Can anyone anwser this Question?
- Thread starter tectrikz
- Start date
Personally while the concept of the mirror is growth, it is also a pain. When one has issues with another it is so troublesome realizing that is part of your own psyche that you disapprove of.
namaste,
wil said:
Perhaps, but then I have no problem with what Taijasi said, nor do I require his providing scripture to back his claim, or his thoughts. I simply appreciate what his personal take on this issue is...so my psyche appears to be at least partially intact.
v/r
Q
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
i have no problem with the posters personal statements or beliefs either and the "lighten up" is really unnecessary, i have no idea where thats coming from or what it has to do with this thread.
im simply asking the poster, not Quahom, if they could post scripture regarding the religious paraphrasing they did, because i dont know where that info is from and it would help me understand where youre coming from as part of the discussion of this topic. and of course no one has to do anything, im just asking.
im simply asking the poster, not Quahom, if they could post scripture regarding the religious paraphrasing they did, because i dont know where that info is from and it would help me understand where youre coming from as part of the discussion of this topic. and of course no one has to do anything, im just asking.
I didnt read the entire thread before responding because of time issues.. So I hope Im not repeating something someone else has said.
First off when we are saved we are new creations.. old things pass away to become new. We are not considered the same person because we were once dead and are now alive through Christ Jesus. Yes he would truly be saved. As for the girl that was raped and killed.. Its between her and God and like InLove said who knows what happened the few seconds before her death... and who knows how God will deal with her before the great white throne of judgement. I would feel for the man who became saved because Im sure he is up for some serious spiritual attacks like guilt for the rest of his life and would hope that he would go to the Lord at that time for help.. rather than feeling he deserved the guilt.
First off when we are saved we are new creations.. old things pass away to become new. We are not considered the same person because we were once dead and are now alive through Christ Jesus. Yes he would truly be saved. As for the girl that was raped and killed.. Its between her and God and like InLove said who knows what happened the few seconds before her death... and who knows how God will deal with her before the great white throne of judgement. I would feel for the man who became saved because Im sure he is up for some serious spiritual attacks like guilt for the rest of his life and would hope that he would go to the Lord at that time for help.. rather than feeling he deserved the guilt.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Apologies for any confusion, and certainly for causing a row. I always expect folks to take issue with me directly, since I do paraphrase a lot and seldom give direct quotations or references. Let me see ...
As for the notion that each of us faces in the afterlife exactly what we have generated during incarnation - in terms of personal demons vs. the spirit(s) of kindness ... I'm appealing more to simple intuition and reason. Yes, I realize this goes completely against christian theology for about 15 centuries. The Bible is held up by thousands around the world daily as somehow exempt from the same laws of common sense and practicality that seem to otherwise apply to all of God's Creation (itself a loaded word!). But why should it be?
The idea that what goes around, comes around, or the law of karma, is made plain in the following passages: Galatians 6:7, Job 4:8 and Matthew 7:2. Yes, it did actually take me about 15 minutes to fart around and find these three references ... so I hope they help.
How to show that vicarious atonement and the remission of sins is a blasphemous notion ... hmmmm. This is actually a verbatim statement by a Rishi, or spiritual teacher of the same standing as Jesus. Yes, I realize that this concept is foreign to many christians, but it changes facts not one whit. If you doubt, just ask him (either the Rishi, or Jesus). I recommend reading The Vision of the Nazarene for the straight dope on what Jesus really taught. It's in the 1st person, and I would vouch for its validity and accuracy somewhere above the 95% mark, whereas the Bible ... well, I won't go there.
You can order this book from Amazon.com, although I have their last copy on order at present, so I can give it to the next person who might appreciate it. You can also read the first few pages of the Parable of the Rope and the River, plus see the index. The author is Cyril Scott.
I cannot recall the specific Rishi who commented that Remission of Sins and Vicarious Atonement are two of the most pernicious doctrines ever taught, nor the source. I seem to recall reading his words in Light of the Sanctuary, which is Geoffrey Hodson's esoteric diary. But the reason these doctrines are blasphemous is that they undermine one of the most empowering and vital pieces of wisdom that any human can possess: Responsibility for one's own thoughts & actions, and Self-Reliance.
Such teachings do not deny the presence of the Divine in the least! Rather, they show that when the going gets tough, the tough get going precisely by turning away from outer clamour and confusion - and going inward (as Christ advised his followers to do when praying - Matthew 6:5-6) to ask God for strength and guidance. The fact that the church has invested so much energy into the effort to cleave the spirit of man from the divine is not only manifested in these self-effacing doctrines, but also in the sad result ... that they have succeeded. After all, a christian will often argue himself into a hole in the ground, and dig deeper, to insist that he is utterly unworthy in the sight of God - to the extreme of removing every shred of his own dignity, and thereby throwing himself open, essentially, to every lowly negative influence in his environment.
