Do you call yourself a Christian?

[Silas]

path_of_one

I don't think that was the question. And I can't speak for others, but I could really care less if you call me a Christian. As I said earlier, it's God's opinion that matters.

Thats fine. But I should tell you, according to God's words in the Bible, that person isnt a Christian. And, rather than having that person being one of those on judgement day who cry out to Jesus saying, "Lord! Lord," to no avail, I'm just exhorting that person to do what the Bible says - namely, "examine yourself to see if you are in the faith."

I don't disagree with this. Maybe others here do, but I don't. I will say that "belief" in the real meaning of the word (if you look up all that entails in the Greek) is surprisingly broad. Belief is a real commitment and is followed up with action.

To the true believer, the truth of Jesus is axomatic. The "crazy" story of Jesus rasing from death isnt marely a belief that they hold on to for comfort or hope, it is their very life - they know it to be true and their lives are conformed to that truth.

Technically, what makes a person a Christian is the belief that Jesus Christ reconciled humanity and God through His sacrifice. (Well, and the subsequent salvation we receive by repenting and relying on Christ and thus taking up our cross to follow Him.)

This is only part of it. The Christian is defined mostly by His non-conformity to this world and is being transformed by the renewing of his mind and changed, over time, into the image of His master, Christ, Jesus. This is called santification.

I'm reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis right now, and it's really wonderful. I highly recommend it to all if you haven't read it before.

Good book! I like Lewis' mind.

It is really enlightening, and confirming to me that I do fit within the label of Christianity despite my many deviations from some denominations' orthodoxy. It really goes back to the heart of the matter and cuts out all the doctrinal arguing.

When discussing the many denominations in Christiandom, a contempory of Lewis is famous for saying, "Unity doesnt have to mean uniformity." What he means by this is that we Christians dont all have to look exactly the same or think exactly the same concerning the non-essentials of the faith. However, he, as well as Lewis, and any Biblical Christian for that matter, admit we all must agree on the core essentials doctrines of the faith. We must hold firm to those precious truths to be named a Biblical Christian, lest we fool ourselves into thinking we can let dotrine go and not be serious about it.

Hmmm... I believe in the Christ, in the deepest Greek meaning of the word. I follow after Him. So therefore, I too, am a child of God and a Christian.

In the deepest meaning of the word, I dont follow Christ and I'm ashamed of my walk. But, I thank God for His grace and for giving me what I can bare.

I don't think my salvation and status as a Christian has anything to do with judgements I make about other people's salvation and where they go after death. Not my business, not my place.

"If you dont have a desier to see others saved, then you yourself are not saved. Be sure of that!" -- Chargles Spurgeon. Jesus said to go out and witness. Go rescuse the perishing!

My "job" as a Christian is to follow Christ- to love God with all my heart and to love others as myself. I'm supposed to be a light to this world, to show love to others, and to tell them about Christ and the gift I was given.

Are you loving God with all your heart? I honestly wish I were, but I'd be lying if I said so. I'm embarrased by the way I love the God who died for me. But agian, I'm thankful for His grace and His love that isnt like mine.

The rest is up to God, and I am specifically told by Jesus not to judge others, lest I be judged. I can share Christ with all people, without presuming that they are or are not going to be with God.

Take that in context...Jesus was talking about hypocrates, i.e., those who have sin and tell others not to sin. A chapter before that verse, Jesus tells us to judge people by their fruit. Christians are to judge, lest we make ourselves fools by assuming everyone to be saved and have them die without the Savior. "Righteous Judgment" is admonished throughout the Bible. As a matter of fact, it [judgement] starts in the house of the Lord."

 

[Paladin]

I'm not a Christian. Christianity makes Jesus' philosophy look like a hoplessly idealistic, egalitarian pipe dream. Given the choice I'll stick with the dream. I'd rather be a permanent outsider. I appreciate, though, the input of the "Christians" here in helping make this clear to me. I am nothing. I'm not Christian or anything else. I'm "them."

