DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Religious Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3526--------------------------------------------------
Something Out of Nothing
By: Piper Date: January 1, 2016, 2:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]God, as Creator, is said to have made all
things out of nothing.
Is that ability unique to God?
Or, in the image of God, can we, too, create something out of
nothing? Perhaps on a spritual level or plain, can we, too,
create something out of nothing? Does matter matter?
I tend to think "no", we can not make something from nothing,
because God precedes everything, so anything we conceive points
back to Him. But, I wonder to what degree what we imagine,
might actually become what IS. In eternity, I mean, not here.
Because if eternity is limitless, from where do the boundaries
come and who has the power to change them? Do we at least help
shape our future existence in eternity? In Paradise?
Do we, are we, creating our own heaven or hell?
Strange questions, I know, and you may wonder what drugs I am
on, but when you dream, at night, in your bed, are you not
creating something out of nothing? What if the plains of
existence we create in our dreams could be entered and shared
(or violated) by other beings? Who, then, maintains the
boundaries, the 'reality' of what, in actuality, has no
substance, other than spiritual?
What is lasting? That of created matter or that of spiritual
essence?
Can I create a spiritual refuge of my own where no one, save
God, can touch me? Could I train myself to have the ability to
flee there at will?
My body would lie dormant, waiting for my return. What if my
body were taken away?
Ha! This is how my mind works when creating worlds for books.
The things stories are made of. But what if stories are more
than stories? How wonderful and terrifying if they were!
If the Creator gave us the power to create, what would we
fashion?
Is this what earth is? The sum of our fingerprints all over
what God once made? A beautiful, terrible chaos of good and
evil and everything in between? How little power we have to
change things on our own. But if we were one mind, one will, if
we could feel the same things, experience all our brother or
sister experiences, how might that change our perspective? How
clearly might we see the way to peace?
[/font]
#Post#: 3530--------------------------------------------------
Re: Something Out of Nothing
By: Kerry Date: January 1, 2016, 11:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 1 uses the word "create" three times. People often
speak of the "six days of creation" but that's not how the Bible
actually reads.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven<s> and the
earth.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living
creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly,
after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God
saw that it was good.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he them.
In all three cases, it has to do with the imagination or with
"things" which are not physical. In the first case, God
produced "something" out of nothing using His imagination. I
would say in the other two cases, something is being described
that we must use our own imaginations to grasp. We cannot see
souls with our physical eyes; and I believe that is why "create"
is used in 1:21. Nor can we see with our physical eyes how man
is like God, in His image. I do not think in these two cases
God produced something out of nothing. Rather I think He
imparted life to the living creatures -- life from Himself. As
William Blake said, all life is holy.
John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he
given to the Son to have life in himself;
Life at this level can also be thought of as an ocean. Souls
can be thought of as fish or sea creatures, even our own souls.
Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as
certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his
offspring.
Man got something else as well. In chapter two, we read God
breathed into him and he became a "living soul." What to make
of that? I think it means man had the potential to be immortal,
sharing the Divine Spark of Life. The animals had souls, yes,
but lacked the Divine Spark. This "breath of life" was not
created. It was something that belonged to God Himself and I'd
say still does. The reason I see for saying "create" is to
tell us it's not something we can see with our physical eyes.
I believe all things were fashioned or made after Genesis 1:1,
before "the first day" in fact.
Now to the question can man create? Not if you mean produced
something out of nothing; but man can produce "things" seemingly
out of nothing since +1 and -1 equals 0. The potential of
zero is infinite; and this is based on the mathematical plus
and minus equaling zero. The pluses and minuses are not
really opposites -- not contradicting each other -- but
polarities or complements. Male and female are not opposites
but complements or polarities.
Some call it "co-creation" and I suppose that's as good a term
as any since almost any term can be confusing; but I believe
Adam, the-Adam -- which made first male and female -- got
divided into male and female so they could "co-create." I mean
that in a way the animals could not -- spiritually. Animals can
"co-create" when it comes to souls but not otherwise.
Physics says nuclear particles "seem" to appear out of nowhere
under certain conditions. They call it a particle and an anti
particle. And if the two get back together, both vanish. All
this is quite amazing really since if you could take the
complete universe and tally it up mathematically, it would equal
zero.
I think spiritually this is true too. There is a balancing act
of keeping the complementary particles apart -- where the "born
again" individual is both male and female -- not one or the
other but both -- in a stable way so they spin around and vanish
back into nothingness. The model spiritually is the same as the
physical model used at so many levels: A larger particle that
is relatively slow at the center with a much smaller particle
spinning around it at a furious speed. In the center, peace
and quiet -- while the exterior is active.
