the body and
       coincides with it.  Directing the body to perform certain
       actions is also directing the soul in the same direction.
       Consider phyllacteries. It does not seem to be the case that the
       Sanhedrin originally directed people to wear them.  That passage
       in the Torah was interpreted completely spiritually.  At some
       point however, they decided it might help to focus the mind on
       its spiritual task if they directed people to make and wear
       physical phyllacteries.
       Consider too the passage that says Israel was baptized in the
       sea and in the cloud.  Nothing touched them in physical terms.
       Yet what they did see seems to have effected them and made the
       spiritual baptism happen.
       I am not saying people were baptized at Fatima; but the belief
       that it rained there physically  is in error. Some believed they
       saw it raining and even believed the ground and their clothes
       were wet.  Yet when the apparition was over,  everything was
       completely dry; and add to that, some people did not see it
       raining or think their clothes or the soil was wet.   If people
       see something, thinking it's with their physical eyes even if it
       isn't, I think it can make things happen spiritually more
       easily.  A person with spiritual sight would have seen the
       "rain" but realized it was not physical.
       Compare that to Jesus disappearing in clouds.   People still
       believe he went up and disappeared in physical clouds; but the
       angels chided the observers.  "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye
       gazing up into heaven?"  Compare that also to the "cloud of
       incense" between the two cherubim on the Ark.  Was the incense
       really necessary?  I'd say no.   The picture of it all was meant
       to instruct people; but they were forbidden to view it
       physically themselves.  What does it all mean then?  I say there
       is a seed planted in the heart, yes; but there is also one can
       be sown in the inner eye -- between the two physical eyes.  It
       is this inner eye or single eye which can "see" God.  If that
       eye is in darkness, the whole body will be also.
       
       So what about the props of sympathetic magic?   When I practiced
       magic,  I realized they were only props.  I did not see the
       value in them so I never used them.   I never "drew a magic
       circle" in my whole life.   I agree with Aleister Crowley on
       that -- who said if the magician had to draw a magic circle to
       protect himself during a ritual, he was in peril -- one should
       have that circle at all times.  I still believe that.  If one is
       walking in the Light of God, it sheds a light around him -- and
       it forms a circle on the ground around him.  It is like a lamp
       to his feet.   But some people find props useful -- and so I
       find using props in baptism useful although not necessary.
       #Post#: 10254--------------------------------------------------
       Re: What IS Salvation?
       By: HOLLAND Date: January 29, 2015, 6:45 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I shall give your view some thought, Kerry.
       If we could agree that water baptism is a prop, it would seem
       that it could be dispensed.  Certainly human psychology needs
       the comfort in many instances with physical symbols of a
       spiritual reality.  As my experience of the Spirit has
       disclosed, it is the certitude provided by the Spirit that
       provides the knowing of one's salvation.  And this salvation
       does lead to a change of who one is, a change in respect to
       one's life in respect to morality, an inner growth in that
       reality of the Spirit, a sensing of the fullness (pleroma) of
       Christ.  There is a knowing of Christ as a person, yet,
       paradoxically, a hiddeness that is found in the Godhead that
       calls for faith.  There is this growth in the existential, where
       we are becoming what we wish to become, becoming what God wishes
       us to be in this life.  There is joy in sadness, a recognition
       that there are illusions in life, and sometimes we partake of
       those illusions.  We grow in Wisdom and in that of the Word,
       both spoken and unspoken, until we attain that crown of
       righteousness that is joyously gifted us in the eschaton.
       In all this, I grant, we are certainly enwrapped in symbols, and
       in props of a greater reality.
       Peace be with you!
       #Post#: 10256--------------------------------------------------
       Re: What IS Salvation?
       By: Kerry Date: January 29, 2015, 4:39 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=HOLLAND link=topic=960.msg10254#msg10254
       date=1422535549]
       I shall give your view some thought, Kerry.
       If we could agree that water baptism is a prop, it would seem
       that it could be dispensed. Certainly human psychology needs the
       comfort in many instances with physical symbols of a spiritual
       reality. [/quote]If it is often a useful prop, why should anyone
       want to dispense with it?   I take the view that if someone is
       useful, then use it.  Take the marriage ceremony.  To me, that
       too is a prop.  Two people could certainly marry each other just
       by agreeing it is so; but I would be suspicious somewhat if one
       of the parties wanted to marry and keep it a secret.  I might
       even be suspicious if he or she did not want any kind of
       ceremony in front of others. If people did not want to have a
       binding agreement about what would happen if they broke the
       marriage vow, I'd certainly be suspicious.
       Just having witnesses at a wedding should discourage people from
       breaking their vows.  Receiving presents may also encourage them
       since they should feel that people want their marriage to
       succeed.   Likewise the ritual of baptism may encourage people
       by giving them a sense of belonging with the others witnessing
       it.  If the only objection is that it's a prop, why not do it?
       I can often  go along with  things not because I find them
       necessary or even useful myself but because others may benefit.
       If others want things that way and I don't care much either
       way, why not go along?
