Search results

Which early Christians? The Ebionites? The Proto-orthodox? The Gnostics? The post-Nicene Christians?

I couldn't have put it better. :) The more I study Christ as Logos, the more awed I become at the wisdom and insight found in Scripture that pertains to the Word.

Unless my monitor is on the blink, you posted it four times. The last one has your "edited to add." :D

Actually I agree. Drugs definitely did that to me (although not in any spiritual sense). In hindsight, I don't regret it, because I wouldn't be who or where I am today if I changed my past. Otherwise, I would undo all my years of drug use because I didn't gain anything, and I lost alot.

Whoaaaaaa! Deja vu! ;)

I'm willing to say that we probably were stating the exact same thing in different terminology. The same thing just happened to me in the thread over on the pagan forum. :o I know that I'm misunderstood quite often. I'm certainly capable of doing the misunderstanding. Your fellow...

Yes, definitely philosophical rather than religious. And that's cool. I focus on the Source, both as a unity and as a plurality. Panentheism describes my outlook the best. To get rather technical, I'd say I am a qualified monist, panentheist, deeply influenced by neoplatonism, as seen through...

Very well put. :)

For the most part (say around 99% ;)), I agree. However, I am continually impressed by one religious organization's attempt to remain "in touch." So much so, that for the same reason many Christians consider them to be corrupt and "Satanic," I think just the opposite. That is the...

No, Neoplatonism = Idealistic Monism, which means the Source emmanates all realities. I'm a monist. Perhaps you'd know that if you'd spend less time determined to be confrontational. I think you'd also notice that earlier in the conversation I said I believe God is a plurality in unity (NOT a...

If God is infinite, he MUST contain all things.

Maybe we are not "imperfect"? Maybe things are the way they have to be, metaphysically and physically, in this material manifestation? Pondering out loud here ... :) <Edit to add> As I read what I wrote, I realize it sounds like I'm saying something like "We are being tested" or something...

That's cool. :cool:

I wish we were friends. More like very casual online acquaintances. "Friend" was shorter to write though.:p He's very smart. You should hear some of the cool etymological stuff he's dug up on Genesis.

Flow, I'd love to sit and have a discussion with you, and your stream of conciousness mentality, in person. I think you'd make my brain smoke. :cool: <Commercial on TV: "This is your brain ... This is your brain after a discussion with flow.> :D

A friend of mine (online) who is a scholar of Hebrew and Greek had the following to say about Isaiah 45:7 :)

Actually I agree. Hence "plurality in unity," "Neoplatonic emmanationism," and "panenetheism." Am I really being that unclear or are you guys just being difficult? :p :)

And yet it's all ONE unified whole that always existed. :D Plurality in unity. Could we pretend that I only used the term "Source"? :D

If the "gods" are emmanations of "The One," then ultimately, that is MONOtheistic, as the gods have a source, a first cause, a "creator." That was my whole point. You said: Which, if you are neoplatonic, is not true. Neoplatonism is not polytheistic.

You might be interested in reading about "the coincidence of opposites" from Nicholas of Cusa, a medieval scholar and Christian mystic. Google's got tons of info.