Chris

Chris,

Understandable thinking in light of mainstream doctrine. You might find this link interesting Christian mysticism: Starting on the way or you might find it irrelevant at best, but I thought I'd pass it on.

Peace

Mark

 

[wil]

Namaste Silas!

Welcome to the forum bro!

No as Path indicates we don't really care what you think....ooo was that to straightforward? Let the politically correct police find the code. We are not asking whether you deem me or anyone else to be a Christian, the question was "Do you call yourself a Christian?" We aren't judging others in their path with Jesus in this regard.

In Jesus's humanity he was perfect! As humans fumble, and as he grocked his higher self, his G-d nature he was perfect in that as well. A quick slip back into take this cup from me humanity in the garden, but whose countin?

Too funny that some folks think we are all sinners yet not hypocrites, hmmmm, damn log.

My feline friend I had issues with the word while following the footsteps of the man...don't let those hellbent for leather get you down...they have their issues yet don't come clean on the boards as you do. I've seen you at the confessional, not behind closed doors, right here with all of us. They can say what they will and you can call yourself whatever you want, spirit knows who you are, and you are a blessing.

 

[Silas]

wil

No as Path indicates we don't really care what you think....ooo was that to straightforward? Let the politically correct police find the code. We are not asking whether you deem me or anyone else to be a Christian, the question was "Do you call yourself a Christian?" We aren't judging others in their path with Jesus in this regard.

I know you dont care, but I felt that I should tell you lest you decieve yourself, you know? Just pray and ask God to show you in His word what a Christian is. I know if you desier to serve God, He'll show you.

In Jesus's humanity he was perfect! As humans fumble, and as he grocked his higher self, his G-d nature he was perfect in that as well. A quick slip back into take this cup from me humanity in the garden, but whose countin?

Are you saying that Jesus sinned? Because I assure you, He did not.

Too funny that some folks think we are all sinners yet not hypocrites, hmmmm, damn log.

The last thing I want to be in this life is the hypocrite that I am. That said, aim to learn what it means to be a Christian...It the toughest thing in the world. You might want to "count the cost" before you jump into it.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

My feline friend I had issues with the word while following the footsteps of the man...don't let those hellbent for leather get you down...they have their issues yet don't come clean on the boards as you do. I've seen you at the confessional, not behind closed doors, right here with all of us. They can say what they will and you can call yourself whatever you want, spirit knows who you are, and you are a blessing.

Thanks Wil! I guess I had a little "poor me" moment there. I appreciate the empathy. You too Mark!

Chris

 

[wil]

.Jesus was talking about hypocrates, i.e., those who have sin and tell others not to sin.

I know you dont care, but I felt that I should tell you lest you decieve yourself, you know? Just pray and ask God to show you in His word what a Christian is. I know if you desier to serve God, He'll show you.

Are you saying that Jesus sinned? Because I assure you, He did not.

Namaste Silas, I was only quoting you bro! I meditate contemplate, and rarely pray as you are asking me to. I commune with G-d right here, right now. Prayer to me is two fold...a. every thought, subconsciously or consciously is a prayer which spirit hears and acts upon in one way or another...so in that case I, we all pray unceasingly, b. the other form of prayer, the beseeching, begging, oh I'm not worthy type of prayer, or the oft, if you'll only_________ then I'll_________forever... I'm not in for. G-d needs know worship spirit knows what spirit is doesn't have self worth issues which require us to bolster up. And the rest of it is for those that are waivering in their spirit, aren't comfortable with knowing that all is in good hands, not ready to surrender and allow.

To sin is to miss the mark, not hit the target, not live upto your full potential...Jesus stumbled along this path often, part of his growth in spirit realizing his eachness of the allness, his expression of truth.

I follow that stumbling path gladly, making my mistakes along the way and learning from them. Learning that anytime I act out of ego, earthly things happen, but anytime I allow my higher self, my connection to all come thru, things that are not of this realm happen...the waters are stilled during a storm, and perceptions change instantly...G-d is good!

