The Modern challenge to Christianity

[Nick_A]

The purpose of x is to deal with y, but we can't deal with x because z prevents it.

Well then, lets all just continue to bump our heads against the wall.

I don't have a woe is me, we are born in sin, or lack view of humanity. My Father is wealthy and has bestowed that wealth on all his children that choose to accept it.

Yes, humanity in the world, within Plato's cave continues to bump its head against the wall. The adult way to deal with it isn't to say woe is me but to be open to experience it rather then live in platitudes that deny us the reality that allows us to grow.

"A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams." Simone Weil -- Gravity and Grace

Most are content to seek the pleasant yet there are a few capable of the joys. I contend that we need their influence from the reality of their experiences. The Christian is willing to "carry his cross" for the sake of the results of experiential reality that allows one to transcend living and dreams and become their conscious potential.

 

[Nick_A]

Christendom is a political venue with religious trappings. Christianity is a way of life...

You've probably read the old expression that "He is in the world but not of it." A Christian would be capable of this quality of life. I don't see Christianity as a way OF life but rather a path IN life that doesn't originate on the plane of existence we call "earth." It's origin is a quality of consciousness that is higher then what can originate with the earth and because of this can lead to re-birth into human "being" before the fall.

 

[soleil10]

It's origin is a quality of consciousness that is higher then what can originate with the earth and because of this can lead to re-birth into human "being" before the fall.

Hi Nick, To be a reborn human being before the fall would mean that you are able to erase the original sin so your descendants will be born without it.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Nick, To be a reborn human being before the fall would mean that you are able to erase the original sin so your descendants will be born without it.

Hi Sol

Healing the past is a profound concept and I'm still completely open with it. For example it is quite possible that reincarnation if it exists could be a reincarnation into the past.

If we are all connected not just in the linear sense as is believed in a lot of New Age thought but also in lineage, healing the past is quite possible. How much evolution effects the past seems to be related to how much this quality of consciousness touches our past.

Rather then being without original sin, It makes more sense to me now that it would give the past a greater quality of consciousness in order to deal with it through the process of awakening.

I remember a Star Trek episode where the Enterprise was caught in a time loop which always ended in its destruction due to calculated decisions. Awakening to this condition, the crew had to devise a way to communicate with the past in order not to make the same logical decisions that kept the cycle repeating. This was an illustration of consciousness effecting the past which can help in our awakening

Is it possible; Who knows? One thing clear that conscious influences can effect the present and who is to say that the past does not still exist and can be aided by a conscious present?

 

[soleil10]

Healing the past is a profound concept and I'm still completely open with it. For example it is quite possible that reincarnation if it exists could be a reincarnation into the past.

I do not believe in reincarnation. I do believe in returned resurrection.
Without getting into a whole discussion about resurrection, let me just say the following.

A person who dies can still grow by cooperating with a person on earth who has the same type of mission, the same spiritual disposition or is a descendant(same lineage). The physical self of the person on earth becomes the physical self for the returning spirit person as well. For instant John the Baptist took the mission of Elijah. He was not Elijah himself.

If we are all connected not just in the linear sense as is believed in a lot of New Age thought but also in lineage, healing the past is quite possible. How much evolution effects the past seems to be related to how much this quality of consciousness touches our past.

Yes we receive "the benefit of the ages" like Old testament Era, New Testament Era. we also receive the benefits and the liabilities of our ancestors and even our nations. W have ancestrals sins and national sins to deal with.

We will be tempted with issues that our ancestors could not overcome. If we become victorious they benefits from it.

Rather then being without original sin, It makes more sense to me now that it would give the past a greater quality of consciousness in order to deal with it through the process of awakening.

If Jesus as a second Adam, (sinless) could have been married, he would have started a new lineage without the original sin. Humanity would have been connected to his Godly seed and Satan's lineage would have disappeared over time from this earth.

The vine and the bread during mass are symbolic of Jesus blood. Our rebirth is spiritual through Jesus (Adam) and the Holy spirit(Eve).

I remember a Star Trek episode where the Enterprise was caught in a time loop which always ended in its destruction due to calculated decisions. Awakening to this condition, the crew had to devise a way to communicate with the past in order not to make the same logical decisions that kept the cycle repeating. This was an illustration of consciousness effecting the past which can help in our awakening

Our ancestors are connected to us and are hoping for us to grow further spiritually. The past is coming to us. In the East, they are so much connected to their ancestors. In the West, unfortunately, we are not very much.

