Creativity versus Banality

[Phil27of79]

If I use science to replace religion,… I might miss certain aspects needed to fully understand God and Gods wisdom. After all only God can see the whole picture.

Yet that’s why Jesus spoke in metephores. Meaning beyond rules.

yet it helps to translate into the new generations mindset,… instead of especting the opposite to happen.

[Bob]

Hi Nick,

Now don’t get upset here and take this as a personal attack but though the Bible speaks of the importance introducing it into humanity as a whole, it also speaks of self deception and false prophets.

You present a depressing view of humanity, hardly in keeping with the trust that led Paul across Europe ‘planting’ churches. The key to this speedy expansion was the presence of individuals who could pursue the cause, faithful that God is true to his promises. There were only few Greek scholars, only the occasional Jewish Christian, able to spread the good news. This movement wasn’t a philosophical school, but motley crew of servants and common people, who welcomed the new teaching of salvation and hope.

The false prophets are easily identified within the biblical context and their agenda is also easily described. To bring this up in the context of “creativity versus banality” is therefore questionable. Your message to the world is that all we have come to know as “Christendom” [your words] or Christianity is full of self deception and false prophets. That must include all denominations and communities, making my subject “peanuts” in comparison to your standpoint.

… the message is not all that simple to put into practice. I see the essential message as awakening to the perception of re-birth.The fact that Jesus’ efforts paved the way through his success for one to awaken doesn’t mean they can or will do so. Resistance against it is very strong though the possibility remains. Self deception is a lot easier but leads nowhere.

Another sweeping statement, this time from another direction. I’ll tell you where I see the strength of this message: In it’s simplicity. You make it very complicated.

From the conclusion of Jacob Needleman’s "Lost Christianity
Quote:
… Mysticism and spirituality by themselves are not enough. Social action and therapeutic caring by themselves are not enough. Nor is it enough merely to reach for both at the same time. The lost element in our lives is the force within myself that can attend to both movements of human nature within my own being and can then guide the arising of this force within my neighbor in a manner suited to his understanding. To communicate that idea has been the single aim of this book

“… not enough”, “… not enough”, “… nor is it enough.”

Luke 11:46, “Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.”

If we could forgive we wouldn’t be attached. We are attached to our suffering and when we defend it, cannot forgive it. This is a psychological conception independent of whether someone has done you right or wrong. It is the holy force of reconciliation that provides the perspective for us to see it and be free of it.

OK Nick, I forgive you.

The goal isn’t to interpret the message but to see, to experience the truth of it. The message then becomes timeless though able to be experienced in each generation.

Of course the goal isn’t merely the interpretation of the message, but to a general public who have no access, you have to find a door. When they have found the door and entered, then they can see and experience. When they have seen and experienced, then they can commit themselves to that teaching. This is all very basic. I can’t understand why we have to clear it up.

Shalom

[Nick_A]

Hi Bob

I believe I’m presenting a realistic view of humanity. It can be interpreted as depressing but that doesn’t make it any more or less realistic.

The false prophets are easily identified within the biblical context and their agenda is also easily described. To bring this up in the context of “creativity versus banality” is therefore questionable. Your message to the world is that all we have come to know as “Christendom” [your words] or Christianity is full of self deception and false prophets. That must include all denominations and communities, making my subject “peanuts” in comparison to your standpoint.

False prophets is a topic in itself. You say they are easily identified. Not according to the Bible.

Mat 24:

4Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,[a]’ and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time.

Bob, these false prophets can virtually deceive the elect. Why would you see them as so obvious? Our imagination doesn’ t allow it so the essential message of Christianity is missed in favor of secular interests. If you want to call this “peanuts,” so be it.

Another sweeping statement, this time from another direction. I’ll tell you where I see the strength of this message: In it’s simplicity. You make it very complicated.

The message is simple. Re-birth is just common sense from a universal perspective. It appears complicated because of the resistance of our imagination

“… not enough”, “… not enough”, “… nor is it enough.”

Luke 11:46, “Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.”

Presence is not a burden. Its unnatural absence from our psych in favor of imagination is the burden. The Attention of the Heart spoken of by church fathers such as St. Simeon and mindful awareness spoken of in Buddhism is the backbone of presence.

