That even though attempts are being made to prevent any clashing of religious ideas at a world headquarters....The hope of a new Messiah, with a message of balence and a newer code of ethics to follow...is being watched for on the isalnd of Crete. According to a gentleman I interviewed for my Documentary Mimetoliths, He a bible scholar of 25 years thought because of Cretes pastthis could be a likely place for a new god child to be born. The powers that be are watching. Truely people are waiting for someone to guide themon the fasinating journey of civilization of the planet earth.
Real Life,
God is what remains when we have ruled out every "thing":
The new teaching of immanence (the indwelling God, taught by Jesus in secret to the disciples, had profound implications concerning the temple, the nature of the soul, salvation, and much else. The link with the temple is obvious and important. Once it is understod that God dwells within, there is no further need for an external temple because the body itself is recognized as the vessel for new sacrificial offering. The Gnostics understood this, believing that by the deeply felt offering of ourselves to God, we harvest the inner experience of the Kingdom.
This idea is affirmed in Luke 10:10-12 in which Jesus tells his disciples "The Kingdom of God is very near." Just how near is clarified in Luke 17:21 in which Jesus says, "For you must know, the Kingdom of God is within you." This interpretation finds support in the Gnostic Dialogue of the Savior, from the Nag Hammadi Library, which quotes Jesus, ""For I say to you truly, the living God dwells in you and you in him."
And there are plentiful references to the idea in John's Gospel (John 5:37; 6:51, 54, 59-63; 10:34; 14:11; 10:30; and 17:21-24, including the passage where Jesus prays in Gethsemane shortly after the Last Supper and just prior to his arrest. According to John, Jesus said:
"I pray not only for these,
But for those also
Who through their words will believe in me.
May they all be one.
Father, may they be one in us,
as you are in me and I am in you."
The Gnostic interpretation of "one" is the direct experience oif the Godhead within, which resonates perfectly with the teaching of imminence (the indwelling God). Gnostic Christians believed that it was for this that Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, and it was for this that Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice: to redeem the inner experience of God for humankind. This interpretation is richly documented in the Gospel of Thomas (Saying 22) in which Jesus says: "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same...then will you enter (the Kingdom)."
The phrase "make the two one" pertains to the indwelling of God. What is sainthood, after, all, if not the direct realization of this great truth?
In the King James version of the Christian Bible, an introductory description of this concept can be found in Jeremiah 31:31.
____________________________________________________________
Jesus died for us, yes, but it is us who will do the work to make the "temple" pure.
Real Life, I have always been curious since birth, because no mere human claimed my mind. You can be curious, too.
This topic keeps coming up in other threads; so I hereby resurrect it. :wink:
I think it's because you keep linking to it.
sunlover wrote:Real Life,
God is what remains when we have ruled out every "thing":
The new teaching of immanence (the indwelling God, taught by Jesus in secret to the disciples, had profound implications concerning the temple, the nature of the soul, salvation, and much else. The link with the temple is obvious and important. Once it is understod that God dwells within, there is no further need for an external temple because the body itself is recognized as the vessel for new sacrificial offering. The Gnostics understood this, believing that by the deeply felt offering of ourselves to God, we harvest the inner experience of the Kingdom.
This idea is affirmed in Luke 10:10-12 in which Jesus tells his disciples "The Kingdom of God is very near." Just how near is clarified in Luke 17:21 in which Jesus says, "For you must know, the Kingdom of God is within you." This interpretation finds support in the Gnostic Dialogue of the Savior, from the Nag Hammadi Library, which quotes Jesus, ""For I say to you truly, the living God dwells in you and you in him."
And there are plentiful references to the idea in John's Gospel (John 5:37; 6:51, 54, 59-63; 10:34; 14:11; 10:30; and 17:21-24, including the passage where Jesus prays in Gethsemane shortly after the Last Supper and just prior to his arrest. According to John, Jesus said:
"I pray not only for these,
But for those also
Who through their words will believe in me.
May they all be one.
Father, may they be one in us,
as you are in me and I am in you."
The Gnostic interpretation of "one" is the direct experience oif the Godhead within, which resonates perfectly with the teaching of imminence (the indwelling God). Gnostic Christians believed that it was for this that Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, and it was for this that Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice: to redeem the inner experience of God for humankind. This interpretation is richly documented in the Gospel of Thomas (Saying 22) in which Jesus says: "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same...then will you enter (the Kingdom)."
The phrase "make the two one" pertains to the indwelling of God. What is sainthood, after, all, if not the direct realization of this great truth?
In the King James version of the Christian Bible, an introductory description of this concept can be found in Jeremiah 31:31.
____________________________________________________________
Jesus died for us, yes, but it is us who will do the work to make the "temple" pure.
Real Life, I have always been curious since birth, because no mere human claimed my mind. You can be curious, too.
Hi Sunlover,
Neither sainthood nor salvation are attained by gaining knowledge of a special or unusual kind.
Salvation is not attained by human effort; it is an unearned gift of God. This is why extra-canonical books such as Thomas have not been accepted as scripture.