Is it possible; Who knows? One thing clear that conscious influences can effect the present and who is to say that the past does not still exist and can be aided by a conscious present?

I would say conscious good actions, good deeds and victory over ancestral (family) sins. Our Personal sins only add to the problem

 

[Marsh]

Marsh, what you call Christianity has no appeal to me. It is filled with too much nastiness and negativity. Prof Needleman contends that we are entering critical times because our capacity for self destruction is improving while our captivation by the "joys" of sin including all this righteous indignation and imagined self importance that denies any growth in "understanding" that could contend with this potential disaster.
.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Intellectually frustrated once again, Nick reverts to attack mode. Nick, you're trying to tell us what Christianity is and isn't, and you aren't even a follower of Christ. And before you even bother, don't pretend to know me when you don't, son. You call me nasty because it suits your purpose to demonize what I've said, when in actual fact I've replied logically and you simply have nothing to fire back with.

It sure seems to me like this thread has a "believe what I say or else you're an idiot" theme.... Who started this thread, anyways? Oh yeah, it was Nick.

 

[Nick_A]

Intellectually frustrated once again, Nick reverts to attack mode. Nick, you're trying to tell us what Christianity is and isn't, and you aren't even a follower of Christ. And before you even bother, don't pretend to know me when you don't, son. You call me nasty because it suits your purpose to demonize what I've said, when in actual fact I've replied logically and you simply have nothing to fire back with.

It sure seems to me like this thread has a "believe what I say or else you're an idiot" theme.... Who started this thread, anyways? Oh yeah, it was Nick.

Marsh

There simply is no reason for attack. Jacob Needleman wrote the book "Lost Christianity" explaining through the writings of church fathers and Christians Like Metropolitan Anthony and Father Sylvan, insights into Christianity that are normally overlooked in Christendom. Perhaps you want to argue with Metropolitan Anthony as to what a Christian is but unfortunately he has passed on.

METROPOLITAN ANTHONY OF SOUROZH -main page


One advantage of these insights is that they describe how Society could benefit from Christianity beyond secular interests and church politics.

These things don't interest you. I'm a pre-Christian. I don't have the arrogance to call myself Christian when I cannot follow in the precepts of Christ. So I am a pre-Christian. Nothing wrong with that. I have enough respect for Christianity, especially since my great great grand uncle was an archbishop, to know how far I am from being a Christian.

You wish to argue attack and defend. This thread is not about that. It asserts that technology has created a situation that makes the mutual ritual of destruction called war much more efficient regardless if is nuclear, biological chemical or whatever other delights we come up with, it is still a very efficient ritual for mutual mass destruction. You can deny this if you want but I believe it to be true.

The question then is if Christianity could become the moral influence in society it is capable of by becoming closer to its source that includes intermediate Christianity that brings a person closer to the reality of the teaching.

I'm not telling you what to believe but raising the question if it is possible where we could acquire an experiential understanding of God and Man on a more realistic basis that could allow a person to be closer to what they are capable of and in the process minimize the horrors we are capable of.

You want to express righteous indignation and I'm concerned if there is hope for our species through what Christianity is capable of. We have different aims. I hope you are satisfied with yours.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

These things don't interest you. I'm a pre-Christian. I don't have the arrogance to call myself Christian when I cannot follow in the precepts of Christ. So I am a pre-Christian. Nothing wrong with that. I have enough respect for Christianity, especially since my great great grand uncle was an archbishop, to know how far I am from being a Christian.

Nick — in all honesty — every Christian holds in himself the image of Christ as the model and exemplar of how to be — and we all know, indeed we lose count, of how many times we stumble and fall.

So what is a Christian? Simply he or she who picks him or herself up, dusts themselves down ... and carries on the way. That is what Christianity is, and that is all He asks of us.

He can no longer help us, in truth we have abandoned Him, when we decide we can no longer go on. Whatever way we walk from that day on, it is not The Way, but my way.

One advantage of these insights is that they describe how Society could benefit from Christianity beyond secular interests and church politics.

Of course they do. And the man way is to know that we are loved and cherished. You call yourself a pre-Christian. Well, know that He is there beside you, and all that is required to be a Christian is metanoia — a change of heart. Pick up your cross, and follow Him. I think you're hanging on to your cross as a reason not to.

He is carrying you, just as He does us all. Only we know it. We call it Faith. You call it 'blind'. Well then I challenge you — open your eyes and see what I see.