When Prof Needleman states that The lost element in our lives is the force within myself that can attend to both movements of human nature within my own being and can then guide the arising of this force within my neighbor in a manner suited to his understanding. To communicate that idea has been the single aim of this book, he is speaking of real Christian love.

OK Nick, I forgive you.

Thank you but this just indicates to me that you do not appreciate the role of detachment in Christianity.

Of course the goal isn’t merely the interpretation of the message, but to a general public who have no access, you have to find a door. When they have found the door and entered, then they can see and experience. When they have seen and experienced, then they can commit themselves to that teaching. This is all very basic. I can’t understand why we have to clear it up.

Matthew 7:

13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

First you have to find it. There are doors all over the place. There are experts of all conceivable types being very creative inviting us into each.

The most important part of teaching is to teach what it is to know. Simone Weil

It is one thing to guide sheep and quite another to know what it is to know. Then perhaps inner discrimination could allow this narrow gate or door to be found.

[Bob]

Hi Nick,

False prophets is a topic in itself. You say they are easily identified. Not according to the Bible.

Let us stay with your quote in Matthew 24:4-14 :
And Jesus answering said to them, `Take heed that no one may lead you astray, for many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ, and they shall lead many astray,
Interestingly, there were numerous people proclaimed to be the Messiah before and after Jesus, and many were led astray. The changes foreseen for the time of the Messiah never came about.
and ye shall begin to hear of wars, and reports of wars; see, be not troubled, for it behoveth all these to come to pass, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places; and all these are the beginning of sorrows;
There have been numerous wars since Jesus, especially leading up to the desolation of Jerusalem.
then they shall deliver you up to tribulation, and shall kill you, and ye shall be hated by all the nations because of my name;
This has been true of Christians but especially of Jews – probably because of a wrong translation and consequent misunderstanding amongst Christians. Remember, Christ is curiously talking to fellow Jews. His criticism was especially directed to the Judeans, who were critical of Galileans and Samaritans, and particularly haughty about having the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem.
and then shall many be stumbled, and they shall deliver up one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray;
This certainly was a problem around 250 AD, when Christians betrayed their fellow Christians
and because of the abounding of the lawlessness, the love of the many shall become cold; but he who did endure to the end, he shall be saved; and this good news of the reign shall be proclaimed in all the world, for a testimony to all the nations; and then shall the end arrive.
The Gospel has survived, thanks to those who stood firm. Following Herod’s death, Roman oppression, and with it Jewish resistance, had intensified. Several revolts broke out, led by the Zealots, who finally entered Jerusalem in 66 CE and held the city until the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av, in 70 CE, when Jerusalem fell to the Roman legions under the command of Titus.

Verse 24
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.

Bob, these false prophets can virtually deceive the elect. Why would you see them as so obvious?

“Lo, I did tell you beforehand”

Our imagination doesn’ t allow it so the essential message of Christianity is missed in favor of secular interests. If you want to call this “peanuts,” so be it.

Look again, what did I call “peanuts”?

Quote: “… not enough”, “… not enough”, “… nor is it enough.”
Luke 11:46, “Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.”

Presence is not a burden.

Take some time to answer next time and consider what it could be that I am telling you. You use words in an unusual way and expect people to understand you. The burden to me is the continual statements that come from you telling people who try to lead a godly life that it isn’t enough, that it is difficult, that we are deceiving ourselves, that we even may be “False Prophets”. This reminds me a great deal of the criticism that Jesus got from the Pharisees, who were theologically close to him, but disliked his freedom with the word.

“Presence” to you seems to be what many people regard as contemplation, or at least the meanings are related. Of course contemplation must play a major role, but it isn’t the only thing that is important.

When Prof Needleman states that The lost element in our lives is the force within myself that can attend to both movements of human nature within my own being and can then guide the arising of this force within my neighbor in a manner suited to his understanding. To communicate that idea has been the single aim of this book, he is speaking of real Christian love.

Which jut goes to show that a deed can replace a thousand words. Perhaps I am just more pragmatic in my approach.

Quote: OK Nick, I forgive you.
Thank you but this just indicates to me that you do not appreciate the role of detachment in Christianity.