[quote]Do we, are we, creating our own heaven or hell?
[/quote]Yes. . . and no. God as God certainly did not create
hell. I would say "lost particles" or "lost Sparks" of God
create hell and keep creating it. The Spark of Divinity which
has lost track of what it is and no longer believes itself to be
part of the Unity of God starts "creating" all sorts of
mischiefs and horrors. We imagine ourselves not to be part of
the Unity of God -- and presto, we aren't. Yet it is the
godlike power in us that does this.
This may sound strange to many; but the Bible more than once
says God did something when it means an angel did it or even
Satan. Everything that exists depends one way or another on
God. Even if Satan does something, it's right to say God did it
-- in one way -- but misleading in another. Thus the Bible
says in one place Satan provoked David to count the people and
in another the "anger of the LORD" did it.
[quote]Strange questions, I know, and you may wonder what drugs
I am on, but when you dream, at night, in your bed, are you not
creating something out of nothing? What if the plains of
existence we create in our dreams could be entered and shared
(or violated) by other beings? Who, then, maintains the
boundaries, the 'reality' of what, in actuality, has no
substance, other than spiritual? [/quote]
I think most cultures have the sane view that dreams are real
just not physical. Westerners seem to think they aren't even
real. I take a simple view. If I see something, I think it's
real. Where do such things come from? From us to a large
extent.
What some call magic often involves manipulating imagery using
the will deliberately to visualize a thing and then use the will
also to say, "Make it so." Dreams can get out of control and
so can our imaginations. We can dream and imagine things which
exert influences that try to make those things be true for other
people as well as for ourselves.
The physical world is seen as real because almost everyone
"agrees" it's real. Other people's dreams and objects in their
imaginations are not seen as real because not everyone can see
them. But it's quite possible to do it. If you can "lose
yourself" and temporarily imagine you are "the other" person,
you can walk right into his universe and see what's in it.
You have to "agree" with him in order to do this. If you
"disagree" with him on anything that's going on in his universe,
you'll get booted out. In a way, you are temporarily "becoming"
him.
The institution of marriage, I say, was given to mankind to
teach them how to "become the other". The two are meant to
become one; but still somehow, they can appear to be two.
The differences are appearances only. But when the Bible says a
man "knew" a woman, it means exactly that. He becomes her, the
two merge. He knows everything about her -- is not rebelling at
the idea of being female. Now there is a stumblingblock to
spiritual advancement -- for if a man treats his wife poorly, he
certainly wouldn't want to "be" her. He wouldn't want to
experience what she does.
Being a control freak of any kind is an obstacle. If we say, "I
don't want him to think that," we are attempting to control his
thoughts and will. It is when the mind is at peace and
content to allow others to think and imagine whatever they like
that we are relaxed enough to be able to "share" their
universes. I'd say the biggest obstacle to people being able
to read minds is that they want to control the thoughts of
others.
You can take the world's biggest sinner, the most ungodlike
person around -- and if you try to boss him around by trying to
violate his free will, you are falling into the same trap he
did. And though he is a great sinner, he still has that
godlike ability to toss you out of his universe.
It is amusing in a way to see people getting frustrated by
their godlike abilities. They can "feel" that they have the
"right" to imagine things and have them be that way. That's
right. Yes. They do have that right. But they don't have the
right to make those things true for everyone else; and therein
lies their frustration. You can watch this sort of person
cycling downwards. Eventually they give up on trying to control
the things they actually could control themselves and resort to
trying to manipulate others. Good grief! If they can't control
themselves, what makes them think they can control anyone else?
Yet this is something that can be seen -- all over the place.
People have given up trying to governing themselves, perhaps
thinking it's not possible, so the only way to get what they
want is to subvert the free will of other people?
Proverbs 16:32 He that is slow to anger is better than the
mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a
city.
When people dream, they do tend to "create" forms on the astral
plane. The "same place" may appear differently at different
times depending on who's been influencing things lately.
Things on the astral plane can be said to "be in the sea." They
have an urge or tendency to be expressed in the physical world.
If you could get everyone to visualize the same things on the
astral plane, they would become true on the physical plane.
When the Bible talks about things or beasts coming up out of the
sea, it means things that existed on the astral plane emerging
into the physical world and becoming true in it. So if you get
enough people visualizing or imagining horrible things, those
things will emerge and become true in the physical world. Even
fearing things on the astral plane can give them power. My
study of hurricanes told me that if people were worried about
one, they would be giving it more power. Once a potential
hurricane became news, it was harder to influence; but if I
spotted a potential problem before it became news, it was easier
to get it to dissipate by imagining it going away and by
deliberate willful prayer. I wasn't praying "against" the
minds of other people who were busily imagining and fearing it.