 

[flowperson]

wil...Amen and so be it. Merry Christmas to you and yours my brother.

flow....

 

[Silas]

Namaste Silas, I was only quoting you bro! I meditate contemplate, and rarely pray as you are asking me to. I commune with G-d right here, right now. Prayer to me is two fold...a. every thought, subconsciously or consciously is a prayer which spirit hears and acts upon in one way or another...so in that case I, we all pray unceasingly, b. the other form of prayer, the beseeching, begging, oh I'm not worthy type of prayer, or the oft, if you'll only_________ then I'll_________forever... I'm not in for. G-d needs know worship spirit knows what spirit is doesn't have self worth issues which require us to bolster up. And the rest of it is for those that are waivering in their spirit, aren't comfortable with knowing that all is in good hands, not ready to surrender and allow.

To sin is to miss the mark, not hit the target, not live upto your full potential...Jesus stumbled along this path often, part of his growth in spirit realizing his eachness of the allness, his expression of truth.

I follow that stumbling path gladly, making my mistakes along the way and learning from them. Learning that anytime I act out of ego, earthly things happen, but anytime I allow my higher self, my connection to all come thru, things that are not of this realm happen...the waters are stilled during a storm, and perceptions change instantly...G-d is good!

Are u saying that Jesus sinned?

 

[flowperson]

He was human and all humans sin and miss the mark. The Bible stories of the NT are just that and nothing more.

They indicate His presence in history and perhaps something of what He did/does...nothing more. They are not history. And IMO anyone who enters into total acceptance of bible verses as historical fact is living in a fantasy world. All fantasies finally end and that/those created world(s) collapse and are replaced by new and meaningful interpretations in view of contemporary standards and mores.

So what I have come to rely upon are the facts that He was probably once here with us and continues to make the world a better place through the basics of what He taught us about what it is to be truly human. Anything beyond that tends towards fantastical speculation and does not lend itself to total investment of belief on my part. I find that I can no longer take that emotional risk based upon what I have learned, and continue to learn, about the world.

flow....

 

[Paladin]

He was human and all humans sin and miss the mark. The Bible stories of the NT are just that and nothing more.

They indicate His presence in history and perhaps something of what He did/does...nothing more. They are not history. And IMO anyone who enters into total acceptance of bible verses as historical fact is living in a fantasy world. All fantasies finally end and that/those created world(s) collapse and are replaced by new and meaningful interpretations in view of contemporary standards and mores.

So what I have come to rely upon are the facts that He was probably once here with us and continues to make the world a better place through the basics of what He taught us about what it is to be truly human. Anything beyond that tends towards fantastical speculation and does not lend itself to total investment of belief on my part. I find that I can no longer take that emotional risk based upon what I have learned, and continue to learn, about the world.

flow....

Hi flow,

Are you talking about the disilluson you once felt?

 

[flowperson]

Hi Mark:

Yeah...I guess that you could say that I entered Christianity without an agenda and then found one. After my involvement in the world of science, I found that I could no longer accept many of the NT and OT stories without some reservations. If one has reservations then I guess he/she could be called an agnostic. Besides, I have found knowledge in other religions that makes as much sense of the world as Christianity does.

It started when I read a lot of Elaine Pagels and found that Gnostic beliefs comported more with the rational secular world that I most actively participated in than did biblical stories, although one can stretch them to fit with some of the things going on now in computing and quantum physics. Then I asked the critical question of why Gnostic beliefs had been so viciously banished from the realm of Christian belief when it was clearly a path that was there from the beginning ? I have never received a satisfactory answer to that question from anyone, and it appears to me that it all happened merely because of political expediance in Constantine's era.. Mythos is satisfying up to a point, and then reality must be explained and accepted for me to become involved in a belief community.

