The Godhead

[Gatekeeper]

if you say so. but it just sounds like your own made up theology to me, again nothing wrong with that as long as you aware what it is and dont try and deceive others ?

Made up theology?

"For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him."
​

We become like Jesus when we have been reborn of the Spirit -- Children of God (Anointed by the Holy Spirit). You disagree for some reason, and think my theology is "made up" and deceptive. Go figure!


GK

 

[Saltmeister]

its you who mock

you claim to be a god

that is mockery

you make a mockery of my faith.

you can create your own doctrines and theologies based on the the Bible but that does not make it Christianity, Christianity is quite clearly defined.

you keep telling me that you are an orange but I just see a banana

NiceCupOfTea, I think you should be careful when you say it's wrong to "claim to be a god." Jesus was accused of the same thing, as you will find in John 10:29-39.

Did Jesus deny his divinity when he said 'You are gods'?

According to Psalms 82:6-8, we are divine. We are all sons of the Most High God. Jesus was never exclusively divine. In fact, we are all divine. We simply have to realise it.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

NiceCupOfTea, I think you should be careful when you say it's wrong to "claim to be a god." Jesus was accused of the same thing, as you will find in John 10:29-39.

that was Jesus

Did Jesus deny his divinity when he said 'You are gods'?

According to Psalms 82:6-8, we are divine. We are all sons of the Most High God. Jesus was never exclusively divine. In fact, we are all divine. We simply have to realise it.

we are sons of the most high, but that does not make us gods.

r we divine, well as a born again christian I have the holy spirit living inside me, does this make me a god, no it does not.

 

[Saltmeister]

we are sons of the most high, but that does not make us gods.

r we divine, well as a born again christian I have the holy spirit living inside me, does this make me a god, no it does not.

What does the word "god" mean to you? Just like Jesus says, what the scripture says cannot be broken. If it says we are gods then we are gods.

To me, the word "god" is relative and subjective anyway. When everyone is a god, nobody is a god. Just like the arch-villain in The Incredibles animated movie says, when everyone is a super-hero, nobody is a super-hero. Is it really that big of a deal?

It isn't to say that the word means nothing to me. I think it means that we can be much more powerful than we think, just not in this world. We're "mere mortals" in this world, but in another, we're incredibly powerful. We just haven't realised it yet. If we seek the kingdom of heaven, that power will be given to us, if only we wanted it.

that was Jesus

If Jesus was our brother, then what applied to him there must also apply to us.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

What does the word "god" mean to you? Just like Jesus says, what the scripture says cannot be broken. If it says we are gods then we are gods.

To me, the word "god" is relative and subjective anyway. When everyone is a god, nobody is a god. Just like the arch-villain in The Incredibles animated movie says, when everyone is a super-hero, nobody is a super-hero. Is it really that big of a deal?

It isn't to say that the word means nothing to me. I think it means that we can be much more powerful than we think, just not in this world. We're "mere mortals" in this world, but in another, we're incredibly powerful. We just haven't realised it yet. If we seek the kingdom of heaven, that power will be given to us, if only we wanted it.



If Jesus was our brother, then what applied to him there must also apply to us.

Jesus is God he is not a god.

As for what scripture says there are many deceptive teachings based on the Bible, Christians are to be led by the Holy Spirit not the Bible. The Holy Spirit brings the Bible to life.

As for us being powerful, under the anointing of the Holy Spirit God uses ordinary people to do amazing things, everything Jesus did we can do also but under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, this is the aim anyway I am not walking in signs wonders and miracles at this time.

If you think you are a god then thats fine, but I reject the notion as being of Christianity.

 

[Thomas]

We become like Jesus when we have been reborn of the Spirit

Actually, if you read Paul carefully (and Hebrews) we do not become like Jesus, we do not become sons, we become adopted sons ... 'adoption' is a term in law, not according to being, but according to contract (or covenant), and in that sense the adoption of the Christian is no different than the adoption of the people of israel by God, so really what Paul is saying is that the covenant between God and the seed of Abraham has now been widened to cover all humanity, Jew and Gentile alike.