[quote]What is lasting? That of created matter or that of
spiritual essence?[/quote]
I say matter itself is an illusion -- a confusion of three
substances. It appears so solid because its errors are based
on confusion that is hard to sort out. A spiritually adept
person can "create" a physical object out of those three
substances and also dissolve them . . . at will. But the
errors within those substances have to be taken into account.
Thus Jesus could take the "picture" of one fish before him and
make many. Seemingly out of nothing, but I wouldn't say it was
nothing. This type of object -- as well as apparently solid
bodies projected into time and space -- are formed out of "the
clouds." This kind of object is formed by substances that
will "obey" the spirit. Within most matter lies a rebellion
right down at the atomic level. Yes, I think the doctrine of
the Transmuting of the bread and wine into Bread and Wine is
also explained this way. There the errors already existing in
the three substances that produce matter are altered.
What are those errors? One is having one godlike being
opposing another godlike being. Which one will win? Neither
wins. The energy collides and produces a dark confusion that
pervades matter. The "double-mindedness" James wrote about
happens to be true even at the atomic level.
Now then, what happens if Jesus is really there and really
changing the atoms of matter before someone consumes them and
incorporates these purified and intelligent particles into his
own body? Well, what happens if someone is in disagreement
with him is not good. Errors should be being erased; but a
deliberate clinging onto sin creates new confusions and dark
spots.
[quote]Can I create a spiritual refuge of my own where no one,
save God, can touch me? Could I train myself to have the
ability to flee there at will?[/quote]I'd say yes; and if you
wish this for yourself, you must be willing to grant others the
same freedom. We tend to open doors into our own private
universes if we try to enter the universes of others unlawfully.
In other words, we allow others to do to us what we know we
have done to them. This may sound crazy and impossible, but I
believe it's true.
There are many crazy "tricks" played in the spiritual worlds.
There are some people who almost deliberately (I think at times
it is deliberate) try to get others to "interfere" with them.
If they can get you to do that, that gives them the right to
interfere with you back. It can be tricky since sometimes the
initial "play" is that of someone who says he needs or wants
help. He really doesn't. He wants you to try something --
which is lawful since he said you could -- but then he'll do his
utmost to make sure it doesn't work. The right thing to do is
to walk away; but it's tempting to get frustrated and maybe vent
a little, maybe try a little manipulation. If you do that
though, he's snagged you.
[quote]My body would lie dormant, waiting for my return. What
if my body were taken away? [/quote]That would depend on your
attitude towards that body. If you were extremely attached to
it, tricks could done by others with it.
Oddly enough, I had "another" body for a while while being alive
in this body as Kerry. It was being kept in suspended animation
and not for a good purpose. One "trick" on this is not to keep
the whole body alive but just a part. If you go back to it, you
can't animate it. I decided to "kill" that body myself.
[quote]Ha! This is how my mind works when creating worlds for
books. The things stories are made of. But what if stories
are more than stories? How wonderful and terrifying if they
were!
If the Creator gave us the power to create, what would we
fashion? [/quote]
What indeed? I think God was disappointed by how this planet
turned out.
I was carried off one night "in the spirit" and shown a planet
(I think I may have told you this) and I was offered it. What
I saw was mostly just grass, very beautiful grass. And one
small house. I declined the offer for two reasons. First life
there would almost certainly look at me as "God" -- and I didn't
want that. I also would prefer not to leave this planet until
it's fixed. As long as Jesus can use me, it's probably better
to stay here. While I think I have paid my debt to him in
full, I still would feel bad about leaving after he pulled me
out of the mud I was in. I know that sounds crazy too; but he
told me when my debt was paid. What did I want to do? Exodus
21 came to mind:
Exodus 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my
master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also
bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master
shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him
for ever.
I was also a little frightened by the thought people might
worship me as God. If I permitted that, I'd be falling into
horrible error. I'd be creating my own hell.
[quote]Is this what earth is? The sum of our fingerprints all
over what God once made? A beautiful, terrible chaos of good
and evil and everything in between? How little power we have to
change things on our own. But if we were one mind, one will, if
we could feel the same things, experience all our brother or
sister experiences, how might that change our perspective? How
clearly might we see the way to peace?[/quote]
If we look at someone and say, "I'm glad I'm not him," it
should concern us a little. If we look at an animal and think
that, it should concern us. All things come from God by one
means or another. All life, even the "worst" sort, has value of
some kind waiting to be expressed correctly. Even inanimate
objects wait to sing the praises of God.
Things went horribly wrong on this planet long, long ago, I
think. Genesis 1 is mostly about a restoration not a creation.