Story:​

When blessed Antony was praying in his cell, a voice spoke to him, saying, "Antony, you have not yet come to the measure of the the tanner who is in Alexandria." When he heard this, the old man arose and took his stick and hurried into the city. When he had found the tanner...he said to him, "Tell me about your work, for today I have left the desert and come here to see you."

He replied, "I am not aware that I have done anything good. When I get up in the morning, before I sit down to work, I say that the whole of this city, small and great, will go into the Kingdom of God because of their good deeds, while I alone will go into eternal punishment because of my evil deeds. Every evening I repeat the same words and believe them in my heart."

When blessed Antony heard this he said, "My son, you sit in your own house and work well, and you have the peace of the Kingdom of God; but i spend all my time in solitude with no distractions, and I have not come near the measure of such words."

Blessed Antony was a Desert Father — one of whom Sourozh speaks:

On the one hand monasticism was born as a reaction against the anaemic Christian society which was taking shape. It began as a protest not against the world, but against the Church which had become weak and unsure in many of its members. It involved an exodus away from the weaklings of the Church.

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourohz.

Perhaps (I am not so sure) but it is an error to assume that they fulfil what you call Christianity, and the tanner in the city is 'only' of Christendom. Blessed Antony was taught that lesson by God.

We are not Christians because we are without sin, we are Christians because we repent of them.

That's all he asks.

Thomas

 

[17th Angel]

I look at it this way.. Jesus was probaly here 2000 odd years ago, and he may of probaly been the son of a god, some say he was probaly that god himself.... I don' honestly know, and I don't honestly care lulz, all I can know however, is that he was a good person with a good cause. His claims (as profound as they seemed to most) do not really matter either... a god! a son of god! an over rated Jew. A simple carpenter, a fruit loop... whatever....

The fact of the matter is, he was willing, willing to die in the name of love. He may now be sat on a heavenly throne as "ruler" of all.... He maybe sat to the side of the throne of the ruler of all.... He maybe now nothing at all, becoming nothing after death, but he was willing to sacrafice life as his final example to all. And the accounts show that while living too he always lead by example.

Looking for meaning? Then don't dive so deep, and take what you have found for it's basic and face values. That is my personal feeling, I really have doubts in god and so on.... (I hold one big ass grudge/doubt since my dog passed away...) but, screw the spiritual stuff and the scientific stuff.... Science, theories of spirituality.... They don't bring peace..... ACTION does. And just look at what jesus taught.... Love, turn your other cheek don't raise your fists.... Treat others like you would wish to be treated... They really are good lessons, even if there isn't another realm of existance or a "bigger picture" or what not, still this is a good way to live and a worthy meaning.

The world would be a far better place if everyone (that includes the -marjority- of christians) Really took heed to his teachings. And it is funny cause it ain't freaking rocket science..... short one time around life, or come back for more neither mtters just being good and making everyones life a happy experience is the best thing Ugh it's 3am and I am just doing an early morning ramble, appologies for any typos or parts that make no sense and so on lol..... *goes to bed*.

 

[Nick_A]

Thomas

He is carrying you, just as He does us all. Only we know it. We call it Faith. You call it 'blind'. Well then I challenge you — open your eyes and see what I see.

We are far apart on this. We don't see the same things. You don't appreciate relativity in Christianity which is why you define a Christian as you do. You can call a person that studies piano a pianist but for those that understand what a pianist is capable of, they call them piano students. It is the same in Christianity. the closer one is to appreciating what a Christian is, the more they see they are not Christian but are attracted to it just as the piano student is attracted to the quality of a pianist.

Metanoia is just the beginning of the Christian experience that separates them from the secularist filling out an application that asks what religion we are and we put the X on Christian. Consider the Metanoia and Repentance thread on this board and you'll see how I appreciate metanoia in the context of what a Christian is.

This is why we differ as to theology and the difference between Catholic theology and Christian theology. Chazal wrote that the "Bible is a book that reads us or is worthless." We don't know what this means until we have the experience.

We've referred to Metropolitan Anthony and he writes about just this experience.