Perhaps, but perhaps you don’t appreciate the role of compassionate commitment.

Quote: Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
First you have to find it. There are doors all over the place. There are experts of all conceivable types being very creative inviting us into each.

Please don’t overstrain the metaphors. Why should I not regard you as one of these “experts”?

Shalom

[Nick_A]

Hi Bob

From what I’ve come to understand, that passage in Matthew has a much deeper, expansive meaning and refers to the life or potency of the teaching itself. When a teaching such as Christianity which has a higher conscious origin enters into our world, its life cycle begins. As time goes on it loses its potency and gradually becomes more absorbed into the mechanical nature of our world. When its potency is gone, it is considered the end of an age or cycle. Naturally it is the results of the few that have that have profited consciously from it that keep it alive and transmit it to others much to the scorn of those that have adopted it for their own secular purposes.

I believe what is actually being described is the unconscious devolution of Christianity and the lawful results of its cycle

This has been true of Christians but especially of Jews – probably because of a wrong translation and consequent misunderstanding amongst Christians. Remember, Christ is curiously talking to fellow Jews. His criticism was especially directed to the Judeans, who were critical of Galileans and Samaritans, and particularly haughty about having the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem.

You seem to me to be creating a divide that doesn’t have to be but at the same time ignoring the essential division. Jesus could be talking to both at the same time but the question is how. More from the Journal of Father Sylvan:

"There are the laws of grace. The Hebraic tradition stresses this. And there is the grace of the law, which the Christian tradition stresses. Grace and law: woe to him who chooses one of these over the other. People speak of it as a paradox, which only means they cannot fit it into the computer program of the head. “Religious” people do not like to hear that there are scientific laws governing the movements of all forces, higher and lower. On the other hand, those who are attracted to the idea of lawful precision do not like to hear that these laws are not subject to human manipulation. The problem is: how to move from the holy desire for God to the precise struggle for God without the intervention of the ego? No man can give another man the holy desire, and no guide can give a man the contact with the higher. But what can be taught is the way to recognize and neutralize the initiatives of the ego.

Jesus, I believe, speaks to both sides of human psychology. I believe it is as foolish to discount Christianity as an aspect of secular Judaism as it is to exaggerate this idea of being “saved” as it is with modern Christendom. The "wretched"state of man does not allow him to profit from the law as intended so grace is necessary for the direction and actualization of the “good” that is the purpose of both grace and the law.

Look again, what did I call “peanuts”?

I took it to mean that since I view the devolution of Christianity into Christendom including your creativity and labeling of banality as part of your preaching that it is second rate in comparison to my teaching. But I haven’t been preaching, teaching, or anything else. I’ve been building on the necessary beginning question IMO regarding all of this which is depicting and appreciating the fallen state of Man in relation to our potential. Without this realistic verifiable beginning, ideas only become adopted by egotism including escapism. New wine into old bottles. You are concerned with the new wine and I’m concerned for myself with the weaknesses of the old bottles and appreciate knowing those with similar concerns. Obviously coming from different perspectives, we will appreciate banality and creativity differently.

The burden to me is the continual statements that come from you telling people who try to lead a godly life that it isn’t enough, that it is difficult, that we are deceiving ourselves, that we even may be “False Prophets”. This reminds me a great deal of the criticism that Jesus got from the Pharisees, who were theologically close to him, but disliked his freedom with the word.

I’ve often said that the way of the good “householder” as described in Ecclesiastes is far superior than most of what is taught out there simply because it is sincere and without the ego contamination normal for these experts in improvements.

As I understand it, salvation is this way of the natural “good Samaritan.” There is also the way of the kingdom which is the conscious participation in the holy process of carrying ones cross and the objective “seeing” that results. The struggle between the affirmation of reality from becoming present to it at the expense of our normal habitual imagination and denial from what we believe is our life invites the help of the Holy spirit to reconcile it for us into the New Man or Man of the Kingdom.

“Presence” to you seems to be what many people regard as contemplation, or at least the meanings are related. Of course contemplation must play a major role, but it isn’t the only thing that is important.

