The one...with no name...and various connections

[Thomas]

With respect in the belief and spirituality corral is "I don't care" too straight forward? I mean it is not a requirement.

That's a straightforward answer ... but then I've always known that, you wear your Unity lightly.

I just spoke out because the Unity quote actually promoted contra-Biblical ideology. I wonder how many of its more ardent members realise that.

Unity thought, New Thought, considered blasphemous by more orthodox sects? Say it ain't so!

Well you may laugh it off, but then you don't care ...

I do wonder if Unity members who don't read the small-print are being taken in – then again, maybe they know, it's just easier and more comfortable to turn a blind eye.

Transcendentalism has its origins in New England of the early 1800s and the birth of Unitarianism. It was born from a debate between “New Light” theologians, who believed that religion should focus on an emotional experience, and “Old Light” opponents, who valued reason in their religious approach.

I see it more in line with the New Thought movement of the 19th century – Quimby, Mesmer etc.

I thought William James summed it up quite succinctly.

 

[wil]

I see it more in line with the New Thought movement of the 19th century – Quimby, Mesmer etc.

Totally....started with the transcendentalists early 1800s...the thought evolved and split...like thought does without some prime directive and authoritive org to bow.

The Unity school of Christianity was founded in Kansas City, Missouri, in 1889. The Filmores looked at it all as their interpretation of the Bible. Their understanding is pretty much the closest interp I can wrap my mind around. But as Bjshop John Shelby Spong said Unity is not the final answer but he finds it as the next step when it comes to an organized religion saving Christianity.

I was there in that audience 14 years ago, great to relisten to him! Thx for the reminder!

 

[TheLightWithin]

To which one might reply, who are you to decide He needs to prove Himself to you?

Well, but, what if someone else claimed divinity? Would you accept it? Or require proof?
Or at least evidence and clarification.

 

[TheLightWithin]

The other is that should He do so, then life would be so much easier, but we've surrendered our essential dignity and freedom. From then on, we'd be foolish to do other than what we're told.

How so? I think you've made that assertion before but I don't quite understand.
How are we surrendering dignity and freedom by being given clearer information?

 

[TheLightWithin]

I just spoke out because the Unity quote actually promoted contra-Biblical ideology. I wonder how many of its more ardent members realise that.

Well, they (Unity) have a whole Metaphysical Bible Dictionary where they lay out interpretations based on lesser known meanings of words.
They are quite adamantly not anything close to classical orthodox Christianity.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I see it more in line with the New Thought movement of the 19th century – Quimby, Mesmer etc.

They are from New Thought, the Fillmores were influenced by Christian Science but also Transcendentalism and comparative religion study.

 

[Thomas]

Well, but, what if someone else claimed divinity? Would you accept it? Or require proof?
Or at least evidence and clarification.

Well that's the question everyone faces ... my Scriptural namesake perhaps the most famous example ... but yours really is a secondary question, the first one is, why should God have to prove Himself to us?

 

[Thomas]

How so? I think you've made that assertion before but I don't quite understand.
How are we surrendering dignity and freedom by being given clearer information?

If God were to reveal himself indisputably – and for sake of argument let's say an Abrahamic God – then we would have no option to obey him.

Our freedom of choice would be removed. Only an idiot would deny what's undeniable.

The relationship would then be master-servant, which, if I glean Scripture correctly, is not what God wants.

 

[Thomas]

Well, they (Unity) have a whole Metaphysical Bible Dictionary where they lay out interpretations based on lesser known meanings of words.
They are quite adamantly not anything close to classical orthodox Christianity.

Not in that sense to any Abrahamic Tradition, Jewish, Christian or Muslim, and that's my point – the 'metaphysics' in question is not a Biblical metaphysics.

Unity was born from the New Thought movement, and New Thought emerged from the broader Philosophical Idealism which established itself in the 18th century (although it's there, as all philosophy is, in Plato and his concept of Ideas and Forms of Plato.)

It's a metaphysic of the mind, not a metaphysic of the Bible (of God).

Here's where a Perennialist clashes – in the Perennial Tradition, we acknowledge the 'Transcendent Unity' of religions, and generally delight (or I do, at least) in the correspondences between traditional forms. What Perennialism asserts is that each Revealed Tradition is a paradigm complete and entire to itself, and what it does not do, and is critical of, is the desire to have all religions say the same thing, which is the equivalent of hammering square pegs into round holes.

 

[wil]

If God were to reveal himself indisputably – and for sake of argument let's say an Abrahamic God – then we would have no option to obey him.

What? I am sure you mean her... but what?

why should God have to prove Himself to us?

I am reeling....they ask if someone aims to be divine you need no proof other than the claim?

But than an indisputable proof...and IF is the Abrahamic G!d????

What if you got indisputable proof from a Hindu G!d? You would not have to obey?