Jesus and his saints came to fix what was broken and to
"supplant" the false spiritual hierarchy that somehow turned the
planet upside down. The horrible things were never meant to be
this way. Not by God.
When Genesis says God made plants and animals and so on, I think
He was replacing the spiritual patterns that had been
corrupted. Yes, animal life had been corrupted too long, long
ago. In Genesis 1, I think God made "spiritual animals" and
place them in Heaven as the Guardian Spirits of each species --
meant to steer the physical animals on the physical earth in the
right direction. That went sour after the Fall when the
imagination of man became more and more wicked. It corrupted
some of the animals again spiritually.
As for me, I am not sure "Man" as a spiritual being is intended
to be "glued" inside a body that looks like human bodies.
Dominion over the earth and animals suggests to me that Man, the
Spiritual Man, was meant to help steer the Guardian Spirits of
the animals correctly -- and that Man was meant to be willing to
"be" any of the animals. Be a duck for a day. Be a toad for an
hour. Experience what they do. I believe that because of the
few times I've been able to experience things the way animals
are. We should crave a world where we wouldn't mind being
anything in it. Everything should be so filled with joy, we
wouldn't mind "being" them. It would be a pleasure.
But then again, I could be wrong about that. There are fallen
spirits inside people -- spirits which do nothing except run
bodies. They seem trapped. They do things like regulate blood
pressure, endocrine glands and stuff like that. It's all
they're interested in -- how to run bodies. If they think the
body is doomed anyway, they sometimes give up trying to fix it
and decide to run experiments on it. Just to get information
about how to run bodies. Some people call these spirits "body
elementals". Hubbard called them "genetic entities." He never
really figured out what they were; but he did discover they have
memories that go back millions of years. They have minds of
their own too. One of my basic disagreements with Scientology
is over their attitude towards the genetic entity. I think as a
religion, they lack compassion for them.
Eastern religions sometimes use confusing terminology about
these spirits. Sometimes they talk about the gods that appear
inside the body. If you don't know their definition of "god",
that sounds nuts; but if you know, it's not as crazy. There
are various "centers" that overlap the physical body and
interact with it. I wouldn't call them gods myself, but there
is something of the divine about them if brought into the Light.
That depends of course on the center some call the chakra of
the inner eye -- which Jesus called the single eye. This is
the "eye" which the imagination uses -- to project things
outwards as well as to view.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore
thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
#Post#: 3531--------------------------------------------------
Re: Something Out of Nothing
By: bradley Date: January 2, 2016, 12:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We are made in God's image. Who knows for sure what we are
cabable of once God allows all of our brain to function as it
was intended.
#Post#: 3532--------------------------------------------------
Re: Something Out of Nothing
By: Kerry Date: January 2, 2016, 12:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Who knows indeed?
Matthew 6:27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit
unto his stature?
28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of
the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory
was not arrayed like one of these.
30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to
day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much
more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or,
What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your
heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;
and all these things shall be added unto you.
You could read that to mean if we seek first the kingdom, we
might be able to make ourselves taller by taking thought.
#Post#: 3535--------------------------------------------------
Re: Something Out of Nothing
By: Piper Date: January 2, 2016, 4:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]Much in your post, Kerry. Thank you.
I found it interesting that you believe you've paid your debt to
Jesus in full. I'm not sure what that means. I feel we owe our
very lives to Jesus, should both live and be willing to die for
Him, but I'm not sure if that touches on what you mean by what
you said.
Can you explain?[/font]
#Post#: 3536--------------------------------------------------
Re: Something Out of Nothing
By: Kerry Date: January 3, 2016, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Piper link=topic=403.msg3535#msg3535
date=1451772965]
[font=trebuchet ms]Much in your post, Kerry. Thank you.
I found it interesting that you believe you've paid your debt to
Jesus in full. I'm not sure what that means. I feel we owe our
very lives to Jesus, should both live and be willing to die for
Him, but I'm not sure if that touches on what you mean by what
you said.
Can you explain?[/font]
[/quote]The Scriptures often refer to our deeds in financial
terms with acts of virtue as credits and sins as debts. From
what I have seen, I think this is absolutely right; and I see no
exceptions to this way of Heaven keeping its books. On
Judgment Day, we are told everyone will give an account of every
deed and every word. Even the smallest idle word will be taken
into account. I think it must be this way first because a
Just God would create the universe to work this way; and
secondly, I do not think people could be happy in Heaven if they
felt their past history made them unworthy to be there.