But you see in the end, traditionalists just will not allow any such stretches when all is said and done. Disillusionment might not best describe it. Although I consider myself to be a Christian, it is a brand of belief that is not familiar to most churches I suppose.

flow....

 

[Paladin]

Flow,

Your path has of necessity been a courageous one, there are many who would turn away from Christianity alltogether, but because of your love you see in it what is pure and perfect and leave out what, simply put, is not. I admire you for that.
I would like to go back in time to the council at Nicea and listen to the arguments for what was kept and what was not. I would like to think that in addition to just gleaning political power that a certain altruistic(though perhaps skewed) attempt at unification for the betterment of man became the engine behind the editing of the many 1st and 2nd century Christian ideas.

Peace
Mark

 

[flowperson]

Mark:

I would agree with your take on the negotiations at Nicea. If we could travel back there it would probably be a lot like today in most parliamentary bodies around the world. There is giving and taking, and when both sides are satisfied with what has been risked and gained, then a compomise is reached that resolves the conflict.

Yes it has supported the growth and spread of civilizations throughout the past 1,700 years, but it is becoming more aparrent that an analogous situation has arisen again, IMO. The United Nations is likely the only forum where such issues might be resolved today, but of course that is a secular forum when much of the conflict rampant these days is belief oriented in nature.

I don't know where the answers lie, but they are buried in the hearts of men and women like you and I, and few of us have any real influence to affect proposals and outcomes these days, unless of course we have lots of money perhaps. I think we should turn the issues of belief over to the chief Imams, the Dalai Lama, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Ecumenical Patriarch, some sort of supreme council of belief. Perhaps together they could reach reasonable consensus and influence secular outcomes somehow.

As far as my being courageous goes, I don't know about that. I live my life day to day like everyone else. I get up in the morning, put on my clothes, go to work, come home, sleep, and then get up and do it all over again the next day. I guess there are times when keeping a sane routine in an insane world is sometimes courageous, but I'm really no different than anyone else in that regard.

But thanks Mark....flow....

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, All!

I commune with G-d right here, right now. Prayer to me is two fold...a. every thought, subconsciously or consciously is a prayer which spirit hears and acts upon in one way or another...so in that case I, we all pray unceasingly,

Awesome, I agree! I would add that when I do "ask," I ask that His will be done, not mine. In other words, if what I seek is not in His will, I don't want it.

b. the other form of prayer, the beseeching, begging, oh I'm not worthy type of prayer, or the oft, if you'll only_________ then I'll_________forever... I'm not in for.

Bingo! I've got issues with the "name it and claim it" bunch too. "I'm one of the chosen, so I can bind and loose as I will, 'cause the Bible says so..."
Talk about misinterpretation and memetic bastardization of half verses out of context...sheesh!

To sin is to miss the mark, not hit the target, not live up to your full potential

Bullseye! Pun intended.

Jesus stumbled along this path often, part of his growth in spirit realizing his eachness of the allness, his expression of truth.

Not sure I agree here, but I can go along for discussion.

He was human and all humans sin and miss the mark.

In fairness, I find myself torn on the issue of Jesus at many turns. On this though, I'm afraid I lean towards a bit different understanding. Jesus took on or bore / beared all human sins, as scapegoat and sacrifice, not that he himself was "sinful." He could not fulfill sacrificial requirement had he been simply another sin"full" human. His was another day and age, and a different cultural paradigm. I find so many that try to transpose him into a modern context even when contemplating the historical person. Some dare to consider Jesus as no more than a "common" man and even dare equate themselves to him. At the very least, he was an exceptionally uncommon man.

Now, if what you imply is true, and herein lies my struggle, then the sacrifice of Jesus is either meaningless or untrue. Further, and much more importantly, the resurrection did not happen, and the promise of afterlife is a lie. Consequently, for a Christian, doubt is cast upon the entire Bible (certainly the whole of the New Testament). The implication is that Christianity is built upon a false pretext...and I fail to understand how something like Christianity could succeed so well for so long if it were built upon false pretext...unless G-d does not exist.