The only 'likeness' we have with God is when we love, and then it is not we who love, but the love of God present in us (it is quite possible to love in contingent fashion without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) — again Paul makes this clear, it is not we who cry 'Abba', it is the Spirit who cries Abba in us. We have given ourselves over to the spirit, we are, as St Paul insisted, already dead, we are buried in Him.

Children of God (Anointed by the Holy Spirit). You disagree for some reason, and think my theology is "made up" and deceptive. Go figure!

I think you're assuming too much, you read Scripture to affirm yourself, whereas a Christian reads Scripture to affirm his faith in Christ.

Christ says only as little children will we enter, not as 'powerful' or 'mighty' or 'gods' — it's that very mindset that keeps us apart from God, that tends to a Pharisaic reading of Scripture that both Nice Cup of Tea and I are engaging with ... again and again the teaching points to humility, but again and again you assert the right to self-determination and self-declaration ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

if you say so. but it just sounds like your own made up theology to me, again nothing wrong with that as long as you aware what it is and dont try and deceive others ?

You have to realise that a lot of mainstream Christianity is based on "made up" theology. The churches "made up" a lot of creeds during the last 2,000 years and insisted they were "good examples" of Christianity. The Trinity is one example. The trouble with a lot of these "made up theologies" is that they did not consider the history of how Christianity started.

There is something more important than whether one's "theology" is made up. Actually, there are two things I can think of that are more important. One is hermeneutics. You must have a system of interpreting the written tradition. You must explain and justify why you believe a passage is trying to convey the message or promote the agenda you claim it does.

There are many "biblical" interpretations and also many "hermeneutical" ones. The trouble when people claim they have a "biblical" interpretation is that it is often just a reinforcement of an "established" or "official" doctrine or ideology without the process of critically evaluating the idea. Ok, it's great that you base your beliefs in the written tradition, but why do you choose that particular interpretation? How do you justify the process by which you arrived by your position/view/opinion?

Hermeneutics is where you actually try to rationalise your ideology/interpretation and I hope that when someone claims their idea is "hermeneutical" that they aren't just agreeing with the powers that be and simply saying "yes" to the established or official ideology. We've had too many "yes men" over the centuries. The good thing about hermeneutics is that there is at least a "system" by which you arrive at your conclusions.

When it comes to hermeneutics, I am a layperson. But I don't believe it means that someone with a "degree" in religious studies is better at hermeneutics than I am, because they might just reinforce the mainstream, established or official position and there is much that I disagree with in mainstream Christianity. The theologians that contribute most to Christianity are those who are critics of and dissenters against the established thought system. Conformity leads to stagnation. Rebellion and criticism energises Christianity and makes it dynamic.

To me, the best kind of hermeneutics is that informed by history. The trouble with much of mainstream Christianity is that there is too much emphasis on its Hellenistic component. This is what divides it from within and also what puts it in conflict with other religions. If we could push aside the Hellenism, say it is just our heritage and not consider it so "fundamental," I think Christianity would be in a healthier state both internally and externally. We need to see Christianity as the intermingling of the Jewish and Gentile worlds, to understand the various groups in the first century -- the Pharisees, Essenes, Sadduccees, Zealots and Nazarenes.

But why is this more important than avoiding "made up theology?" It's because when you explain how you arrived at a particular interpretation and convince everyone that this is what God wants, it doesn't matter if it's "made up." The reason is because everyone wants to know what God wants but feels that there are things God hasn't told us. We believe we need to do some "extra thinking" to understand God's will or plan.

Hermeneutics and interpretation is an attempt to "fill in the gaps" for God. Therefore, there shouldn't be anything inherently wrong with "making up theology" because if you discover the divine will in the process of making stuff up, you haven't really made anything up because it was always what God wanted. God thought of it before you did.

Divine inspiration is all about God giving us just enough information to "fill in the gaps" and "finish the journey." I think the truth is that everybody is trying to fill in the gaps. I have yet to hear someone read me a passage from the Bible, tell me why it's so important and then say "this isn't an interpretation!" As soon as they put it in context, they have already interpreted it and "made up" theology. All theology is "made up" because the purpose of all theology is to fill in the gaps. If the Bible alone was sufficient, we wouldn't need theology.