They are related but while contemplation is a process, presence is a state of being in which a conscious relationship is established between ones intellect, emotion,and sensations. It allows us to experience life itself unfiltered by our ego based preconceptions of right and wrong. It is not something that can initially be maintained but the more one begins to see how and why it is lost and we sink back into the usual, then the meaning and value of Christianity becomes more clear.

Which just goes to show that a deed can replace a thousand words. Perhaps I am just more pragmatic in my approach.

A good deed is fine but when done with presence brings the verticality of Christianity into it necessary for those on this path of whatI believe tobe the essence of Christianity…

Perhaps, but perhaps you don’t appreciate the role of compassionate commitment.

That is really an excellent question and one I’ve been pondering with all this concern for “compassion” and its simultaneous absence on ILP.

A suicide bomber has compassionate commitment. He is committed to his cause and shows great compassion for the sufferings he believes that the denial of Allah and the necessity of its laws has caused.

Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be attained only by someone who is detached. Simone Weil

There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too. Simone Weil

This is getting very eastern but objective compassionate commitment cannot be a result of attachment but instead from acquired detachment. From this approach a suicide bomber could experience their self deception.

Please don’t overstrain the metaphors. Why should I not regard you as one of these “experts”?

By all means you should. But a question is a question and we owe it to ourselves to ponder these things rather then be swayed by credentials, titles and the like if we sincerely look for truth rather than just self justification or escapism.

[tentative]

How very interesting that we now have an expert who can identify false prophets - anyone who disagrees with his views of the truth.

Bob,

What you are attempting to talk about can’t be talked about. It has to be feelings of. The words, old or new are irrelevent. It is in kindling the spirit. For all the sham and fakery, an old-fashion revival meetin’ is what you would have, only one that is genuine.

To point the finger toward the ineffable is almost impossible in the best of settings, and the side-liners make it almost impossible.

JT

[thirst4metal]

Hello F(r)iends,

@Bob

How you can regard my approach “ uncontrolled” and “revisionist” is beyond me. I am not even in a “Free Church”, but Elder in a mainstream protestant community.

You used “controlled”, “traditional”, and “orthodox”; for which I countered with revisionist and uncontrolled… I do not care about your personal faith or lack thereof, as I am not a believer; however, what I want to make clear to everyone is that what you tried to apply to the one approach towards god, can also be applied to your “creative” (aka “right” or “better”) approach to god. When you preach your “visionary” path to salvation and become an antagonist to the traditional approach don’t be surprised when your path is met with antagonism…

@Bob

The incredible thing is that Church history shows clearly that the Holy Spirit in the Roman church was very “dampened” for nearly a thousand years, and that upheavals like the Reformation brought life back into spiritual inspiration, making clear that there is no continuation of apostolic tradition in the way it is claimed.

Sure, and what I think is incredible is that the notion of an apostolic tradition which served as the basis for the establishment of the papacy was a “creative”, “visionary” attempt at having a visible, tangible Christ on Earth… Perhaps you don’t see the creativity behind apostolic tradition, the vision it took to create another Christ like figure on Earth. What’s more incredible is that you sit back and think that creativity is the answer when it has been the problem all along… you want creativity? If you want to practice extra-biblical, “creative” religion, join the Catholic Church or perhaps, “bow to Leper Messiah”. Metallica’s “Leper Messiah”–a creative vision of religion if I ever saw one…

Note: The Reformation was not a “creative” endeavor but a return to the original, traditional approach that the first Christians practiced… Of course, you can see it as you like, but then that is where revisionist history comes into play.

@Bob

Thirst, I don’t really know what motivation you have. At least the Roman church has the honesty to say that they have legends alongside scripture that make up a considerable amount of their liturgical festivals.

Historically speaking, legends, myths, and other “creative” ideas are what led the Roman Church into straying away from the original message of Christ… These traditions came from some Christian “visionary” that desired to update Christianity so that more could accept the “right” path towards salvation… It was creativity that led the Church astray and it was not orthodox, traditional, Christian practices… What you see as creativity and visionary, I see as revisionist. Why? Because it’s not long before creativity becomes a tradition… It’s not like the Jews haven’t strayed far from their god either… You continuosly point out the problems in the orthodox approach and claim that traditionalists have no visionary movement. But I assert that it is the visionary movement early on that led your forefathers astray, that led the Church astray, that led the Christians astray. Tabula Rasa could not be more wrong… you theists don’t need a new bible for today… you don’t need to adjust your standards to the pagans, you don’t need to adopt their rituals, you don’t need to revise your message for it is in doing those things that you lost your faith, your roots, your way…

Of course, from my atheistic point of view, there could be nothing better than a bunch of Kabbalah loving motherfuckers who will jump ship and abandon all faith when the revolution comes and theists are forced to do away with all gods… (but this is another matter, another thread).