See where I am going with this?

They indicate His presence in history and perhaps something of what He did/does...nothing more.

Here, I must politely disagree. The Gospels and the New Testament are much, much more. If morality is not to be considered, what is the point of any of it? Further, what is the point of any religion?

They are not history. And IMO anyone who enters into total acceptance of bible verses as historical fact is living in a fantasy world. All fantasies finally end and that/those created world(s) collapse and are replaced by new and meaningful interpretations in view of contemporary standards and mores.

Ah, how often we are reminded: history is written by the victor. Again, cultural paradigms...

So what I have come to rely upon are the facts that He was probably once here with us and continues to make the world a better place through the basics of what He taught us about what it is to be truly human. Anything beyond that tends towards fantastical speculation and does not lend itself to total investment of belief on my part. I find that I can no longer take that emotional risk based upon what I have learned, and continue to learn, about the world.

That's fine, and it is certainly your perogative to interpret the matter as you are capable of understanding. I do not wish in any way to take from that. All I am saying is that the end result of such reasoning undermines and erodes what the man Jesus symbolizes, or has come to symbolize. If it proves to be unfounded mythos, then it is a horribly cruel trick of the Almighty (which I find incredible to believe) or the Almighty doesn't exist (which personal experience leads me to doubt). Therefore, in my view, there must be some foundational truth to the mythos surrounding Jesus. How much, I cannot say. But I seriously doubt he was "just" another man who had a unique (and charismatic) soapbox message.

Yeah...I guess that you could say that I entered Christianity without an agenda and then found one. After my involvement in the world of science, I found that I could no longer accept many of the NT and OT stories without some reservations. If one has reservations then I guess he/she could be called an agnostic. Besides, I have found knowledge in other religions that makes as much sense of the world as Christianity does.

Strange as it may seem, I can sympathize with this. I often wonder if I am a closet agnostic. Yet I can also see where other religions point to the same end goal, the peak of the mountain, the top of the tree, and have since ancient times before history. Therein lies another quandary...if this whole Jesus / religion thing is a cruel hoax, why is religion such a pervasive industry across humanity? If there is no G-d, why have people been seeking Him since before they became agricultural and "civilized?" Why seek for a non-existent something when you haven't the luxury of frivolous pursuits?

I suppose one argument that could be laid is that Jesus and Christianity do not represent the whole of religious industry, and I would have to agree. But it mistakes the point...if religion in general seeks to some "definition" or "essence" or "image" or "understanding" or "concept" of a "source / wellspring / Creator," and that Creator (I use the monotheist terms here) does not exist, the implication is that the whole world is mad / insane from time immemorial.

In other words, the pervasiveness of the religious industry reaching back as far as prehistory suggests that G-d, in some manner, exists, whether by that particular name or not. Ergo, G-d exists by preponderance of circumstantial evidence. And I seriously doubt that G-d, in whatever manner s/he exists, would allow a frivolous conspiratorial lie to continue to exist for nearly two millenia. Perhaps this argument leans towards the logical fallacy of legitimacy by age, but I think closer inspection will reveal that the argument is not that Christianity is valid because of age alone, but that in combination with a G-d that must exist by preponderance of evidence, that there must be something of value to it, or G-d would not allow it to continue.

It started when I read a lot of Elaine Pagels and found that Gnostic beliefs comported more with the rational secular world that I most actively participated in than did biblical stories, although one can stretch them to fit with some of the things going on now in computing and quantum physics. Then I asked the critical question of why Gnostic beliefs had been so viciously banished from the realm of Christian belief when it was clearly a path that was there from the beginning ? I have never received a satisfactory answer to that question from anyone, and it appears to me that it all happened merely because of political expediance in Constantine's era.. Mythos is satisfying up to a point, and then reality must be explained and accepted for me to become involved in a belief community.