       Ideally too,  two people should be able to make a verbal
       contract and honor it.  In that case, the paper they sign is an
       empty gesture.   Still if you sell something to someone and he
       agrees to pay you later, you often ask him him to sign.  If he
       refuses,  you would be right to think he may want to defraud
       you.   He has some reason for not making the gesture which
       should be an empty one if he is a person of integrity.
       I am not saying people who don't believe in physical baptism
       lack integrity; but I do wonder what they do with the various
       Scriptures that command it.   I believe there has to be a good
       reason for it to be commanded (that's assuming the passages are
       authentic); and I would want to know why it was commanded by men
       who may know more than I do.  If I take the attitude they
       commanded it out of ignorance, I'm risking erring out of vanity.
       Do I really know so much more than they did?  If so, if they
       were ignorant men given to superstition, why believe anything
       they wrote?   The prevailing attitudes of science may not be
       right.  I do not think they are.  We should allow materialism to
       infect our theology.   Now of course, physical water can't save
       anyone.  Of course not.  That's taking a scientific,
       common-sense attitude that overlooks how physical stimuli can
       often affect mind and soul.
       Take the blind man Jesus healed by putting clay and spit on his
       eyes.  Was that necessary?  I'd say in that case it was.  If the
       man had had more faith, it wouldn't have been necessary; but
       using the prop helped bolster his faith.      I would say though
       that the spit may have had some spiritual effect being energized
       spiritually.
       In another case, Jesus took a blind aside away from the town.
       My guess was to avoid the influences of doubters and perhaps
       also to avoid being charged with practicing magic since he also
       used spit there as well.
       It seems to me that props in the Bible are often used to
       overcome obstacles.  If I wanted to do magic in front of people,
       I'd use props.   They have faith in those props, so I'd use
       them.  If I can get people to believe in the usefulness of the
       props, I'm adding their faith to mine.
       A woman once was complaining about her husband; and I asked her
       what she wanted.  She told me.  I then prepared a little wax
       figure of him and tied it to the sill of the door between the
       kitchen and living room so she'd see it every time she went
       past.  I did nothing else.  I was testing how the belief of
       others affected magic.  She already believed I had magical
       powers; but I wanted to see if I could something to work by
       doing nothing myself.
       It did work.  To her horror it worked.  She had asked for three
       things; and when they started to happen, she got so frightened,
       she took the wax figure down and threw it away.   She wanted the
       spell reversed; but there was nothing I could do then.  She had
       done it, not me. All I did was make a little wax figure.  She
       had been the person who put the energy into things.  If she
       hadn't thrown it away, perhaps it could have been changed. The
       prop had taken on that much importance.
       Props can take on energy too.  One day I walking with a girl on
       the towpath next to the old canal in Maryland; and for some
       reason, I was walking ahead of her.   All of a sudden, I felt a
       malevolent force off to the right so I stopped to look to see
       what was going on.   I saw a tiny hangman's noose.  I stood
       there transfixed until the girl caught up and asked me what I
       was staring at.  She mocked me at first.  I said, "Look."   Then
       she was horrified too.  I then ran away back to the car.   The
       next day I knew what to do.  I could not alter the mental energy
       in that noose and didn't even know what evil purpose was behind
       it; but I could do something.  I took the noose home and buried
       it in the yard.   My friend asked if we could burn it.  Perhaps
       we could have; but I saw that as opposing the will of the person
       who had made it.  I don't like setting up opposition to others
       that way.  If I buried it, the earth would undo it. The forces
       of nature themselves would take care of it.
       Did you read that the Vatican put what they say are the bones of
       Peter on display?   If they are the bones of Peter, it was a big
       mistake to put them on public display.   Whatever validity the
       relics of Peter may have given to the Bishops of Rome will be
       eroded by exposing them to the casual view of the public since
       so many of them will be skeptics.   Yet it does not surprise me
       since  this Pope is the last on the list of St. Malachy.  The
       bones of Peter would be better props in my opinion if kept
       secret.  Some would believe they were there; and the people who
       didn't believe in them wouldn't have anything to focus on.  All
       told, while I believe many things the Catholic Church teaches, I
       find their metaphysics lacking.
       [quote] As my experience of the Spirit has disclosed, it is the
       certitude provided by the Spirit that provides the knowing of
       one's salvation.  And this salvation does lead to a change of
       who one is, a change in respect to one's life in respect to
       morality, an inner growth in that reality of the Spirit, a
       sensing of the fullness (pleroma) of Christ.  There is a knowing
       of Christ as a person, yet, paradoxically, a hiddeness that is
       found in the Godhead that calls for faith.  There is this growth
       in the existential, where we are becoming what we wish to
       become, becoming what God wishes us to be in this life.  There
       is joy in sadness, a recognition that there are illusions in
       life, and sometimes we partake of those illusions.  We grow in
       Wisdom and in that of the Word, both spoken and unspoken, until
       we attain that crown of righteousness that is joyously gifted us
       in the eschaton.
       In all this, I grant, we are certainly enwrapped in symbols, and
       in props of a greater reality.
       [/quote]Words are symbols too; and it seems to me that many
       people put too trust in words without seeking the reality behind
       the words.   Isn't the Bible a prop for us since we cannot see
       things for ourselves?
       *****************************************************
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page