Still reeling...going back to bed...

 

[Thomas]

What? I am sure you mean her... but what?

Gender issues aside ... I don't understand the question?

I am reing....they ask if someone aims to be divine you need no proof other than the claim?

I'm not asking anyone to believe in someone who rocks up and says 'believe in me' (and how many of those have we had here?)

The Jews didn't believe in Moses cos he rocked up and said, "Hey, guys, let's split... "

Although arguably, the followers of Abram followed him on the strength of his conviction.

And as for Christians, then: "Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me." (John 10:25)

+++

What if you got indisputable proof from a Hindu G!d? You would not have to obey?

I did say for the sake of argument, Wil. The Abrahamic God is a 'for instance'.

 

[Thomas]

You've made much of the Philippians quote more than once:
"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus..." (2:5)

and the Unity comment:
This passage, I think, offers a clear and forceful affirmation of the message and meaning of Jesus Christ. It begins by making it clear that Jesus was not unique.
Au contraire ... it affirms his uniqueness.

"Who being in the form of God ... " (v6)
the 'form' of a thing is the way it manifests itself.
"... thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men ..."
The first phrase is tricky, and has to be parsed in context with the whole.

Later translations offer a clearer insight:
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," (ESV)
"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;" (NIV)
"who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," (NASB)
"who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited. (CSB)
"Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to." (NLT)

Thus the thrust of this verse is that Christ is God, but chose not to 'utilise' his divinity to his advantage (eg: summon 12 legions of angels to make his point – Matthew 26:53)

Rather, he chose to 'empty himself' (kenosis) and take on the form of a servant, that is, man.

What is that mind—that understanding? First, an innate Oneness with the divinity of God. Second, a willingness to bring that Oneness into this life experience—to become human so that our innate divinity can transform everything through the creative choices we make in full consciousness of our innate divinity. This is what Jesus did. This is what Jesus calls us to do."
Here the commentary compounds its error. It's way off what the Scripture itself says, and Biblical exegetical tradition – the commentary chooses to elevate the self, rather than empty it.

Kenosis is key to theosis, our true union with the Divine (cf Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:6).

+++

 

[TheLightWithin]

Well that's the question everyone faces ... my Scriptural namesake perhaps the most famous example ... but yours really is a secondary question, the first one is, why should God have to prove Himself to us?

I don't know the Scriptural reference offhand, but isn't there something within the bible about discernment of spirits? And making sure not to follow the wrong one?
At the very least, to make absolutely sure you're NOT worshipping the wrong god or worshipping demons?
"Help us out here, God, we want to make sure we listening to YOU and not someone who the scripture said REBELLED against you."
"Help me out here, God, I want to make sure I'm really reading something YOU wanted to say, not just some people who had opinions"
Why in all the universes would He NOT provide clarity?
Or at the very least, why wouldn't listeners challenge the human messengers (evangelists etc) to PROVE or at least provide heavy backing for their claims??

 

[TheLightWithin]

If God were to reveal himself indisputably – and for sake of argument let's say an Abrahamic God – then we would have no option to obey him.

Our freedom of choice would be removed. Only an idiot would deny what's undeniable.

The relationship would then be master-servant, which, if I glean Scripture correctly, is not what God wants.

I disagree.

I think God could make things clearer, WITHOUT making automatons.
We could still avoid worship or something, whatever the alternative is.
If I am told clearly what will happen if I don't reduce my resting blood sugar, is my freedom of choice removed?
Should my doctor keep it ambiguous to preserve my freedom?
Total nonsense! Sorry, but that argument makes no practical sense to me.
ESPECIALLY if the reality is, as classical Christianity insists, eternal torment if you get it wrong (also makes no sense to me but that's another thread)

 

[TheLightWithin]

Not in that sense to any Abrahamic Tradition, Jewish, Christian or Muslim, and that's my point – the 'metaphysics' in question is not a Biblical metaphysics

I believe they at least state that their definitions come from linguistic research into the names and other words in the bible and reveal the allegorical or deeper meanings of the stories.
Put really bluntly, in the eyes of some of the average Unity parishioners, it's like being told "the regular bible thumpers have it wrong, they don't know the REAL meanings, here they are"
Although to be fair a lot of average Unity parishioners don't read the Bible or the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary and are more into crystals and New Age than into the Fillmores and New Thought.

 

[moralorel]

I don't know the Scriptural reference offhand, but isn't there something within the bible about discernment of spirits? And making sure not to follow the wrong one?
At the very least, to make absolutely sure you're NOT worshipping the wrong god or worshipping demons?
"Help us out here, God, we want to make sure we listening to YOU and not someone who the scripture said REBELLED against you."
"Help me out here, God, I want to make sure I'm really reading something YOU wanted to say, not just some people who had opinions"
Why in all the universes would He NOT provide clarity?
Or at the very least, why wouldn't listeners challenge the human messengers (evangelists etc) to PROVE or at least provide heavy backing for their claims??