I mean no disrespect, but I feel like the focus here is in the wrong place. The focus here is on "I," rather than on what is (the "IS"). I call this "making G-d in our own image," as if G-d somehow must be made to conform to our predetermined vision of Him (as if He really could be in the first place). I find great irony in such pursuit. To the extent that this discussion can be made to follow logic and reason, this seems to me a fallacious view because the focus is misplaced. There is the error of the creation attempting to create the Creator, rather than the creation attempting to see the Creator as the Creator really "IS."

But you see in the end, traditionalists just will not allow any such stretches when all is said and done.

I can understand frustration with the power structures of the religious institutions...and that is a discussion I have laid out elsewhere. I would hope this does not conflate the matter with personal pursuit of religion. Institutional religion aids and abetts (abbotts? ) the personal pursuit of religion, but is by no means mandatory or necessary. One can, given the proper gifts (intuition, prescient vision, sixth sense, whatever), pursue G-d without institutional religion at all. One may dare point to the historic shaman, and suggest that is the point where the institution of religion is most pure and Holy.

Although I consider myself to be a Christian, it is a brand of belief that is not familiar to most churches I suppose.

This is a sentiment I very much share.

Your path has of necessity been a courageous one, there are many who would turn away from Christianity alltogether, but because of your love you see in it what is pure and perfect and leave out what, simply put, is not. I admire you for that.
I would like to go back in time to the council at Nicea and listen to the arguments for what was kept and what was not. I would like to think that in addition to just gleaning political power that a certain altruistic(though perhaps skewed) attempt at unification for the betterment of man became the engine behind the editing of the many 1st and 2nd century Christian ideas.

I am hoping our valiant volunteers who have stepped forward to view the museum exhibit in Washington DC will bring back some juicy tidbits to chew on to add to this discussion. Perhaps we will find evidence of manipulation of the texts, perhaps we will find evidence of "corporate corruption" amongst the power structures of the Christian institution. I did see the name Bart Ehrman listed among those contributing writers submitting write-ups for the museum, the well-known (in certain circles) theology prof (from Chapel Hill N.C. I think it was).

Even so, I still question how or why a benevolent G-d would allow something based on a lie to continue if it held no value. Unless G-d is not benevolent, is impotent, or does not exist, none of which seem very likely to me.

Myth does not necessarily equal false.

 

[Paladin]

Myth does not necessarily equal false.

<paladin bows deeply to Juan>

Absolutely kind friend, and because I hold this to be true I think there are possibilities behind our arguments of black and white that would give us shades of colour beyond what we could imagine now.
A well put together argument is only considered so because it is arguable. But what does this mean? What are we to know, and how shall we live?
I had an experience years ago that literally tore away everything I thought I knew. My faith was torn apart, pride crushed, understanding fled from me leaving me bereft in a desert place. After that, really bad stuff started to happen.
Although I am not trying to evoke pathos here, my point is that a deeper understanding of what hypostatic union really is in relation not just to Christ, but to all of us might give us a clue as the truth of His sacrifice.
Understand I do not set myself up as one who understands, but I feel a deep blankness in regard to these truths that has yet to be revealed.
I don't remember the author of the saying;
I once saw a tree as a tree, a mountain as a mountain and a river as a river...

Something tells me that our best understanding is like that. Maybe on a large scale, even after these last two millennia Mankind is only now as a group ready to enter the "Dark Night" and only our arrogance slows the pace.

Peace

Mark

 

[flowperson]

Mark and Juan:

I absolutely agre with you both on mythos. It is not false, and as I have stated elsewhere here, it is built around kernels of truth in such artful fashion that it becomes a focus for the long-term beliefs of cultures. But things are changing as we write to each other.

People now demand proof. They now demand rational explanations. They demand to know what really happened. And if things cannot be rendered as such, then the facts are spun and manipulated to suit the desires of the powerful and deceitful. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing or acceptable by any means, but it is increasingly what is.