I BELIEVE IN GOD. Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh

Months passed and no meaning appeared on the horizon. One day, it was during Lent, and I was then a member of one of the Russian youth organizations in Paris, one of our leaders came up to me and said, 'We have invited a priest to talk to you, come'. I answered with violent indignation that I would not. I had no use for Church. I did not believe in God. I did not want to waste any of my time. Then my leader explained to me that everyone who belonged to my group had reacted in exactly the same way, and if no one came we would all be put to shame because the priest had come and we would be disgraced if no one attended his talk. My leader was a wise man. He did not try to convince me that I should listen attentively to his words so that I might perhaps find truth in them: 'Don't listen,' he said. 'I don't care, but sit and be a physical presence'. That much loyalty I was prepared to give to my youth organization and that much indifference I was prepared to offer to God and to his minister. So I sat through the lecture, but it was with increasing indignation and distaste. The man who spoke to us, as I discovered later, was a great man, but I was then not capable of perceiving his greatness. I saw only a vision of Christ and of Christianity that was profoundly repulsive to me. When the lecture was over I hurried home in order to check the truth of what he had been saying. I asked my mother whether she had a book of the Gospel, because I wanted to know whether the Gospel would support the monstrous impression I had derived from this talk. I expected nothing good from my reading, so I counted the chapters of the four Gospels to be sure that I read the shortest, not to waste time unnecessarily. And thus it was the Gospel according to St Mark which I began to read.
I do not know how to tell you of what happened. I will put it quite simply and those of you who have gone through a similar experience will know what came to pass. While I was reading the beginning of St Mark's gospel, before I reached the third chapter, I became aware of a presence. I saw nothing. I heard nothing. It was no hallucination. It was a simple certainty that the Lord was standing there and that I was in the presence of him whose life I had begun to read with such revulsion and such ill-will,

What happened was that Metropolitan Anthony acquired a certain inner state which allowed the Bible to read him and form a connection. No one can understand this without this experience with metanoia. So when you value theology as an exercise with the presumption of understanding I see it denying the experience in favor of being "right.". Can theology provide such an experience? No, the experience here was real art that serves as a means for an inner opening and a change of inner awareness.

From the link you posted:

What we find in the Church is the contrary. It is the primacy of the experience which must be contemplated with all the powers of man, his intellect, his heart and all the powers at his disposal.

Does the modern church teach how to do this? No, it says to have faith. Yet experiencing with the whole of oneself is one of the ideas Prof. Needleman refers to as supporting intermediate Christianity leading to acquiring the ability to "Feel" the worth of Christianity both for the benefit of the individual and society and to actualize these new feelings..

Have you ever considered why the faith of the centurion was considered such a high form of faith? Was it blind escapism? what is the difference between blind faith and escapism?

 

[Thomas]

Nick —

It seems to me your quest in life is to find fault in others to justify you doing nothing yourself.

Until you start to love your neighbour you will never know nor experience Christianity. I see not the slightest trace of caritas in anything you say.

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

Thomas

Have you hired spies from the dept. of political correctness to document what I've been doing? If not how do you know? Be that as it may one thing that is clear is that we value Christian love differently.

Most think like you and prefer to create appearance but the Christian is willing to admit the influence of appearance, the Pharisee in oneself, and seeks to minimize it so the experience of real feelings can emerge in ones psych. You don't appreciate Christian psychology so at the risk of a bad pun, it is all Greek to you. However there is a minority of people that would seriously ponder what Metropolitan Anthony told Jacob Needleman in "Lost Christianity" p.24 and refers to a aspect Christianity very little known"

"Metropolitan Anthony," I began, "five years ago when I visited you I attended services which you yourself conducted and I remarked to you how struck I was by the absence of emotion in your voice. Today, in the same way where it was not you but the choir, I was struck by the same thing, the almost complete lack of emotion in the voices of the singers."

Yes he said, "this is quite true, it has taken years for that, but they are finally beginning to understand...."

"What do you mean?" I asked. I knew what he meant but I wanted to hear him speak about this - this most unexpected aspect of the Christianity I never knew, and perhaps very few modern people ever knew. I put the question further: "The average person hearing this service - and of course the average Westerner having to stand up for several hours it took - might not be able to distinguish it from the mechanical routine that has become so predominant in the performance of the Christian liturgy in the West. He might come wanting to be lifted, inspired,moved to joy or sadness - and this the churches in the West are trying to produce because many leaders of the Church are turning away from the mechanical, the routine.."

He gently waved aside what I was saying and I stopped in mid sentence. "There was a pause, then he said: "No. Emotion must be destroyed."

He stopped, reflected, and started again, speaking in his husky Russian accent: "We have to get rid of emotions....in order to reach.....feeling."

Again he paused, looking at me, weighing the effect his words were having. I said nothing. but inside I was alive with expectancy. I waited.

Very tentatively, I nodded my head.