The "literal word" is never good enough. It always has to be explained and expanded upon. This is why I reject the concept of "sola scriptura" that evangelical Christianity promotes. The Catholic Church should at least be commended for not promoting such a silly idea as sola scriptura. Evangelical Christianity really deserves a good ol' spanking.

The second more important thing than opposing "made up" theology is eschatology. Christianity has a purpose. It has a mission. Eschatology is about the destiny of the human race, the story of things to come. Christians must engage themselves in the process by which the human race moves closer to its destiny. We need to "make up" theology to fit ourselves into this process. We need to contemplate our mission and evaluate our objectives.

One trend we should never follow when "making up" theology and filling in the gaps, however, is going too far. I think Occam's Razor and KISS are good guidelines on what kind of theology to make up and how we should go about filling in the gaps of the words of God. When we make up too much theology, we start wondering further away from the words of God. There is a trade-off.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

You have to realise that a lot of mainstream Christianity is based on "made up" theology. The churches "made up" a lot of creeds during the last 2,000 years and insisted they were "good examples" of Christianity. The Trinity is one example. The trouble with a lot of these "made up theologies" is that they did not consider the history of how Christianity started.

There is something more important than whether one's "theology" is made up. Actually, there are two things I can think of that are more important. One is hermeneutics. You must have a system of interpreting the written tradition. You must explain and justify why you believe a passage is trying to convey the message or promote the agenda you claim it does.

There are many "biblical" interpretations and also many "hermeneutical" ones. The trouble when people claim they have a "biblical" interpretation is that it is often just a reinforcement of an "established" or "official" doctrine or ideology without the process of critically evaluating the idea. Ok, it's great that you base your beliefs in the written tradition, but why do you choose that particular interpretation? How do you justify the process by which you arrived by your position/view/opinion?

Hermeneutics is where you actually try to rationalise your ideology/interpretation and I hope that when someone claims their idea is "hermeneutical" that they aren't just agreeing with the powers that be and simply saying "yes" to the established or official ideology. We've had too many "yes men" over the centuries. The good thing about hermeneutics is that there is at least a "system" by which you arrive at your conclusions.

When it comes to hermeneutics, I am a layperson. But I don't believe it means that someone with a "degree" in religious studies is better at hermeneutics than I am, because they might just reinforce the mainstream, established or official position and there is much that I disagree with in mainstream Christianity. The theologians that contribute most to Christianity are those who are critics of and dissenters against the established thought system. Conformity leads to stagnation. Rebellion and criticism energises Christianity and makes it dynamic.

To me, the best kind of hermeneutics is that informed by history. The trouble with much of mainstream Christianity is that there is too much emphasis on its Hellenistic component. This is what divides it from within and also what puts it in conflict with other religions. If we could push aside the Hellenism, say it is just our heritage and not consider it so "fundamental," I think Christianity would be in a healthier state both internally and externally. We need to see Christianity as the intermingling of the Jewish and Gentile worlds, to understand the various groups in the first century -- the Pharisees, Essenes, Sadduccees, Zealots and Nazarenes.

But why is this more important than avoiding "made up theology?" It's because when you explain how you arrived at a particular interpretation and convince everyone that this is what God wants, it doesn't matter if it's "made up." The reason is because everyone wants to know what God wants but feels that there are things God hasn't told us. We believe we need to do some "extra thinking" to understand God's will or plan.

Hermeneutics and interpretation is an attempt to "fill in the gaps" for God. Therefore, there shouldn't be anything inherently wrong with "making up theology" because if you discover the divine will in the process of making stuff up, you haven't really made anything up because it was always what God wanted. God thought of it before you did.

Divine inspiration is all about God giving us just enough information to "fill in the gaps" and "finish the journey." I think the truth is that everybody is trying to fill in the gaps. I have yet to hear someone read me a passage from the Bible, tell me why it's so important and then say "this isn't an interpretation!" As soon as they put it in context, they have already interpreted it and "made up" theology. All theology is "made up" because the purpose of all theology is to fill in the gaps. If the Bible alone was sufficient, we wouldn't need theology.