Sin can become so huge however that it resembles a financial
situation where you can see the person has no way of paying his
debts. This could be called spiritual bankruptcy. This is
where the idea of the Redeemer comes into the picture. When
Jesus takes someone on, he agrees to be responsible for all
their past debts and all their future acts as well. That
person becomes Jesus' property just the way people used to be
sold into slavery; and again the Bible tells us we are his
slaves, his property, bought with a price. Now in the end,
yes, each person will have to answer for his own deeds; but
Heaven is willing to defer this judgment so people can improve;
and if Jesus is willing to take them on, that is surely
allowed. If one of Jesus' servants messes up, Jesus is held
accountable. This could be thought of as being like someone who
adopts a dog from the street. If the dog is vicious and bites
people, the person who adopted him is held responsible. Jesus
is given this authority because his own books are in such good
shape -- he can cover the debts if one of his servants messes
up.
Jesus' motive in this is not to have us as his perpetual
servants or slaves. That would be a bad motive, wouldn't it?
No, his motive is to carry our debts when we aren't able, and
then get us into a position where we can carry our own weight --
and start balancing our own books. So we read the mysterious
passage about how acts of "fervent charity" cover a multitude of
sins. Jesus wants to get us into a position where he no
longer has to "look down" on us as inferiors or slaves -- as
worthless dependents incapable of doing anything good ourselves.
His motive is to raise people up so they amount to something.
When they do amount to something, God is glorified since His
purpose in creating man is revealed. When we see the lives of
the saints, we can see how God was right, wasn't He, to make
man?
Another concept that perplexes many Protestants is how a priest
can tell someone his sins have been forgiven. How can a man do
that? How could the Apostles remit sins? Quite simple if you
ask me. They had enough virtues tallied on their own books.
They were enough like Jesus that they could agree to take on
being responsible for others. The individual priest may not be
enough like Jesus to do that; but the Church as a whole is.
What I fear some priests may not understand however is that if
they are careless with people about confession and do not make
sure the person has truly repented, that person will be
forgiven (in one way) and the priest will be held accountable.
Anyone who loves someone else can agree to carry (temporarily)
the burdens of the person loved. Jesus wants to pull us up
and get us to the point where we stop depending so much on him
and start pulling up other people who need it as much as we once
did. Thus Jesus emphasized that we should do good deeds -- and
said if we did, it was as if we did them to him. He wants us to
become like him. That's the payment he wants back. He wants
the whole world saved. and we can pay off our own debts to him
by helping him bear the burdens of others when they are so deep
in spiritual debt they can't do it themselves. Paul wrote:
Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the
law of Christ.
That is an astonishing statement. Then he also wrote a little
later:
4 But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have
rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
What? If every man must bear his own burden, why tell us to
bear another's burdens? Skeptics sometimes mock this passage,
saying Paul was obviously mad; and I admit it looks a little
mad. It's a question of context though. Before Judgment Day,
we can take on the burdens of others and bear them temporarily;
but in the end, when each person stands before the Judgment
bar, he will have to answer for himself.
I think this also may explain why people are given penances to
perform even though they are told they're forgiven. In its own
way, that also sounds a little mad. If a priest gives you
absolution from sin, what need would there be to you to "pay"
for it? I think it makes complete sense though if we
understand things in the right way. The priest, the Bishop, the
Apostolic authority, the Church and Jesus himself are willing
to bear the burdens of confessed sins temporarily so the person
is not overwhelmed by his burden of spiritual debt. The person
isn't asking for a free ride and isn't asking for Jesus to "do
everything" for him. Where he can correct some of the harm
he's done, he must do it in the way the priest gives him
penance. Where a person can bear his own burdens, Jesus and the
Church expect him to do so. Where he cannot bear it, the Church
will take over -- but this continues to add to what that person
owes Jesus. It's not a free ride. If he does no penance, it
adds even more to what he owes Jesus. His pile of debt to Jesus
is bigger than it needs to be.
This not wanting to do penance reminds me of someone who has a
mountain of debt. He's lost his job because he lost his house
and car. So you tell him he can move in with you and you pay
off his debts so the creditors aren't hounding him. You'll give
him food and shelter; he can shower at your house, use your
phone to talk to employers, and so on. This is "freely" given.
You didn't owe that to him. Your motive is not to reduce him
to being your slave. You want him to get a job and be able to
afford his own house and car. You want him to succeed; and you
also hope that if he succeeds, he will understand your motive
was love. You hope you have a positive relationship with him
after he has his own job, house and car and doesn't need you
anymore.
Your motive is the best. So what happens if the fellow doesn't
do much to get a job? He figures you will keep on supporting
him. He doesn't need to worry about food and shelter since
you're providing it. And he also figures you're such a "soft
touch," he can keep sponging off you for ever. He "presumes"
something. When we act like this in our relationship with
Jesus, it's what the Catholic Church calls the "sin of
presumption." Sad to say, many Protestants are never warned
about this pitfall. This sin is perilous, to say the least.