The New Testament is quite firm on the fact that Christ died to redeem Mankind from sin.
I have always had a very curious nature and am glad to hear that you are too.
I agree that God is not to be found in any "thing" . He is greater than all and the universe itself cannot contain Him.
I know it is presumptuous of me, but this thread belongs up with the other fellows: scary changes, duke it out, offended by christmas, etc.
There is plenty of opinion against organized religion. This is only a part of it.
neologist wrote:I know it is presumptuous of me, but this thread belongs up with the other fellows: scary changes, duke it out, offended by christmas, etc.
There is plenty of opinion against organized religion. This is only a part of it.
How un-Christian of you to practice necromancy like this.
I don't think any person should have the authority to suggest banning of religions so that we have, 'Freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion.' This kind of stance to ban religion would be taken only by a person who sees OTHER religion as a threat and so rather than finding a resolution would rather choose to have everything removed. Fascinating! And no organization should have the authority to ban any religion or that organization would become more dangerous than some fanatics of religion. If God brings religion our way it's probably for a purpose to make people more humane, so only God should have the right to ban any religion. I don't think the problem lies with religions themselves but rather with our attitude towards other religions.
Banning religion is extremely short sighted and would be the beginning of a long arduous slippery slope into dictatorship.
Banning religion is as much a fairy tale as religion itself . However, it would be great if the intolerance that religion sponsors could somehow be eliminated.
Doktor wrote
Banning religion is extremely short sighted and would be the beginning of a long arduous slippery slope into dictatorship
How did you arrive at that bit of "intelligence"?
Quote:
How did you arrive at that bit of "intelligence"?
Logical reasoning and deduction.
To ban religion means stripping people of certain key freedoms. Not all of these freedoms are mutually exclusive to religion, there would be 'splash damage'
With the precedent set, nothing would remain to stop other freedoms from arbitrarily being taken away to cater to other special interest groups.
Doktor S wrote
Quote:To ban religion means stripping people of certain key freedoms. Not all of these freedoms are mutually exclusive to religion, there would be 'splash damage' With the precedent set, nothing would remain to stop other freedoms from arbitrarily being taken away to cater to other special interest groups.
I digress but you could be speaking about this administrations spying upon American's and the abuses of the patriot act.
au1929 wrote:Doktor S wrote
Quote:To ban religion means stripping people of certain key freedoms. Not all of these freedoms are mutually exclusive to religion, there would be 'splash damage' With the precedent set, nothing would remain to stop other freedoms from arbitrarily being taken away to cater to other special interest groups.
I digress but you could be speaking about this administrations spying upon American's and the abuses of the patriot act.
Although that hadn't occurred to me, that is a good example of what I am talking about. Thanks.
Necromancers! You would dare revive a topic from the dead?
It's my fault. I know it's an evil trait. But with all the rightful furor over the evils of organized religion, surely a backlash is due.
NO it should not be banned.
Quote:The resolution is being proposed by Antony Last, founder of formulism.org, a site which claims that freedom FROM religion would be of far greater benefit to mankind than freedom OF religion.
Freedom from Religion | Proposed UN Resolution / Charter Amendment | Version 1.1
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS HEREBY VOW
* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of organized religion, a folly which has brought untold sorrow to mankind through the division, hatred and conflict it engenders, and
* to reaffirm an individual's right to freedom of belief, freedom of conscience and freedom of prayer, and
* to establish conditions under which these freedoms can be privately exercised.
AND FOR THESE ENDS WE UNDERTAKE
1. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the public expression of religious beliefs, including the use of symbols, clothing or markings which are synonymous with any currently or previously existing religions.
2. To outlaw, with immediate effect, public acts of worship or religious declaration.
3. To outlaw, with immediate effect, private gatherings of three or more people for the purposes of engaging in acts of worship or religious services.
4. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the publication of books, literature or articles which seek to promote religious beliefs or encourage adherence to religious doctrine.
5. To outlaw, after a period of amnesty, the personal ownership of books or materials which seek to promote religious beliefs or encourage adherence to religious doctrine. (Books of academic or social interest will be made freely available to schools, universities and public libraries).
6. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the celebration of religiously significant dates.
7. To begin, with immediate effect, the destruction or reassignment of predominantly religious buildings, such as churches, mosques and temples.
This would ruin mankind. If we remove religion without asubstitute system of organizing our abstract aspects of life, we will revert to mindless techno animals.
Feel free to ban religion, but first find a proper substitute. Psychology isn't ready to assume the responsibility yet, and philosophy could easily cause as much misery, ignorance and bloodshed as religion has, if it were to function as a substitute for theism.
Thing is, that religion does not poison people. It is people that poison their religion.
Cyracuz wrote: . . . This would ruin mankind. If we remove religion without asubstitute system of organizing our abstract aspects of life, we will revert to mindless techno animals. . . .
You and Dok have made interesting points. Do you think that if the UN were to take this action, it would be to substitute religion with some sort of unified political solution given under the banner of peace and security?