The "literal word" is never good enough. It always has to be explained and expanded upon. This is why I reject the concept of "sola scriptura" that evangelical Christianity promotes. The Catholic Church should at least be commended for not promoting such a silly idea as sola scriptura. Evangelical Christianity really deserves a good ol' spanking.

The second more important thing than opposing "made up" theology is eschatology. Christianity has a purpose. It has a mission. Eschatology is about the destiny of the human race, the story of things to come. Christians must engage themselves in the process by which the human race moves closer to its destiny. We need to "make up" theology to fit ourselves into this process. We need to contemplate our mission and evaluate our objectives.

One trend we should never follow when "making up" theology and filling in the gaps, however, is going too far. I think Occam's Razor and KISS are good guidelines on what kind of theology to make up and how we should go about filling in the gaps of the words of God. When we make up too much theology, we start wondering further away from the words of God. There is a trade-off.

Christianity as I know it is a spiritual thing, the Holy Spirit sheds light on scripture and reveals the truth to us such as the truth of the doctrine of the trinity.

Anyone can read the Bible as a book but it only comes alive when the Holy Spirit gets involved and God reveals things to you personally.

So you can go down your intellectual route to spirituality if that's your thing but I dont see that route as leading to God IMO.

 

[Saltmeister]

Jesus is God he is not a god.

That's debatable.

There is no conclusive proof that the first followers of Jesus even thought of him as "God." The reason why I say that is because I think there is an alternative theory that is at least equally valid. The Gospel of John is different to the first three Gospels in that it is sometimes called "the Gentile Gospel." That's because it includes a lot of Gentile ideas.

Some suggest that there was a "Johanine" community that followed the Gospel of John more than anything else. The ideas contained in the Gospel of John that influence Christians into thinking "Jesus is God" may in fact be the beliefs of only one community in the first century. The Jerusalem Church, the Gentile churches, the Johanine church would each have had their own theology. Many Christians tend to think they were one church all believing the same thing, but I have reason to believe they were not.

Christianity was a product of the intermingling of the Jewish and Gentile worlds, of Judaism and Hellenism. This is the history of how Christianity came to be. Out of that came many churches. The opening passage of the Gospel of John seems to be inspired by the ideas of Philo of Alexandria. The idea of Logos is likely to have come from Philo.

Philo or his colleagues are alleged to have also suggested that the prophets and patriarchs of Judaism, Moses, Abraham, David, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. were "divine sparks" or "emanations" of God. The Logos could be thought of as one such "emanation." The idea of "emanations" of God is therefore not exclusively attributed to Jesus, but also to the other prophets.

God had emanated through the prophets before, but now He was also emanating through Jesus. This is not the same as saying Jesus is God. Perhaps the point the Gospel of John was trying to make was that rather than this being just another "emanation," God was fully emanating through Jesus. People assume that Jesus and the Word are the same thing, and therefore if the Word is God then Jesus must also be God, but the Word was not "defined" as a "person." Jesus had to be a person because he was human, but the Word is merely "personified" as if it were a person.

Trinitarian theology proposes that if the Word is God then Jesus must also be God, but that theology has been shown by many to be unworkable. Why does Jesus pray to God, speak to God or speak of God as if he was not God? I think this is a good reason to argue that the Word isn't necessarily a person, but some other concept. Jesus is human, God is God, but we can only be sure that the Word can be both Jesus and God, meaning that the Word can act as or represent both a human and God and that the Word must be independent of the "life form" the Gospel of John is trying to describe.

If the Word is an emanation of God, this makes more sense. All other prophets were descendants of the first Adam, but Jesus came from heaven. That is why he was called the "heavenly man."

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. John 3:13
​

Because the other prophets were "corrupted" by being descended from the first Adam, they were not able to fully radiate the emanations of God. However, because Jesus was a new creation, he was fully compatible with God and able to fully radiate the emanations of God. The earlier prophets and patriarchs were copper, silver and gold conductors of the emanations of God, but Jesus was a superconductor. He offered zero resistance.