He continued: "You ask about the liturgy in the West and in the East. it is precisely the same issue. the sermons, the Holy Days - you don't why one comes after the other. or why this one now and the other one later. Even if you read everything about it you still wouldn't know, believe me.

"And yet . . . there is a profound logic in them, in the sequence of the Holy Days. And this sequence leads people somewhere - without their knowing it intellectually. Actually, it is impossible for anyone to understand the sequence of rituals and Holy Days intellectually. it is not meant for that. It is meant for something else, something higher.

For this you have to be in a state of prayer, otherwise it passes you by-"

"What is prayer?" I asked.

He did not seem to mind my interrupting with this question. Quite the contrary. "In a state of prayer one is vulnerable." He emphasized the last word and then waited until he was sure I had not taken it in an ordinary way.

"In prayer one is vulnerable, not enthusiastic. and then these rituals have such force. they hit you like a locomotive. You must be not enthusiastic, nor rejecting - but only open. This is the whole idea of asceticism: to become open."

You speak of Christian love as something we have. We don't. The Christian effort seeks to transcend our ordinary emotions so as to experience a higher quality, an "awakening" that makes Christian love possible.

The secular world defines Christian love by secular needs. The Pre-Christian knows that Christian love is a higher, more universal quality of love we are incapable of since we are restricted to selective love normal for animal life. The pre-Christian then strives to become Christian.

I don't expect you to either understand or agree but I put it out here since it directly concerns the purpose of the thread in that respect for Christian love that transcends our normal animal selective love opens us to experiential inner morality and the greater the experience of inner morality in the world, the greater its effect on minimizing the results of these cyclical rituals of mutual destruction.

Some have to be wiling to abandon dependence on appearance, of saying the right things, while continually doing the opposite and pretending that we have the ability to do what we cannot so as to acquire the humility to begin to "understand" in the real meaning of the term.

 

[Marsh]

You speak of Christian love as something we have. We don't. The Christian effort seeks to transcend our ordinary emotions so as to experience a higher quality, an "awakening" that makes Christian love possible....
Some have to be wiling to abandon dependence on appearance, of saying the right things, while continually doing the opposite and pretending that we have the ability to do what we cannot so as to acquire the humility to begin to "understand" in the real meaning of the term.

I don't think that love is nearly so black and white a subject, Nick. Reading your post, it seems that the choices are either/or: Either a person is walking perfectly in Christ's footsteps (impossible), or they are not, and if they are not then they are by definition "continually doing the opposite" of what they are supposed to.

I object to looking at spiritual beliefs in terms of academic analysis is because it takes all the intangibles out of the discussion. See, you're assuming that because I like to argue and satirize (there is a difference between satirizing and mocking) that I am a poser, pretending to believe in Jesus without actually living my beliefs out. This is not true, and I know it is not true, even though I do sin and I do regress and I do shoot my mouth off from time to time (read: most of the time). I know that I love other people in the way that Jesus implores me to, not because I have no faults, but because I am aware of my faults, and am living each day in full knowledge that I am falling short but, as Thomas said, dusting myself off and trying again. This is not something that fits into an academic discussion, because it cannot readily and consistently be observed through inquiry and analysis, but I'm willing to wager that when Jesus left us with the command to love one another as he loved us, that means putting up with each others shortcomings just as he put up with those of his disciples, which means his command allows for shortcomings.

Bottom line: I have not read Professor Needleman's book, and with all the stuff that I have going on in my life and the line of books that I've been meaning to read, I probably won't ever read it. Thus, I may be completely wrong in my assessment which is this: Any book that makes an attempt to analyze Christianity, develop a new model, and apply it to technological trends is ignoring the most important part about Christianity...

Christ...

Christ is where my hope is, Nick, and certainly not in the hands of individual writers, in experts of the day, in groups of activists who take an untested ideal and promote it in hopes that the tidal wave of human history can be stopped or re-directed, when Jesus himself said that it won't be. That's why I find the whole concept so absurd, and please accept my apology for being a jerk about it because I'll admit that the whole making-a-new-account-and-including-a-photo-of-some-guy-in-glasses-and-pretending-it-was-Professor-Needleman thing was a bit over the top. I do find it absurd, though, because Needleman is writing about Christianity as if Christ is not part of it, which means he's not writing about Christianity at all but rather the empty set of beliefs that you yourself are warning us that we should not follow. This challenge will go nowhere without Christ--certainly not to being part of the solution you're hoping for.

My thoughts.