When Christ taught his disciples not to throw their pearls before swine, His teaching had the dual meaning of carefully guarding the esoteric teachings from those spiritually unready and also of carefully guarding their own purity & spiritual empowerment (poured from God's Holy Chalice into the corresponding chalice within our own, inner being - the true, Holy Grail). The fact that even Jesus' own purity could be temporarily drained or corrupted is evidenced here: Luke 8:40-48.
But back to the point -> How can I show that vicarious atonement is blasphemy? For ultimate reference, I direct you to the Book of God's Remembrance, or Book of Life (Exodus 32:32). Some have called this source the `Akashic Records,' but it is better thought of as the living memory of the living God. If we but resist the temptation to anthropomorphize, we can still see how vastly superior God's own memory will be to any attempt to represent it in writing, imagery, or even it's greatest earthly reflection - the Beauty of art and nature. And yet, we are not only capable of consulting this `Book,' but we are invited. To read but a word of it is to share intimately in the Joy and Purpose of God's Creation - and certainly, for this, were we created.
Nor were murderers and thieves created only to suffer or even to help convey a lesson, though this is a high purpose indeed. As I believe someone may have stated in another post, the Bible does not indicate how long these theives may have spent with Christ "on this day in Heaven" after their deaths on the cross. I maintain that Christ himself (or Jesus, rather) didn't die on the cross anyway, but that is entirely beside the point.
It was precisely because he entired a state of samadhi or satori (the only equivalent for today's christian being `a state of rapture' or bliss) that Christ (Jesus) would have been able to share or convey this to the criminals. Likely it made such a difference in their spiritual evolution that these men have set forth on the path of holiness by now - but again, none is exempt from the Law of Karma. Not Christ, not the christian, not the unbeliever or atheist, not the agnostic or person of primitive beliefs. Nor does the Love & Light of God fail to reach, warm & illumine every dark corner of the Earth - even if Man, in his ignorance, still seeks to shield himself and block these beneficial Rays. We may just pull through this despite ourselves ...
As for the notion that each of us faces in the afterlife exactly what we have generated during incarnation - in terms of personal demons vs. the spirit(s) of kindness ... I'm appealing more to simple intuition and reason. Yes, I realize this goes completely against christian theology for about 15 centuries. The Bible is held up by thousands around the world daily as somehow exempt from the same laws of common sense and practicality that seem to otherwise apply to all of God's Creation (itself a loaded word!). But why should it be?
The idea that what goes around, comes around, or the law of karma, is made plain in the following passages: Galatians 6:7, Job 4:8 and Matthew 7:2. Yes, it did actually take me about 15 minutes to fart around and find these three references ... so I hope they help.
How to show that vicarious atonement and the remission of sins is a blasphemous notion ... hmmmm. This is actually a verbatim statement by a Rishi, or spiritual teacher of the same standing as Jesus. Yes, I realize that this concept is foreign to many christians, but it changes facts not one whit. If you doubt, just ask him (either the Rishi, or Jesus). I recommend reading The Vision of the Nazarene for the straight dope on what Jesus really taught. It's in the 1st person, and I would vouch for its validity and accuracy somewhere above the 95% mark, whereas the Bible ... well, I won't go there.
You can order this book from Amazon.com, although I have their last copy on order at present, so I can give it to the next person who might appreciate it. You can also read the first few pages of the Parable of the Rope and the River, plus see the index. The author is Cyril Scott.
I cannot recall the specific Rishi who commented that Remission of Sins and Vicarious Atonement are two of the most pernicious doctrines ever taught, nor the source. I seem to recall reading his words in Light of the Sanctuary, which is Geoffrey Hodson's esoteric diary. But the reason these doctrines are blasphemous is that they undermine one of the most empowering and vital pieces of wisdom that any human can possess: Responsibility for one's own thoughts & actions, and Self-Reliance.
Such teachings do not deny the presence of the Divine in the least! Rather, they show that when the going gets tough, the tough get going precisely by turning away from outer clamour and confusion - and going inward (as Christ advised his followers to do when praying - Matthew 6:5-6) to ask God for strength and guidance. The fact that the church has invested so much energy into the effort to cleave the spirit of man from the divine is not only manifested in these self-effacing doctrines, but also in the sad result ... that they have succeeded. After all, a christian will often argue himself into a hole in the ground, and dig deeper, to insist that he is utterly unworthy in the sight of God - to the extreme of removing every shred of his own dignity, and thereby throwing himself open, essentially, to every lowly negative influence in his environment.
When Christ taught his disciples not to throw their pearls before swine, His teaching had the dual meaning of carefully guarding the esoteric teachings from those spiritually unready and also of carefully guarding their own purity & spiritual empowerment (poured from God's Holy Chalice into the corresponding chalice within our own, inner being - the true, Holy Grail). The fact that even Jesus' own purity could be temporarily drained or corrupted is evidenced here: Luke 8:40-48.
