YOUR Religion

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from BVM88:

I’ve only read the last few pages of this thread so hoping that that I’m not repeating what has already been said. There is one piece of work that comes to mind that was purportedly channeled which is very Christian to me and that is A Course in Miracles.

I don't know that much about it, but I do know that the great most Christians - at least evangelical/charismatic - would have nothing to do with A Course in Miracles. Channeling/spiritualism, etc. is very strongly spoken against in the Bible and so Christians won't touch it with a ten foot pole. And Christians don't even see the need as they feel they can go directly to God anyway.

But, besides that, I know that the Course in Miracles is "new age" in philosophy, i.e. attacks the theological concepts of sin and Jesus' death, etc.

So maybe you go to a more "liberal" Christian church where people would be enthused about it, but I don't think anyone I know at church would go near it...

 

[stu]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I am NOT claiming that archaeological evidence proves that the miracles were true.

Then you are saying there is NO archaeological evidence here that proves that the Bible is accurate.

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I said that one cannot prove that the tablets of Sinai were written by the hand of God using archaeology. I don’t know how I could be more clear..

Then you are saying there is NO archaeological evidence here that proves that the Bible is accurate.

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I’m just saying that the Bible has proven exceptionally accurate historically and archaeologically..

Then you are saying there IS archaeological evidence that proves that the Bible is accurate.

Or more to the point, the way you contradict yourself, you don't know what you are saying from one post to the next.
So then you waffle on about a myriad of highly questionable stuff Ramsay was supposed to have done, none of which in any case proves or shows the Bible to be anything but a fictional fairy story full of demons angels and devils to scare imaginations of the childlike .. But no historicity and no archaeological evidence at all

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from stu:

Then you are saying there is NO archaeological evidence here that proves that the Bible is accurate.
Then you are saying there is NO archaeological evidence here that proves that the Bible is accurate.
Then you are saying there IS archaeological evidence that proves that the Bible is accurate.

Or more to the point, the way you contradict yourself, you don't know what you are saying from one post to the next.
So then you waffle on about a myriad of highly questionable stuff Ramsay was supposed to have done, none of which in any case proves or shows the Bible to be anything but a fictional fairy story full of demons angels and devils to scare imaginations of the childlike .. But no historicity and no archaeological evidence at all

You’re trying to force me into two extreme positions. I’m right in the middle.

I believe that the Bible is archaeologically reliable because God is behind it all. But I don’t believe that simply because the Bible is historically reliable and has been verified (time and again) by archaeological finds that that categorically proves that God exists and that He inspired the Bible.

 

[JohnnyK]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:



But, besides that, I know that the Course in Miracles is "new age" in philosophy, i.e. attacks the theological concepts of sin and Jesus' death, etc.

"Attacks". Is that pit bull type attack? Or is that terrorist type attack? What kind of attack is that?

Or...

a. Is the Course of Miracles a message about forgivness, the power of forgivness, and what forgiveness really means? In the course of speaking it's truth, its maxims does not align with your preconcieved determinations. Is that an attack?

b. Are there really devils out there who are putting together courses for us like this? Thick books on forgiveness just to steer us wrong on sin and death?

c. Do you have any examples of recent, 5 or 20 years, examples of channeled messages from the Holy Spirit? If not, can you elaborate on what such messages are like? Does anybody in your circles write down/record such channeled messages? Should we not have reams of channeled messages by now directly or indirectly from God?


JohnnyK

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from JohnnyK:

"Attacks". Is that pit bull type attack? Or is that terrorist type attack? What kind of attack is that?

Or...

a. Is the Course of Miracles a message about forgivness, the power of forgivness, and what forgiveness really means? In the course of speaking it's truth, its maxims does not align with your preconcieved determinations. Is that an attack?

b. Are there really devils out there who are putting together courses for us like this? Thick books on forgiveness just to steer us wrong on sin and death?

c. Do you have any examples of recent, 5 or 20 years, examples of channeled messages from the Holy Spirit? If not, can you elaborate on what such messages are like? Does anybody in your circles write down/record such channeled messages? Should we not have reams of channeled messages by now directly or indirectly from God?


JohnnyK

Again, I'm not trying to aggravate but here are the standard charismatic Christian responses to your questions:

a) There is a Christian saying: “The devil will tell you 90%truth to get you to believe the 10% lies”. So from the Christian perspective, we would not be surprised that there is a lot of truth in the Course on Miracles.
b) That is the whole reason they are down here.
c) These are given at charismatic Christian meetings all over the world. With a few rare exceptions, these are not published as they are just for the immediate people at the meeting. And, of course, they would be of no interest to anyone who is a non-Christian.