1 John 4:1 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

 

[muhammad_isa]

Total nonsense! Sorry, but that argument makes no practical sense to me.
ESPECIALLY if the reality is, as classical Christianity insists, eternal torment if you get it wrong (also makes no sense to me but that's another thread)

That's a bit harsh, I would say..
..but I get what you are saying, I think..

However, if G-d "showed himself to all" in a physical manner [ whatever that means, as G-d is NOT physical ],
people would still accept or deny.
The point is, that G-d is able to show us the way WITHOUT "magic tricks" .. it is like he has
got a good internet connection to anyone who "turns it on".

We seem to choose different ISP's [different creeds] .. the choice is ours .. the faster the connection,
the more we receive.

 

[Thomas]

I don't know the Scriptural reference offhand, but isn't there something within the bible about discernment of spirits? And making sure not to follow the wrong one?

Yes.

At the very least, to make absolutely sure you're NOT worshipping the wrong god or worshipping demons?

I think the point I was trying to make is that the Religious Traditions have a fair amount of 'evidence' – they don't just crop up out of the blue.

That's not to say there's no such thing as a false religion.

I was born a cradle Catholic ... I walked away ... and then I cam back. I reasoned both journeys, and tested the return much harder than the walking away.

 

[Thomas]

I disagree.
I think God could make things clearer, WITHOUT making automatons.

I honestly don't see how ...?

We could still avoid worship or something, whatever the alternative is.
If I am told clearly what will happen if I don't reduce my resting blood sugar, is my freedom of choice removed?

I think we're talking a different order of thing here.

If God removes the option to believe or not believe ... where is our freedom to accept Him?

Whether we then obey God or not is another matter – that's the kind of question we are asked all the time – whether I can get away with a drink before I drive, eat this jam bun, smoke this cigarette, etc.

I'm not saying we've lost the option to be reckless, or wilful, or stupid.

And, no doubt, there would be those who would:
A – think that this irrefutable revelation was in fact an illuminati- or government-type conspiracy, or
B – think that this irrefutable revelation was simply a natural phenomena we as yet do not understand.

+++

Re your blood-sugar analogy ... supposing the option was, the next jam bun and you'll drop dead on the spot?

... and I write this, with the full knowledge of someone, the single-parent father of two young children, who was told in hospital his next drink might likely kill him, and he discharged himself, and popped into the off-licence (liquor store) on the way home ... and not too much later, it did.

Or the clip I saw on TV of the woman who did so much crack cocaine she was having a heart-attack, called the ambulance, which arrived so promptly she locked herself in the bathroom to do the rest – they had to break the door down.

Where humans are concerned, go figure ...

+++

 

[Thomas]

I believe they at least state that their definitions come from linguistic research into the names and other words in the bible and reveal the allegorical or deeper meanings of the stories.

But that's a classic Trojan Horse methodology – the point is in essence New Thought asserts a non-Biblical paradigm.

Put really bluntly, in the eyes of some of the average Unity parishioners, it's like being told "the regular bible thumpers have it wrong, they don't know the REAL meanings, here they are"

OK, but then that's a straw-man fallacy to endorse an argument.

I happen to argue with Bible-Thumpers as much as anyone.

Although to be fair a lot of average Unity parishioners don't read the Bible or the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary and are more into crystals and New Age than into the Fillmores and New Thought.

Quite. That's how it seems to me.

The Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart calls the phenomena 'boutique religion' – and he's way more critical of it than I am.

I have called it pick-n-mix spirituality, or religion-lite ... there's an argument that commercial interest says you set out to appeal to the broadest possible catchment and keep your messaging anodyne so no-one can find offence.

Because freedom of religious expression is written into the constitution of an essentially materialist society, every taste is catered for. Each particular movement has to find its USP to establish itself. a unique interpretation of scripture, a message from the spirit world, a communication from aliens ...

New Thought falls under the 'mind-health' paradigm, but Philosophical Idealism, but a philosophy alone is too intellectual and lacks a mythological narrative for people to get hold of... Christianity offers that in shedloads – as does Hinduism, Buddhism, but that was too alien for the 19th century American mindset. Native American Wisdom could have done it, but no-one knew or particularly cared about it in the 1880s.

New Thought teachers like Charles Fillmore of Unity came up with the Prosperity Gospel – NT was initially about mental and physical health, but Prosperity Theology gave it real traction and it became a major emphasis of the movement, finding fertile soil in the values of American Idealism.

Prosperity Theology took off and prospers well beyond Unity – Pentecostalism; the 'self-help' and 'get-rich' industry, the Healing Revivals of the 1950s became Televangelism of the 1980s ... and oif course it's been exported worldwide with missionary zeal.