This form of the sin of presumption is, of course, assuming that
Jesus will always keep on forgiving people so it doesn't matter
that much if we keep on sinning since we can always count on
being forgiven. I place this sin high on the list of sins,
perhaps it's the worst of sins when carried to its extreme.
What was meant for the good, meant to help people, meant to
improve others, is used an excuse for doing more evil. I can
think of nothing worse than that. I can understand returning
evil for evil and good for good. I can understand returning
good for evil; but I think a line is drawn when people return
evil for good. The more good they receive from others, the
worst they become.
Such people do not really believe Jesus loves them. I don't
think they know what the word "love" means. If they really
knew Jesus loved them, they wouldn't do what they do. Many
people think love is a form of weakness. The bankrupt fellow
who you asked to move in with you so he could improve will not
think your motive was really loving. He sees it as a weakness on
your part. You are doing it to feel good about yourself so you
can feel superior to him maybe, or maybe so you can pull his
strings making him into your puppet. People who think like
this often have had parents who pretended to love them when
their real goal wasn't love at all. And to be honest about it,
much of what we see in this world advertised as love is not love
at all but an attempt to control and manipulate. The young
fellow who whispers, "I love you, baby" to the innocent girl who
believes him may get into her pants, may get what he wants; but
he may also wreck her for life if she reacts to this by saying,
"There's no such thing as real love." She can become a
deceiver herself then, out to get revenge on men who whisper
such things and perhaps on all men. Who knows? But the world
has its way of wearing us down, telling us real Love is not
possible; it's all a sham.
So take someone with this attitude and tell them Jesus loves
them. They will often respond to Jesus as they do with people.
They will think he's puling a con game on them; and to be
honest, judging from some sermons I've heard, some ministers
also give this impression of who Jesus is and what his motives
are. Some people seem to think Jesus is so emotionally needy
that he craves our approval desperately. He was even wiling to
die to get our approval and lip service. Just say the magic
words, "Jesus, I accept you into my heart as my Savior" and
that's all there is to it. Yes, I think a lot of "bad
religion" has something to do with how our parents were; and no
one had perfect parents. The question is if we can escape our
pasts when they have injured us -- and also see how our own
parents were perhaps crippled by their parents. Can we escape
this cycle of dysfunctionality? We can, but only if we believe
real love is possible.
Part of this too has to do with whether we can forgive others.
Can we forgive our parents if they gave us fake manipulative
"love" and not real love? Perhaps we can, if we can see
things from their perspective even if we can't be sure what it
was but try to imagine it. Can we see how the world wore them
down and made them bitter about some things, convinced them that
real love was not possible? Were they victims of the world
who got crushed and made bitter -- and who then failed to treat
their children right?
At any rate, I think many people tend to think of God the way
they look at their parents. There are some Christians I'd say
never grew up emotionally but are still looking for a God who
will give them everything they want, do whatever they want, and
be partial about it to boot. If you want your neighbor's house
or wife, God will give them to you because He loves "you" and
not your neighbor. That's because you're His child and they
aren't; and you flatter Him and the don't. Were God to give
such people everything they asked for, think of the spiritual
debts they'd be racking up.
God wants us to grow up spiritually, to have dignity and be
worthy of being called His children. That includes paying our
debts. One thing I like in the story of the prodigal son is
that he was not guilty of the sin of presumption. He came to
his senses -- he became spiritually sane, I think:
Luke 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired
servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I
perish with hunger!
18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him,
Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of
thy hired servants.
20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a
great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran,
and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against
heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy
son.
He was willing to work if that's what his father wanted.
Surely this is the right way to repent. Any other way is false
repentance, I'd say.
Let me end with the story about the talents. You know it, of
course; but I'll quote the whole passage while I reread it
myself.
Matthew 25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling
into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered
unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to
another one; to every man according to his several ability; and
straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded
with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other
two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth,
and hid his lord's money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and
reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought
other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five
talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful
servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make
thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy
lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord,
thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two
other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant;
thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee
ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said,
Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou
hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth:
lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful
servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather
where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the
exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine
own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him
which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall
have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away
even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness:
there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Not only does Jesus expect people to pay back what he gave them,
he wants interest! Does that astonish anyone? It should
astonish the people who say Jesus did it all for them and they
will have eternal life without lifting a finger themselves
because Jesus gave them everything "freely." How they
misinterpret that word "free" -- to their own benefit, of
course. They read only, "freely ye have received," and not
"freely give."