Btw, no Christian that I know would ever use the word "channeled" because that implies contact with spiritual beings which is forbidden as I mentioned. But I knew what you were asking....

 

[acronym]

Jem, try this, galileo tried for heresy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/galilei_galileo.shtml

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from acronym:

Jem, try this, galileo tried for heresy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/galilei_galileo.shtml

I can't argue that Christians have sometimes opposed mainstream science. But for proper perspective, keep in mind that many of the greatest scientific minds were Christian. A lot of heavy hitters in there.

There was an interesting previous thread that covered this:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23476&highlight=isaac+newton

 

[acronym]

Actually, when practically everyone must belong to the cult , or else, you will find most people who did anything much would have belonged, because it was indoctrinated from birth.
There was little choice in the matter, so it should be no surprise.

 

[JohnnyK]

Quote from Shoeshineboy:

Btw, no Christian that I know would ever use the word "channeled" because that implies contact with spiritual beings which is forbidden as I mentioned. But I knew what you were asking....

Thanks Shoeshineboy. It helps me construct a cosmological viewpoint from your perspective. I'm wondering if I should just consider your paradigm fundamentally Catholic though, since there is so much in common.

For example, here is some more green from Green Flash. Am I correct to predict that the Evangelicals pretty much align themselves with the Mother Church on this one too?

Quote from Green Flash:

At the end of time (as-we-know-it), there will only be heaven and hell. Heaven is defined as eternal life with God, and hell is eternal “life” [conscious existence] without God. In the end, each created spirit will be in one or the other of these “places.” (We can’t really imagine what heaven or hell will be like (1 Cor 2:9), since time-and-space-as-we-know-them will have passed away (2 Pet 3:10). They probably won’t be places like places on earth, but rather conditions or states of being which are determined by each spirit’s own attitude toward and relationship with God and the other spirits He created. The holy ones (the ones who love God) and the reprobate (the ones who reject God) will somehow be invisible to each other and incapable of either interacting with each other or changing their respective states from one to the other, so for all intents and purposes they may just as well be in completely different places.)

The angels will remain as they have always been since the moment of their creation (incorporeal beings with intellect and will) and the human souls will be reunited with their human bodies (which will have been transformed into incorruptibility). Those in heaven will enjoy eternal bliss and those in hell will experience eternal torment. The exact nature of this bliss and torment has not been revealed to us (hell has been described as an unquenchable fire; that may be just a metaphor, or maybe not), and it will probably be as individuated to each person as his experiences were on earth. What has been revealed is that they will be beyond anything we can imagine in this life.

Now, each human person alive today can choose either to believe that revelation or disbelieve it. But given the stakes, are you really willing to risk the loss of bliss beyond measure and end up in torment beyond measure if you choose disbelief and then turn out to be wrong? It boggles my mind to think that there are actually people who, after hearing the gospel message, decide to “take their chances” and live like there is no God, that this present existence is all there is and they can live as they please, and that there will be no hell to greet them when they die. Call me a coward, but I’m not willing to risk it. I am content to sacrifice a little pleasure and submit to a little pain and humiliation in the here-and-now in exchange for just the possibility of heaven on the other side of the door of death.

 

[JohnnyK]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

c) These are given at charismatic Christian meetings all over the world. With a few rare exceptions, these are not published as they are just for the immediate people at the meeting. And, of course, they would be of no interest to anyone who is a non-Christian.

Btw, no Christian that I know would ever use the word "channeled" because that implies contact with spiritual beings which is forbidden as I mentioned. But I knew what you were asking.... [/B]

The Holy Spirit is a spiritual being? How about angels. I mean, they are the good guys. Why can't let them talk through you? What do you call it when one person of the trinity talks through you? If not channeling, what then? How is it different from channeling? Are you just not talking to the angels anymore because you just never know if it's not a demon parading as an angel of light? How do you know when it is one of the trinity talking to you? ...and not, say, a demon?

Not trying to be gruff here. But these are questions I'ld be asking myself if I was in your circles.

I would ask, why are charismatics not writing down such information? Is it not considered valuable, or solutions oriented?

And if it's only the charismatics, and they don't even write it down, man, look at the rest of christianity...no communication with God or angels, or any other being of light for 2000 years? That's got to hurt!

JohnnyK