That sort of approach takes all surprise, imagination, and blissful romance from life over the long term. That is something that I do not embrace...but it is increasingly a fact that with each generation more and more people view life as the former and not the latter. For some life becomes more of a game to be manipulated and exploited, rather than a series of inspirational stories to cushion the bumps and tears of surprise and spontaniety that real life brings to us all, whether joyful or sad.

Emotionally I tend towards tradition, rationally I tend towards scientific reason for guidance. It's like many of us are slowly being torn in half emotionally and psychologically. I believe that we all must be courageous in our own ways to contend with that.

flow....

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards to both Paladin and Flow!

I haven't time for an appropriate response just now, I will return to this soon I hope.

I did want to say Thank You to Paladin, your praise means a great deal to me.

Flow:

But things are changing as we write to each other.

Quick observation; because it is happening among humans doesn't mean it should. If I may return to the "make G-d in our own image" thought, just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it "right." Unless one is a lemming, or a bridge jumper. Besides the inherent irony in recreating G-d, as if it were truly possible. I can leave the door open far enough to allow that Jesus may not be G-d, but that does not negate the viewpoint of G-d as He is, rather than as we desire Him to be.

 

[Paladin]

Hmmm, I might be way off here, but didn't the Eastern Orthodox church practice a type of Hesychasm in which the mind is brought into the heart in a deep spiritual exercise?
And I think Buddhism's six syllable mantra (Om Mani Padme Hum) does this as well.
Perhaps at some point the heart and head aren't mutually exclusive after all, and I further suppose that people will tire of purely scientific approaches to understanding the reality of the universe as it is.
Remember John Naisbitt (sp?) and his book Megatrends in which he described the High Tech High Touch theory?

Peace
Mark

 

[seattlegal]

Hmmm, I might be way off here, but didn't the Eastern Orthodox church practice a type of Hesychasm in which the mind is brought into the heart in a deep spiritual exercise?
And I think Buddhism's six syllable mantra (Om Mani Padme Hum) does this as well.
Perhaps at some point the heart and head aren't mutually exclusive after all, and I further suppose that people will tire of purely scientific approaches to understanding the reality of the universe as it is.

The point where the heart and head meet is often referred to as the conscience, which can be cultivated and trained, or it can become seared to insensitivity through repeated rationalization (justification) of committing hurtful acts. (See Romans 2, especially verses 13-16.)

Remember John Naisbitt (sp?) and his book Megatrends in which he described the High Tech High Touch theory?

Peace
Mark

Anything like Scientology's techniques of "searing the conscience?"

 

[earl]

Hmmm, I might be way off here, but didn't the Eastern Orthodox church practice a type of Hesychasm in which the mind is brought into the heart in a deep spiritual exercise?
And I think Buddhism's six syllable mantra (Om Mani Padme Hum) does this as well.
Perhaps at some point the heart and head aren't mutually exclusive after all, and I further suppose that people will tire of purely scientific approaches to understanding the reality of the universe as it is.
Remember John Naisbitt (sp?) and his book Megatrends in which he described the High Tech High Touch theory?

Peace
Mark

Hi Mark. Coming back to study a more contemplative Christianity out of a long study of Buddhism, I found I could relate to Christianity only via a nexus of hesychasm, Eckhart, and some of the wonderful gnostic gospels of Nag Hammadi-much there to overlap with Buddhist outlook and practice. I, too, tend to be skeptical as to the Nicean decision by committee, ("God so loved the world he didn't send a committee ") as to not embracing some of these gnostic writings-think it was primarily organizational politics given that the gnostic view tended to undermine the orthodox hierarchical and centralized view of Jesus-allowing more readily for building of a religious institution. You may find a number of interesting articles by James Cutsinger, professor of religion at U. of South Carolina, including this 1 re hesychasm at his site:

htp//:www.cutsinger.net/pdf/yoga.pdf

have a good one, earl