One value of studying the lives of the saints is that it shows
us why Jesus was willing to do what he did. By being faithful
stewards and doing good deeds, they showed exactly what Jesus
found it worthwhile to die for. Others could be transformed
and made righteous and worthy. I say not only did they pay
Jesus back what they owed, they did more. Jesus got his
interest on the debt -- and that interest is the souls those
saints led into the kingdom of God. All to the glory of God
and to His Christ who made it all possible.
The person who is still struggling with his own debt to Jesus is
not in a good position to be able to help others. He doesn't
have enough virtues on his books. He can't afford to bear anyone
else's burdens since he hasn't learned how to bear his own yet.
They can't pray and have the sins of others "forgiven."
James 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the
Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they
shall be forgiven him.
The elders who can get sins forgiven that way have enough
credits on their books to get it done. They are willing to bear
the burdens of others temporarily in order that the sinner is
not so overwhelmed by his own burden he gives up because it's
more than he can bear. I see that as the "law of Christ"
which does not contradict the teaching that every person must
sooner or later bear his own burden.
In some ways, people might be apt to exaggerate what Jesus has
done for them. This could be the sin of flattery or it could be
an innocent mistake. For me, the most valuable thing Jesus
does for us is to plant the seed of immortality in us -- the
engrafted Word. There is something of the Divine in that.
Call it male while calling the earth or physical body it's
planted in female. One seed. If it survives, it grows
because the female half is being obedient to its purpose. Here
Mother Mary's life should be used to provide us with doctrine.
The Word should be living and growing in us. The physical body
is the vehicle which must be pure so the "engrafted Word"
survives, grows and matures.
When someone blesses the Bread and Wine, this is a variation on
the engrafted Word. The person is speaking the Word. Pure lips
can do it. Authority can do it even if the priest himself is
deficient. A tiny bit of Heavenly Bread -- not confusing this
with the physical wafer -- is taken in -- and expected to
multiply. Surely there is some doctrine in the multiplying of
the bread and fish. Fish are a symbol for wine. The person
who receives Communion in the proper state of mind is doing a
lot more than receiving. By being willing to eradicate evil
from himself when he knows about it, he is willing to have the
Bread he receives be multiplied. This is a virtue added to his
books. We can say truly Jesus made it possible; but the person
is also doing something that made it possible. The new
Spiritual Body of each saint is built up thus -- Jesus is not
doing everything. He did something, that's for sure, on which
everything else hinges. The person could never do it by himself
no matter how hard he tried. All the good works on his own
couldn't do it although he'd still get credit for them; but he'd
have bad marks on his record too and worse still I think he'd
still have urges to do evil left unmastered.
The two become one in some way. And the female part below by
obedience to the male above in Heaven is transformed by
obedience -- and made righteous. It is not Jesus by himself
doing everything. Jesus made everything possible by setting
processes in motion; but he said he expected his disciples to do
greater works than he had. This makes sense to me. With Jesus
above in Heaven guiding them, he could get more done by his
being in Heaven and having them work for him on the earth than
he could do had he stayed on the earth himself.
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on
me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than
these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
It is because Jesus is with the Father in Heaven that they could
do those greater works. The Apostles could do a lot more than
achieve salvation for themselves. How many people can we think
Jesus personally lead into the kingdom? My estimate from the
numbers given about Pentecost is about 120. I don't think the
plan ever was that Jesus would personally save a lot of people.
Rather the plan was to have a group of people who could be
transformed -- and by their doing good deeds, they could do more
than Jesus did and accomplish it that way. The goal is the
transforming of the human race, teaching us how to love each
other. If we learn that, we may be worth Jesus' saving us. If
we don't learn it, I don't know if we're worth saving, at least
as long as we persist in error.
We fail if we think it's all about Jesus and overlook our fellow
man. He's failed with us if we think that. That would make
him self-centered.
John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye
have love one to another.
And somehow it seems that our debt to Jesus hinges on whether we
obey that new commandment. Our sins are mostly against our
fellow man. That's where much of the debt lies. Jesus can bear
that burden of debt temporarily; but i think he really wants us
to stop racking up more sin and spiritual debt and start paying
down the debt. Yes, it would lighten his burden; but I think
his real motive is it would make us better people so he could
say to us what he told his disciples:
John 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant
knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends;
for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known
unto you.
The topic of "born again" is tied up in this too. Those who
are born of the Spirit can be called brothers of Jesus. They
are like him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate
to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
firstborn among many brethren.
There is a human fear that if someone doesn't need us, he may
wander off. The only way then to keep the "love" of someone is
to keep him needy. Ah yes, we see this play out in politics.