Marsh

 

[Nick_A]

I don't think that love is nearly so black and white a subject, Nick. Reading your post, it seems that the choices are either/or: Either a person is walking perfectly in Christ's footsteps (impossible), or they are not, and if they are not then they are by definition "continually doing the opposite" of what they are supposed to.

I object to looking at spiritual beliefs in terms of academic analysis is because it takes all the intangibles out of the discussion. See, you're assuming that because I like to argue and satirize (there is a difference between satirizing and mocking) that I am a poser, pretending to believe in Jesus without actually living my beliefs out. This is not true, and I know it is not true, even though I do sin and I do regress and I do shoot my mouth off from time to time (read: most of the time). I know that I love other people in the way that Jesus implores me to, not because I have no faults, but because I am aware of my faults, and am living each day in full knowledge that I am falling short but, as Thomas said, dusting myself off and trying again. This is not something that fits into an academic discussion, because it cannot readily and consistently be observed through inquiry and analysis, but I'm willing to wager that when Jesus left us with the command to love one another as he loved us, that means putting up with each others shortcomings just as he put up with those of his disciples, which means his command allows for shortcomings.

Bottom line: I have not read Professor Needleman's book, and with all the stuff that I have going on in my life and the line of books that I've been meaning to read, I probably won't ever read it. Thus, I may be completely wrong in my assessment which is this: Any book that makes an attempt to analyze Christianity, develop a new model, and apply it to technological trends is ignoring the most important part about Christianity...

Christ...

Christ is where my hope is, Nick, and certainly not in the hands of individual writers, in experts of the day, in groups of activists who take an untested ideal and promote it in hopes that the tidal wave of human history can be stopped or re-directed, when Jesus himself said that it won't be. That's why I find the whole concept so absurd, and please accept my apology for being a jerk about it because I'll admit that the whole making-a-new-account-and-including-a-photo-of-some-guy-in-glasses-and-pretending-it-was-Professor-Needleman thing was a bit over the top. I do find it absurd, though, because Needleman is writing about Christianity as if Christ is not part of it, which means he's not writing about Christianity at all but rather the empty set of beliefs that you yourself are warning us that we should not follow. This challenge will go nowhere without Christ--certainly not to being part of the solution you're hoping for.

My thoughts.

Marsh

Marsh

I don't think that love is nearly so black and white a subject, Nick. Reading your post, it seems that the choices are either/or: Either a person is walking perfectly in Christ's footsteps (impossible), or they are not, and if they are not then they are by definition "continually doing the opposite" of what they are supposed to.

Jesus said the law must be fulfilled without any missing details. Take from it what you will.

As for me I agree with Paul that we do the opposite. Perhaps Paul is not describing you but he is describing me.

Romans 7

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

The wretched man is a pre-Christian. He is neither a cave creature and part of the Great Beast, nor has he become himself but at an intermediate level in opposition to himself as Paul describes
.

I object to looking at spiritual beliefs in terms of academic analysis is because it takes all the intangibles out of the discussion. See, you're assuming that because I like to argue and satirize (there is a difference between satirizing and mocking) that I am a poser, pretending to believe in Jesus without actually living my beliefs out. This is not true, and I know it is not true, even though I do sin and I do regress and I do shoot my mouth off from time to time (read: most of the time). I know that I love other people in the way that Jesus implores me to, not because I have no faults, but because I am aware of my faults, and am living each day in full knowledge that I am falling short but, as Thomas said, dusting myself off and trying again. This is not something that fits into an academic discussion, because it cannot readily and consistently be observed through inquiry and analysis, but I'm willing to wager that when Jesus left us with the command to love one another as he loved us, that means putting up with each others shortcomings just as he put up with those of his disciples, which means his command allows for shortcomings.

You are describing what is normal for society. You can dust yourself and try again but everything repeats and this inner opposition just takes different forms.
A man on earth in the world of Plato's cave can be compared to a Christian just as a caterpillar can be compared to a butterfly. The caterpillar can claim to be a butterfly but must go through a process to become one. It is the same with us. We imagine ourselves butterflies or Christians but in reality for those having experienced their inner opposition, we are the wretched man.
This isn't analytical but rather experiential. If you want intellectual arguments, venture into the theology board.