@Bob

Staying within your analogy, I still sell my wares within the same shop as always, I use the same product names, and I still serve the same customers – perhaps the wrapping paper has changed. Where is your problem?

Sure… same wares, same product names, same gullible customers… Except, you are using the same product names for alltogether different wares. You are calling all the non-microwaveable plastics and microwaveable plastics as simply Vupper Ware… you charge the same price for it all and don’t bother telling them that one is microwaveable and that the other is not… You figure you can sell your whole merchandise with this marketing technique and then you look at the numerous gullible customers flocking to your store and you call it success.

But if that is too cryptic, here it is again:

There is Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and all that other crap. You decide to remove the labels and call it all Spirituality. Now, the religion has all the benefits of the others credibility and you call it Kabbalah… you see all these gullible customers flocking in to buy your new faith and call it success… Brilliant marketing technique, really. It is very… how you Say… “creative”.

Now let’s go out there and sell us some religion!

-Thirst4Capitalism

[tentative]

Thirst,

Apparently you have a set piece, a set way of conveying meaning in every possible setting or situation. This isn’t about attempting to change anything, it is about finding new or different or the what-ever-the-hell-works metaphor(s) that convey understanding. The names and labels mean nothing. It is all about bringing the spirit alive, seeing the lights come on [insert your own metaphor here]. To expect people to respond to words and phrases centuries old may be tradition, but it is also an excellent way to put hearts asleep. All Bob is suggesting is finding new ways to bring old messages alive - here and now - in language that elicits heart understanding. Its about scraping away centuries of dust and grime and giving the message new life.

It’s just that simple.

JT

[Nick_A]

Tentative

You should really write a book and call it “1001 Creative and Sarcastic Ways to Miss the Point.” You’ve got it down to a science.

How very interesting that we now have an expert who can identify false prophets - anyone who disagrees with his views of the truth.

As usual you’ve got it backwards. Bob is the one with the ability to identify false prophets:

The false prophets are easily identified within the biblical context and their agenda is also easily described. To bring this up in the context of “creativity versus banality” is therefore questionable. Your message to the world is that all we have come to know as “Christendom” [your words] or Christianity is full of self deception and false prophets. That must include all denominations and communities, making my subject “peanuts” in comparison to your standpoint.

Instead I believe Jesus’ caution that false prophets are not so easily recognized and can “deceive even the elect:”

Verse 24
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.

You have no interest in Christianity yet for some reason you insist on saying foolish things regarding it.

This “kindling the spirit” you refer to is precisely the opposite of what is necessary. The experience of the release of suppressed sex energy through intensified earthly emotions is not the spirit. The energy and experience of the Spirit is of a different quality altogether. It is precisely through the help these “banal” objective symbols such as the Cross and the Trinity that the difference between qualities of energy become more evident the experiential knowledge of which is a necessary aspect of “know thyself.” The appeal to this lower level of emotion doesn’t reveal the teaching but only further denies its value.

As you’ve said, you believe we are Gods and Goddesses. So why not get in touch with your godly self and go fly around Saturn or whatever else are the appropriate godly things to do rather than making accusations against people regarding a teaching, the depth of which you have no interest in or comprehension of.

[tentative]

Nick,

We may talk past one another, but I haven’t missed the point. Your rather lengthy explanation is very clear to you, and is certainly a statement of your views. That they are shared by very few is your proof of being one of the elect. Tough being a prophet, no?

I think you may have confused me with another member. I’ve not claimed to be a god, nor do I see very many goddesses. Check your sources.

You’ve built a very complex castle into the sky, but it is of sand. Your ability to ‘know’ exactly what others intend in their words is miraculous, just short of the second coming. You can’t touch what Bob intended, because you only see through your particular pair of colored glasses. You won’t understand what I’m saying for the very same reason.