This isn't new, but rather, ancient.

As for what scripture says there are many deceptive teachings based on the Bible.

Yes, just because it's "biblical" doesn't mean it's meaningful, helpful, constructive or a good example for people to follow. There are many contradictory, but biblical interpretations that at first glance are all equally valid.

If you think you are a god then thats fine, but I reject the notion as being of Christianity.

What is or isn't Christianity is debatable. If someone tells me something is or isn't Christianity, I want good reasons for it and not just people copying the established position. I don't like the attitude of "don't think for yourself, the thinking has already been done!!!" If you are an intelligent person, I expect more of you than the most obvious response.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

I don't like the attitude of "don't think for yourself, the thinking has already been done!!!" If you are an intelligent person, I expect more of you than the most obvious response.

Being a Christian is not about thinking, its about knowing God in a very real and personal way, God gives us revelation of his Word. No one need accept empty doctrine as we can have revelation this comes from intimacy with God, not from being clever.

 

[Saltmeister]

So you can go down your intellectual route to spirituality if that's your thing but I dont see that route as leading to God IMO.

If you are an intellectual person then you may be able to help others in their faith. If I try to expand on the words of God it's not because I want to help myself but because I believe it may help others and others can help me.

Religion is social. It gives a group of people something in common, without which they would not be together. Religion can also be divisive.

While both stupid and intellectual people can divide communities, I think it is much harder for a stupid person to unite two different communities that have been fighting and competing against the other for a long time. It takes a smart person to propose a theology that will persuade the two communities to integrate.

I think Peter and Paul in Galatians are a good demonstration of this.

Christians need wise leaders because they are better at keeping us together.

Christ says only as little children will we enter, not as 'powerful' or 'mighty' or 'gods' — it's that very mindset that keeps us apart from God, that tends to a Pharisaic reading of Scripture that both Nice Cup of Tea and I are engaging with ... again and again the teaching points to humility, but again and again you assert the right to self-determination and self-declaration ...

I think you might be missing the point with the "mighty gods" idea. The word "god" doesn't necessarily mean "mighty" in the sense that we have so much power we become so arrogant as to step over a kid's sand castle.

If God represents all that is good, then the sons of God must reflect his character. It's not "gods" in the sense of being like the petty Greek ones, not like oversized children who are "gods of and for themselves." The Greek gods are the worst example of "gods" you could think of because they were often just as immoral and selfish as human beings. They were not good role models. The Greek gods did not have a Most High God above them.

Sons of God are supposed to be humble and represent justice. They have a "Father" who teaches them the "ways of righteousness," to be a good example for the least and greatest.

Whoever exalts himself will be humbled. Whoever humbles himself will be exalted. The first will be last and the last will be first. The meek will inherit the earth. Judge not, and you will not be judged. Love your neighbour as yourself.

 

[Saltmeister]

Being a Christian is not about thinking, its about knowing God in a very real and personal way, God gives us revelation of his Word. No one need accept empty doctrine as we can have revelation this comes from intimacy with God, not from being clever.

But here I think you're thinking in individualistic terms. How does this work in a "religious community?" This would work for a "religion of one" but we have seen that it doesn't necessarily work for a "religion of many." How are you going to deal with differences in thinking within a community? Don't you have to "think" in order to "negotiate" your differences? Falling in line it isn't as natural as you think. If it were, being a Christian would be so easy there wouldn't be much merit in being one.

Someone is going to have to work out a way for these differences in thinking to coexist and isn't that in itself intimacy with God? So there is a place for thinking and being smart.

Sometimes I think Christians simply don't do enough thinking. Thinking should be as vital as eating, sleeping, breathing and drinking. Thinking should be part of living and spirituality is about how to "live." Thinking can be spiritual. Being intellectual can also be spiritual.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

But here I think you're thinking in individualistic terms. How does this work in a "religious community?" This would work for a "religion of one" but we have seen that it doesn't necessarily work for a "religion of many." How are you going to deal with differences in thinking within a community? Don't you have to "think" in order to "negotiate" your differences? Falling in line it isn't as natural as you think. If it were, being a Christian would be so easy there wouldn't be much merit in being one.

the Holy Spirit teaches us, the reason that so many Christians believe the same things is because the Holy Spirit has taught them.