Christ is where my hope is, Nick, and certainly not in the hands of individual writers, in experts of the day, in groups of activists who take an untested ideal and promote it in hopes that the tidal wave of human history can be stopped or re-directed, when Jesus himself said that it won't be. That's why I find the whole concept so absurd, and please accept my apology for being a jerk about it because I'll admit that the whole making-a-new-account-and-including-a-photo-of-some-guy-in-glasses-and-pretending-it-was-Professor-Needleman thing was a bit over the top. I do find it absurd, though, because Needleman is writing about Christianity as if Christ is not part of it, which means he's not writing about Christianity at all but rather the empty set of beliefs that you yourself are warning us that we should not follow. This challenge will go nowhere without Christ--certainly not to being part of the solution you're hoping for.

What is hope in Christ? Is it just passing the buck? Though this expression isn't in the Bible it is true. "God helps those who help themselves" The only way Christ can help is when we decide to carry our cross. Only few are willing to do it so one remains a caterpillar arguing with other caterpillars. That is another reason I admire Simone Weil. She was aware in her soul that Man is potentially more so lived the quality of life that could open herself for hope from the Christ. She carried her cross. But before becoming able to carry our cross we must become able to know what it is and how to do it. This requires becoming able to "know thyself" so we're back to square one.

 

[Marsh]

Jesus said the law must be fulfilled without any missing details. Take from it what you will.

What is hope in Christ? Is it just passing the buck? Though this expression isn't in the Bible it is true. "God helps those who help themselves" The only way Christ can help is when we decide to carry our cross. Only few are willing to do it so one remains a caterpillar arguing with other caterpillars. That is another reason I admire Simone Weil. She was aware in her soul that Man is potentially more so lived the quality of life that could open herself for hope from the Christ. She carried her cross. But before becoming able to carry our cross we must become able to know what it is and how to do it. This requires becoming able to "know thyself" so we're back to square one.

I understand what you mean, Nick. And, yes, on the surface it will seem like I'm passing the buck when I say that my hope is in a resurrection, but my hope is still in a resurrection because I see little reason to hope in anything else. "Not by might, nor by strength, but by my spirit," declares the LORD. These words are as true today as they were in Old Testament times. No matter how much we might like to believe that we can, we will just not be able to save ourselves without God.

Now as for Paul, isn't the next chapter the one that begins, "There is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ?" How, therefore, can there be no condemnation for Paul, when he just went on record saying that he is a sinner? It's because of grace; God helps those who believe in him, I think, rather than those who help themselves, as you said-- not because God wants people to be lazy, but he does want people to trust him.

I disagree (big surprise, huh) with your assessment that the Christian who strives, falls, and then strives again is just like the rest of the world. I believe that the way of the world is to take the easy way out, to become complacent, to find the comfort zone and stay there, and to give up when things seem too hard. Simone Weil strove for noble ideals (i.e. the resistance), but I'd be willing to wager that in real life, Simone had to pick herself up and dust herself off lots of times. She was a Christian as much as anyone can be, because she followed Christ-- and here is the distinction that must be made: That Christians follow Christ like sheep follow the shepherd, but they will never be like the shepherd.

Hope in Christ is not passing the buck; it is what it is: hope. However, taking the responsibility for leading away from the shepherd and giving it to someone else is passing to Caesar what is God's; Jesus was very careful to make the point that he was the true vine, the good shepherd, the way, the truth, and the life. Hoping in anything else, as far as I can see, is nobly futile.

 

[Nick_A]

I understand what you mean, Nick. And, yes, on the surface it will seem like I'm passing the buck when I say that my hope is in a resurrection, but my hope is still in a resurrection because I see little reason to hope in anything else. "Not by might, nor by strength, but by my spirit," declares the LORD. These words are as true today as they were in Old Testament times. No matter how much we might like to believe that we can, we will just not be able to save ourselves without God.

Now as for Paul, isn't the next chapter the one that begins, "There is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ?" How, therefore, can there be no condemnation for Paul, when he just went on record saying that he is a sinner? It's because of grace; God helps those who believe in him, I think, rather than those who help themselves, as you said-- not because God wants people to be lazy, but he does want people to trust him.

I disagree (big surprise, huh) with your assessment that the Christian who strives, falls, and then strives again is just like the rest of the world. I believe that the way of the world is to take the easy way out, to become complacent, to find the comfort zone and stay there, and to give up when things seem too hard. Simone Weil strove for noble ideals (i.e. the resistance), but I'd be willing to wager that in real life, Simone had to pick herself up and dust herself off lots of times. She was a Christian as much as anyone can be, because she followed Christ-- and here is the distinction that must be made: That Christians follow Christ like sheep follow the shepherd, but they will never be like the shepherd.