Have a nice day.

JT

[Nick_A]

Tentative

We may talk past one another, but I haven’t missed the point. Your rather lengthy explanation is very clear to you, and is certainly a statement of your views. That they are shared by very few is your proof of being one of the elect. Tough being a prophet, no?

The amount of people that share a view doesn’t determine its value. If it is only the elect that can assert the necessity of man to come to begin to come to grips with his nothingess in the context of Christianity or re-birth, the situation is worse than even I believe. This is really all I’ve written of.

I think you may have confused me with another member. I’ve not claimed to be a god, nor do I see very many goddesses. Check your sources.

I distinctly remember you writing of a person as awareness so we are God. Again, the essential difference between God and the wretched man. You focus on the Tao and try to become one with it while I value the necessity of coming to grips wih ourselves as the wretched man and the value of this profound expression: “know thyself.” Only recently in the era of self esteem has this become so politically incorrect and a minority position.

You’ve built a very complex castle into the sky, but it is of sand. Your ability to ‘know’ exactly what others intend in their words is miraculous, just short of the second coming. You can’t touch what Bob intended, because you only see through your particular pair of colored glasses. You won’t understand what I’m saying

This is what the discussion was about. I am trying to clarify for myself what Bob means. Have I been rude to him? Unless I’ve totally misunderstood, Bob equates Christianity with secular Judaism while I see them as distinctly separate. Changing the message loses the meaning of Christianity The Resurrection is not symbolic but a step in Man’s evolution or change of being from diversity into unity. I believe Paul is right since he had the first hand experience of a revelation and his understanding was built on this objective experience. Consider 1 Corinthians 15 There is nothing hidden nor is it symbolic. It is also not Judaism. Re-birth is the essential message of Christianity according to Paul and what Jesus spoke of. I’m not suggesting anything wrong with striving to be a good person. I am suggesting the value of the essential message of Christianity as re-birth in relation to the good or man’s evolution. Is it any wonder than that we can view creativity and banality from different perspectives?

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.”[d] 33Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” 34Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.

The Resurrection Body
35But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”[g]
55"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?"[h] 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

There is a difference between the natural and spiritual body that is not IMO symbolic.

[Tab]

Hello gentlemen, Hey [size=150]Bob [/size]!!!,

Mr. “Completely ignore Tab” …

Gimme a bible story, and I’ll try to re-write it in a more modern fashion. (No swearing I promise)

Just to show the non-believers it can be done, or not, as the case may be.

Tab.

[tentative]

Nick,

I distinctly remember you writing of a person as awareness so we are God. Again, the essential difference between God and the wretched man. You focus on the Tao and try to become one with it while I value the necessity of coming to grips wih ourselves as the wretched man and the value of this profound expression: “know thyself.” Only recently in the era of self esteem has this become so politically incorrect and a minority position.

It is true that a person of awareness may apprehend that which is the ineffable we call God, but that is a far cry from your big bold statement that I suggested we are Gods. And THAT is the point. You read into other’s words what you wish to see, and then pontificate from there. You don’t get it, and not because you can’t, but because you choose not to.

So by all means, continue to be the elect. Continue to be the one to tell everyone how it is. You are one of the experts you so loudly complain about. Wake up.

JT

[Nick_A]

Hi Tab

Thanks for volunteering. Could you re-write the story of the Samaritan woman to make it comprehensible for the Now generation with all its advantages of instant information and "experts"coming out of the woodwork. I mean it is so vague. what’s really happening here? Is it anything more than the normal seduction as in “Desperate Housewives” that old fashioned people are trying to cover up?

John 4

1The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.
4Now he had to go through Samaria. 5So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.

7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

9The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a])

10Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

11"Sir," the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?”

13Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

15The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”

16He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”

17"I have no husband," she replied.

Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”

19"Sir," the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

21Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

25The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

26Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”

So what’s going on? Isn’t Jesus just asking her if she’d like some wine or perhaps some beer? “He was a wise man who invented beer.” Plato If its good enough for Plato, why not a Samaritan woman? Before loosening her up, it is a good thing to find out if she’s married or if there are any jealous lovers to worry about so Jesus asks about her husband. Is this the normal PC interpretation to avoid such compromising positions or am I missing something? Please re-write to make it clear.