Someone is going to have to work out a way for these differences in thinking to coexist and isn't that in itself intimacy with God? So there is a place for thinking and being smart.

no thats not intimacy with God.

Sometimes I think Christians simply don't do enough thinking. Thinking should be as vital as eating, sleeping, breathing and drinking. Thinking should be part of living and spirituality is about how to "live." Thinking can be spiritual. Being intellectual can also be spiritual.

I disagree being intellectual is not spiritual, Christians are to be led by the Spirit not worship their own intellects. Spiritual things are to appraised spiritually not intellectually.

 

[Saltmeister]

no thats not intimacy with God.

But who are you to say what is or isn't intimacy with God? You didn't explain why that can't be intimacy with God. How do you justify something being or not being intimacy with God?

I disagree being intellectual is not spiritual, Christians are to be led by the Spirit not worship their own intellects. Spiritual things are to appraised spiritually not intellectually.

This is where I disagree with you. You may speak of being led by the Spirit, but what good is that if there is no way of knowing if you are being led by the Spirit? You could just as well be acting on random thoughts.

I think you are imposing overly narrow constraints on what is "spiritual." When you say that the intellectual is something to be worshipped you're assuming that's the only good it can offer. By trying to be "rational" you may actually be in a better position to decide whether or not you are being led by the Spirit.

I don't agree with the idea that you have to be in a blind, unthinking, robotic trance to be spiritual. Actually, to me, that can actually lead to dead spirituality. People will start arguing about who is led by the Spirit. They will become judgmental, dogmatic, legalistic and self-righteous. When people obsess over who is led by the Spirit, that often happens. This is why I avoid speaking of the Spirit.

It is better to be rational than to say "I am led by the Spirit." Maybe being rational is what the Spirit wants. I don't think God wants a reactive, unthinking person who has a knee-jerk reaction to everything.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

But who are you to say what is or isn't intimacy with God?

nobody really.

You didn't explain why that can't be intimacy with God. How do you justify something being or not being intimacy with God?

what you described sounded like community relations or something, thats not intimacy with God, thats man management if I understood you correctly.

This is where I disagree with you. You may speak of being led by the Spirit, but what good is that if there is no way of knowing if you are being led by the Spirit? You could just as well be acting on random thoughts.

if you are intimate with God then you will know about it.

I think you are imposing overly narrow constraints on what is "spiritual." When you say that the intellectual is something to be worshipped you're assuming that's the only good it can offer. By trying to be "rational" you may actually be in a better position to decide whether or not you are being led by the Spirit.

by all means be rational, but spiritual things are spiritual and are understood with our spirits not our intelect IMO.

I don't agree with the idea that you have to be in a blind, unthinking, robotic trance to be spiritual. Actually, to me, that can actually lead to dead spirituality. People will start arguing about who is led by the Spirit. They will become judgmental, dogmatic, legalistic and self-righteous. When people obsess over who is led by the Spirit, that often happens. This is why I avoid speaking of the Spirit.

if you say so

It is better to be rational than to say "I am led by the Spirit."

I believe it is better to be led by the spirit and have true intimacy with God to hear Gods word to you personally than to say "I am rational"

Maybe being rational is what the Spirit wants.

I don't think God wants a reactive, unthinking person who has a knee-jerk reaction to everything.

i agree

 

[wil]

It is better to be rational than to say "I am led by the Spirit." Maybe being rational is what the Spirit wants. I don't think God wants a reactive, unthinking person who has a knee-jerk reaction to everything.

I don't think G!d or spirit 'wants'....

 

[Thomas]

I think you might be missing the point with the "mighty gods" idea.

That might well be so.

The word "god" doesn't necessarily mean "mighty" in the sense that we have so much power we become so arrogant as to step over a kid's sand castle.

OK.

If God represents all that is good, then the sons of God must reflect his character.

Agreed, but the saints and mystics do not come across as 'mighty' ... and Gatekeeper's point is that we are mighty by nature ...