But back to the point -> How can I show that vicarious atonement is blasphemy? For ultimate reference, I direct you to the Book of God's Remembrance, or Book of Life (Exodus 32:32). Some have called this source the `Akashic Records,' but it is better thought of as the living memory of the living God. If we but resist the temptation to anthropomorphize, we can still see how vastly superior God's own memory will be to any attempt to represent it in writing, imagery, or even it's greatest earthly reflection - the Beauty of art and nature. And yet, we are not only capable of consulting this `Book,' but we are invited. To read but a word of it is to share intimately in the Joy and Purpose of God's Creation - and certainly, for this, were we created.
Nor were murderers and thieves created only to suffer or even to help convey a lesson, though this is a high purpose indeed. As I believe someone may have stated in another post, the Bible does not indicate how long these theives may have spent with Christ "on this day in Heaven" after their deaths on the cross. I maintain that Christ himself (or Jesus, rather) didn't die on the cross anyway, but that is entirely beside the point.
It was precisely because he entired a state of samadhi or satori (the only equivalent for today's christian being `a state of rapture' or bliss) that Christ (Jesus) would have been able to share or convey this to the criminals. Likely it made such a difference in their spiritual evolution that these men have set forth on the path of holiness by now - but again, none is exempt from the Law of Karma. Not Christ, not the christian, not the unbeliever or atheist, not the agnostic or person of primitive beliefs. Nor does the Love & Light of God fail to reach, warm & illumine every dark corner of the Earth - even if Man, in his ignorance, still seeks to shield himself and block these beneficial Rays. We may just pull through this despite ourselves ...
andrew
Hi Andrew,
Something you said caught my attention--it is not the only thing you have said that has done the same--but for now...
I had a dear friend who did this--kept swearing that he was unworthy of forgiveness. But somehow, I don't think he really believed it, way deep down inside. Because, as far as removing every shred of one's own dignity, and leaving oneself open to the negative influences of one's environment and the consequences thereof--well did not my Lord do this? (At least in the eyes of the world both at that time and I say even now.) And while I am not Jesus, I do follow Him as He allows me as I submit, and I do not believe that He will lead me in a direction that is wrong.
If you want to speak in terms of karma, isn't that concept grounded basically in "what goes around comes around?" Forgive me, please, if I am wrong.
If one wants to associate the teachings of Jesus with the concept of karma, then I see no problem, as long as the teachings of Jesus are taken along with His sacrifice and resurrection. One without the others does not make sense.
As far as self-reliance goes, I cannot trust myself. I must remain in Love in order to do anything at all in this life. Left to my own without that Love, I am dangerous. To myself and all creation. That may sound dramatic and foolish, but it is what I know. Do you think it is born of ignorance? Or faith? Age-old question which seems to have recently experienced a renaissance (I think we should enjoy this interest while it lasts....
InPeace,
InLove
Something you said caught my attention--it is not the only thing you have said that has done the same--but for now...
taijasi said:
I had a dear friend who did this--kept swearing that he was unworthy of forgiveness. But somehow, I don't think he really believed it, way deep down inside. Because, as far as removing every shred of one's own dignity, and leaving oneself open to the negative influences of one's environment and the consequences thereof--well did not my Lord do this? (At least in the eyes of the world both at that time and I say even now.) And while I am not Jesus, I do follow Him as He allows me as I submit, and I do not believe that He will lead me in a direction that is wrong.
If you want to speak in terms of karma, isn't that concept grounded basically in "what goes around comes around?" Forgive me, please, if I am wrong.
If one wants to associate the teachings of Jesus with the concept of karma, then I see no problem, as long as the teachings of Jesus are taken along with His sacrifice and resurrection. One without the others does not make sense.
As far as self-reliance goes, I cannot trust myself. I must remain in Love in order to do anything at all in this life. Left to my own without that Love, I am dangerous. To myself and all creation. That may sound dramatic and foolish, but it is what I know. Do you think it is born of ignorance? Or faith? Age-old question which seems to have recently experienced a renaissance (I think we should enjoy this interest while it lasts....
InPeace,
InLove
Hi Y'all--
As I was reading back through what I last posted, I realized that I was negligent in one aspect. My friend was correct, I believe, when he insisted that he was unworthy (on his own) of forgiveness--I believe the same in regard to myself. However, I believe it is a foolish mistake to deny the unmerited forgiveness so freely offered through the loving sacrifice of Christ.
It was important for me to add this.
InPeace,
InLove
As I was reading back through what I last posted, I realized that I was negligent in one aspect. My friend was correct, I believe, when he insisted that he was unworthy (on his own) of forgiveness--I believe the same in regard to myself. However, I believe it is a foolish mistake to deny the unmerited forgiveness so freely offered through the loving sacrifice of Christ.
It was important for me to add this.
InPeace,
InLove