[Nick_A]

Tentative

You don’t get it, and not because you can’t, but because you choose not to.

Continue to be the one to tell everyone how it is

You are the one telling me how it is. Do you mean something else?

I’m not going to dive into so many posts to find where you equated our awareness on a godly level. Actually it would have to be and everything would have to be on the same level if you discount the perspective of different levels of conscious awareness.

It is true that a person of awareness may apprehend that which is the ineffable we call God

But this is the valuable question that all this arguing denies. God’s level is above our own. The worth of the Tao IMO is in its ability to allow a person to experience awe, the emotional experience of something greater than ourselves that allows us temporarily to drop self defense… The danger IMO is in our attempt to apprehend it since we cannot.

So, it seems sensible to me to adopt the attitude of those like St.Paul, Plato, and in modern times like Jacob Needleman and Simone Weil which is the necessity to suffer ourselves.

Purity is the power to contemplate defilement. Simone Weil

This is it in a nutshell. The Tao is valuable for experiencing awe while objective attempts at self knowledge reveal the truth of our being. the more it is revealed the less the imagination and the greater our purity and ability apprehend the above and be seen from above.

If this is the opinion of the elect as in those mentioned and elitism, then I plead guilty to appreciating the same questions raised by this elite.

I’m not telling anyone how it is but raising the question and throwing it out there. I see the vertical psych of man as being able to appreciate the inner direction leading to the creator and the objective quality of what has been created in relation to ourselves, our “being.” You disagree but nothing to be upset about from my end. Yet for some reason it annoys you but I cannot change my mind just because you are annoyed.

Granted, it is not PC and a minority opinion in these times.but, I’ve never been one to run with the crowd and surely not going to be one with questions regarding the depths of human meaning and purpose.

How do you like that. I opened the window and hollered out that now I’m one of the elect and some kid hit me with a baseball. With apologies to Henny Youngman: “I get no respect.”

[Jerry]

@Nick

With apologies to Henny Youngman: “I get no respect.”

I don’t mean to jump into the middle of this, although I am finding this conversation very interesting, guys. But, Nick, shouldn’t your apologies be directed to Rodney Dangerfield?

Carry on, fellas.

[Nick_A]

Jerry, you’re right. The ghost of Henny planted that suggestion causing the slip. Ya can’t turn your back on either one for a moment or they nail you. But ya gotta love em.

[Bob]

Hi JT and all,
sorry about the delay, I was so snowed under with work, I only came home to sleep. And Tab, I haven’t forgot you, I’m trying to catch up …

What you are attempting to talk about can’t be talked about. It has to be feelings of. The words, old or new are irrelevent. It is in kindling the spirit. For all the sham and fakery, an old-fashion revival meetin’ is what you would have, only one that is genuine.

I think you’re right, that is what I’m talking about: “kindling the spirit”. It’s quite a joke really, I’m no evangelical but I have had some tell me that I preach like one. And perhaps it’s waking people up that has been missing over here – of course, you have the televangelists over there. It is more of a rarity here.

To point the finger toward the ineffable is almost impossible in the best of settings, and the side-liners make it almost impossible.

That is true. Normally it is my own stance and composure that points to the Ineffable, rather than what I say, but I do believe that if I made a continual effort (like throwing my Job and becoming a street preacher ) I could move perhaps on person towards the Mystery.

Hello Thirst,

You used “controlled”, “traditional”, and “orthodox”; for which I countered with revisionist and uncontrolled… I do not care about your personal faith or lack thereof, as I am not a believer; however, what I want to make clear to everyone is that what you tried to apply to the one approach towards god, can also be applied to your “creative” (aka “right” or “better”) approach to god. When you preach your “visionary” path to salvation and become an antagonist to the traditional approach don’t be surprised when your path is met with antagonism…

It would have been better if you had made it clear to me first, before you made it clear to “everybody” … But isn’t that always a rather simplistic way of arguing. What I was showing “everybody” was that Christianity threatens to become banal or petty, if believers just go on repeating themselves or tradition, without using creativity to “liven” it up or actualising the message to start adressing the issues of today, rather than the ardvaarks of yesterday.