Sons of God are supposed to be humble and represent justice. They have a "Father" who teaches them the "ways of righteousness," to be a good example for the least and greatest.

Yes. Love, not power or might.

Whoever exalts himself will be humbled. Whoever humbles himself will be exalted. The first will be last and the last will be first. The meek will inherit the earth. Judge not, and you will not be judged. Love your neighbour as yourself.

I know ... but gatekeeper is exalting man, not God.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

I know ... but gatekeeper is exalting man, not God.

Tis a matter of perception.

If man is made in G!ds image, anything man does well is an example of G!d.

If man is G!d's highest manifestation...by exalting man you are exalting G!d.

The concept of original sin is the biggest disgrace that has ever been foisted on G!d's creation in my opinion.

Set my people free.

 

[Thomas]

Tis a matter of perception.

I would say it's a matter of ego.

If man is made in G!ds image, anything man does well is an example of G!d.

Depends what he does.

If man is G!d's highest manifestation...by exalting man you are exalting G!d.

No, by exalting man you are exalting your own ego. By exalting God, you exalt God.

Nowhere in Scripture, in the Old Testament or New, will you find a prayer or praise of man. Only God.

The concept of original sin is the biggest disgrace that has ever been foisted on G!d's creation in my opinion.

Well Jesus seemed quite certain of it, and the necessity of baptism because of it, so if it's purely a matter of your opinion, then excuse us if we'll stick with the message of Christ, rather than the message of Wil.

Set my people free

They're your people now, are they?

Please count me out of that number ... I know my Shepherd.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

what you described sounded like community relations or something, thats not intimacy with God, thats man management if I understood you correctly.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23

If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20

Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. Luke 17:33
For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. Matthew 16:25

For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Matthew 23:12
For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." Luke 14:11
​

"So the last will be first, and the first will be last." Matthew 20:16
But many who are first will be last, and the last first." Mark 10:31

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Matthew 7:1-2
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Luke 6:37

Be under obligation to no one - the only obligation you have is to love one another. Whoever does this has obeyed the Law. Romans 13:8
If you love others, you will never do them wrong; to love, then, is to obey the whole Law. Romans 13:10
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12
​

It seems to me that community relations is a big part of being intimate with God. I think a person's relationship with people, society and the world is a reflection of their relationship with God. If you have a place in the kingdom of heaven, you will act like a member of the kingdom. I am not talking about community relations by "man management." I am not talking about a community supported by an organisation, social security, government, state power or statecraft. I am talking about a community supported by faith.

by all means be rational, but spiritual things are spiritual and are understood with our spirits not our intelect IMO.

You may have a point there. You may help others but still not be able to help yourself. One must walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I just think that being rational can be spiritual because you will be in a better position to know the spiritual. If you know and then have the faith to do what you know is right, then being rational can lead to being spiritual. The key, therefore is faith.

It is your faith in "the Way."

I believe it is better to be led by the spirit and have true intimacy with God to hear Gods word to you personally than to say "I am rational"

If people say they are led by the Spirit, they better act like they are. If they are still judgmental, dogmatic, legalistic, arrogant and self-righteous, I have to assume they are not. This is why I believe it is better to say "I am rational" than to say "I am led by the Spirit" and mislead people into thinking you are.

The idea of being led by the Spirit is so attractive that people want to "jump onto the bandwagon" (so to speak) without a complete appreciation of what it means. It's like Simon the Magician asking Peter for the power of the Holy Spirit. I think people need to be cautioned against such a declaration.

Too many people claim to be born again and yet continue to be judgmental, dogmatic, legalistic, arrogant and self-righteous and don't follow the teachings above in Galatians 5:22-23, 1 John 4:20, Luke 17:33, Matthew 16:25, Matthew 23:12, Luke 14:11, Matthew 20:16, Mark 10:31, Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 6:37, Romans 13:8, Romans 13:10 and Matthew 7:12. They act like people who have no faith in "the Way." Being rational and intellectual is just a way of being honest, practical and realistic. It may seem unspiritual, but actually from my point of view, I am actually trying to be spiritual without seeming spiritual.