It plays out in religion too where churches make a racket out
of making people feel they "need" that church, that minister, or
the form of the fictional Christ they preach. Parents
sometimes play this game with their children too -- the children
never grow up and are able to make it on their own. They stay
at home as dependents of their parents. The test of whether
someone really loves you comes when he could leave if he wanted
to. If we are afraid someone doesn't love us and would leave
if he didn't need us, we're tempted to keep him needy.
I don't think Jesus is like that. It appears to be a test of
some sort what we do when our debt is paid.
#Post#: 3537--------------------------------------------------
Re: Something Out of Nothing
By: Oneoff Date: January 3, 2016, 2:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]
[font=trebuchet ms]Much in your post, Kerry.
[/font]
[/quote]
4,239 words in fact.
Something out of Nothing? ;D
#Post#: 3539--------------------------------------------------
Re: Something Out of Nothing
By: Piper Date: January 3, 2016, 8:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]Hey, you. (K.)
Gimme a couple days with your last post. I'm reading thru, a
bit at a time. And thank you much. Lot's of time and effort
put into it. Want to give it the attention and focus it
deserves.
N. [/font]
#Post#: 3542--------------------------------------------------
Re: Something Out of Nothing
By: Kerry Date: January 4, 2016, 1:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Piper link=topic=403.msg3539#msg3539
date=1451874451]
[font=trebuchet ms]Hey, you. (K.)
Gimme a couple days with your last post. I'm reading thru, a
bit at a time. And thank you much. Lot's of time and effort
put into it. Want to give it the attention and focus it
deserves.
N. [/font]
[/quote]You may have noticed that I explain by my theories some
of the ancient practices of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox
Church and the Coptic Church. Ideas can be changed rather
easily. I think they are changed a lot over time; and I don't
always trust "current" explanations for things. But if we
study the ancient practices and are certain that's the way
things were done, that tells us a lot about what they believed.
Hence there is value in maintaining practices. Why should I
doubt then the practices of confession, absolution and penance?
If I have ideas that tell me those practices are wrong, then
surely my ideas are wrong. I must come up with ideas that
either explain the practices or at least don't contradict them.
Nor should I feel free to reject or ignore passages in the Bible
just because they don't agree with my ideas. I do have
reservations about some passages in the Bible and am not in the
"the Bible is inerrant" camp; but I don't base my belief that a
passage is in error based on my own wishes or beliefs. I fall
into the "the Bible is infallible" camp. It may contain some
errors but none which makes it fail. Scribal errors are often
minor. I don't care about them. Nor do I much care if there
snakes on Malta or not -- and I don't think there were although
Acts says there were. I don't our salvation is going to depend
on that detail. What doctrine would lie in that? What does
it tell me about how I should lead my life? I look at the
Bible as a book with ideas meant to instruct me in doctrine and
to reprove me when I'm wrong and going down the wrong road
doing wrong things as a result of having wrong ideas. Thus the
difficult passages are often the ones that can do me the most
good -- they may seem wrong or confused to me; but that
suggests to me there is something wrong in my own mind that
makes them seem that way to me.
The Bible is clear that some men can forgive sins. That
sounds impossible and crazy to some people; but I say that's
because they have wrong ideas to begin with. The aim should be
to bring our own understanding in line with what the Bible says.
Who can remit the sins of others? Anyone who loves Jesus and
others. Love binds together.
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by
the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband:
else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
So the connections are not always initially between Jesus
himself and everyone else. The believing spouse is attached to
Jesus and to the unbelieving spouse too. The person attached to
Jesus surely has influence with Jesus -- and anyone he loves
benefits from the connection.
#Post#: 3543--------------------------------------------------
Re: Something Out of Nothing
By: Oneoff Date: January 4, 2016, 3:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry,
Such as I 'believe' that might be the 'Mind and intent of God'
is just about the antipathy of what you believe.
For sure I ignore the beliefs of ancient religious leaders.
All of them (both modern 'us', as well as the ancients) ignore
the essential fact that man's understanding of the 'mind and
intent of God' is limited by his own mortality.
My understanding of the gulf between man and God, puts me firmly
in the 'Simple Trust' category.
Presumptions of 'knowledge' based on man's propensity to
attribute to God any man made pronouncement on the basis of
antiquity is.....just that.
IMO (and this is absolutely as far as I will stretch my 'Simple
Trust' into the regime of presumed knowledge) Christ 'came' in
order to rectify the ancient misunderstandings and expectations
of Judaism and launch the regime of 'Simple Trust without text
book definition', which man then almost immediately reverted
back to 'text book definition' as per the early post-Christ
religions which you list.
"Hook, line, and sinker" could not be more apt.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page