Sure, and what I think is incredible is that the notion of an apostolic tradition which served as the basis for the establishment of the papacy was a “creative”, “visionary” attempt at having a visible, tangible Christ on Earth… Perhaps you don’t see the creativity behind apostolic tradition, the vision it took to create another Christ like figure on Earth. What’s more incredible is that you sit back and think that creativity is the answer when it has been the problem all along… you want creativity? If you want to practice extra-biblical, “creative” religion, join the Catholic Church or perhaps, “bow to Leper Messiah”. Metallica’s “Leper Messiah”–a creative vision of religion if I ever saw one…

I haven’t got your thirst so I wouldn’t know. It isn’t about some “extra-biblical” message either, but allowing the biblical message to inspire us – not in a literal sense, like the fundamentalists, but using a common intuition. Of course, what hinders your view is your cynicism and the idea that there is no “good” or “better” Religion.

Note: The Reformation was not a “creative” endeavor but a return to the original, traditional approach that the first Christians practiced… Of course, you can see it as you like, but then that is where revisionist history comes into play.

There is that, but the Reformation did actually spark off the “revivals” which showed amazing creativity. But, inadvertently, it also started the historical criticism off too. Both fundamentalism and historical criticism come from the same root.

Historically speaking, legends, myths, and other “creative” ideas are what led the Roman Church into straying away from the original message of Christ… These traditions came from some Christian “visionary” that desired to update Christianity so that more could accept the “right” path towards salvation… It was creativity that led the Church astray and it was not orthodox, traditional, Christian practices… What you see as creativity and visionary, I see as revisionist. Why? Because it’s not long before creativity becomes a tradition…

I appreciate what you are saying, but people who know of the pitfalls should warn of them. I think that modern man is so convinced that he sees the world right, and the others were just primitives, that he is blind to the truth. Of course the arguments of a thousand books may seem plausible, but if the assumption made at the beginning was wrong, a whole library could be wrong. The artefacts found in the Mayan ruins may be interesting to us, but not move us one bit. The same artefacts in the hands of the Mayans could have made all the difference.

The problems arise, for my part, when we start conserving oral traditions. Oral traditions are always actualised by the people telling the stories. When the Grimm Brothers started collecting their Tales, they were up to date. Within fifty years of being in a book, they were dated. After 100 years they were archaic. However, when the right storyteller comes along they can burst into life again. This is something you have to keep in mind with all oral tradition that is conserved in books.

It’s not like the Jews haven’t strayed far from their god either… You continuosly point out the problems in the orthodox approach and claim that traditionalists have no visionary movement. But I assert that it is the visionary movement early on that led your forefathers astray, that led the Church astray, that led the Christians astray.

Wrong! The conservation of oral traditions take the flexibility and suppleness out of them. They become rigid and intolerant. Being fixed (concreted in) they become unmovable. Adaptability is something that is necessary for all life forms on this planet, since circumstances change. If tradition isn’t able to adapt, it no longer addresses current circumstances – in fact it isn’t able to see the current situation, but is always judging from the past.

Sure… same wares, same product names, same gullible customers… Except, you are using the same product names for alltogether different wares. You are calling all the non-microwaveable plastics and microwaveable plastics as simply Vupper Ware… you charge the same price for it all and don’t bother telling them that one is microwaveable and that the other is not… You figure you can sell your whole merchandise with this marketing technique and then you look at the numerous gullible customers flocking to your store and you call it success.

That is what you think – not what you know. I think you are projecting an image you have in your mind on me and assuming that that is what I’m talking about.

Shalom

[Tab]

Hey Nick_A,

Hmm… despite the sneaking feeling I’m having one or both of my shapely legs pulled, I’m on the case.

Tab4AnyExcuseForAStory.

[Nick_A]

Tab

Shapely legs, I believe, should be stroked rather than pulled. Otherwise it can become annoying. While annoying Tentative has become its own reward, annoying shapely legs defeats one of Man’s most stimulating motives for accomplishment and his efforts become, how shall I say it, anticlimactic.

Shapely legs and good scotch must be nurtured.