Hope in Christ is not passing the buck; it is what it is: hope. However, taking the responsibility for leading away from the shepherd and giving it to someone else is passing to Caesar what is God's; Jesus was very careful to make the point that he was the true vine, the good shepherd, the way, the truth, and the life. Hoping in anything else, as far as I can see, is nobly futile.

Marsh

I understand what you mean, Nick. And, yes, on the surface it will seem like I'm passing the buck when I say that my hope is in a resurrection, but my hope is still in a resurrection because I see little reason to hope in anything else. "Not by might, nor by strength, but by my spirit," declares the LORD. These words are as true today as they were in Old Testament times. No matter how much we might like to believe that we can, we will just not be able to save ourselves without God.

Since the Christ is the mediator between God and Man, I leave God out of it. Otherwise you are saying what Simone did and I believe to be true.

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.-

Now as for Paul, isn't the next chapter the one that begins, "There is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ?" How, therefore, can there be no condemnation for Paul, when he just went on record saying that he is a sinner? It's because of grace; God helps those who believe in him, I think, rather than those who help themselves, as you said-- not because God wants people to be lazy, but he does want people to trust him

.

I didn't mean to imply that man's position is hopeless. St. Paul is naturally far along the path since the struggle within himself is pure and the Spirit is there to reconcile it from a higher perspective. Paul is remaining a conscious witness to the inner struggle.


By helping oneself in this instance requires allowing the struggle between the higher and lower to take place without imagination. Consciousness affirms while the body protests and denies. This conflict can be reconciled through imagination which is the normal way and leads nowhere or it is reconciled by the Spirit this conscious affirmation invites.


As we are, living in imagination we are of no use to a higher universal conscious purpose.

I disagree (big surprise, huh) with your assessment that the Christian who strives, falls, and then strives again is just like the rest of the world. I believe that the way of the world is to take the easy way out, to become complacent, to find the comfort zone and stay there, and to give up when things seem too hard. Simone Weil strove for noble ideals (i.e. the resistance), but I'd be willing to wager that in real life, Simone had to pick herself up and dust herself off lots of times. She was a Christian as much as anyone can be, because she followed Christ-- and here is the distinction that must be made: That Christians follow Christ like sheep follow the shepherd, but they will never be like the shepherd.

If Man cannot be capable of being a shepherd, how do you interpret John 14?

12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Hope in Christ is not passing the buck; it is what it is: hope. However, taking the responsibility for leading away from the shepherd and giving it to someone else is passing to Caesar what is God's; Jesus was very careful to make the point that he was the true vine, the good shepherd, the way, the truth, and the life. Hoping in anything else, as far as I can see, is nobly futile.

But this is the problem. Christianity is underground. what you see in society are facets of Christendom and we are supposed to follow their dictates under the assumption that they are expressing the Shepherd. How do you know the shepherd to follow and how to follow?


Prof Needleman is expressing the necessity to become able to follow the shepherd. Most in these times follow the shepherd described in this old Eastern story because this shepherd enchants us keeping us prisoners in service to the earth and like sheep we follow right along. It is one thing to follow the shepherd that appeals to our egotism and quite another to recognize the Good shepherd. Prof Needleman suggests that it is through the intermediate Christianity expressed by the church fathers that a person becomes able to consciously carry their cross as did their shepherd rather than remain a slave to enchantment.

"There is an Eastern tale that speaks about a very rich magician who had a great many sheep. But at the
same time this magician was very mean. He did not want to hire shepherds, nor did he want to erect a fence
about the pasture where the sheep were grazing. The sheep consequently often wandered into the forest, fell
into ravines and so on, and above all, they ran away, for they knew that the magician wanted their flesh and
their skins, and this they did not like.
"At last the magician found a remedy. He hypnotized his sheep and suggested to them, first of all, that they
were immortal and that no harm was being done to them when they were skinned; that on the contrary, it
would be very good for them and even pleasant; secondly he suggested that the magician was a good master
who loved his flock so much that he was ready to do anything in the world for them; and in the third place,
he suggested that if anything at all were going to happen to them, it was not going to happen just then, at any
rate not that day, and therefore they had no need to think about it. Further, the magician suggested to his
sheep that they were not sheep at all; to some of them he suggested that they were lions, to some that they
were eagles, to some that they were men, to others that they were magicians. "After this all his cares and worries about the sheep came to an end. They never ran away again, but quietly
awaited the time when the magician would require their flesh and skins.

This shepherd furthers the cause of the Great Beast while the shepherd Jesus serves the cause of the Father.Who can tell them apart in modern times?