GlorytoGod
There is a River
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
what are you guys talking about ?
are you on topic or does it need another thread ?
are you on topic or does it need another thread ?
what are you guys talking about ?
are you on topic or does it need another thread ?
You seem to want answers reflecting different forms of self justification. I don't see the Holy spirit offering self justification.
Nick-A wrote:
Here is a standard definition of intellect:
Quote:
[T]he power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands,
as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one wills;
the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring knowledge.
Dear Nick,
The definition you offer clearly distiguishes between the faculties man lives by, yet, while it distinguishes, it in no wise posits the rational as superior to the volitional. It cannot, for man understands in order to do; comprehends what is true and good (for him) and thus, believing that it is true and good (for him), acts, that is, wills to do what is good and true, because he loves what is good and true (for him).
In short, man does (only) what he loves, and loves what he understands to be good and true, that is, his truth, which is according to his understanding. This constitutes his life.
Now, just as the natural sun provides trees with both light and warmth for proper vitality and growth, so man receives Light (in his understanding) and Warmth (affection in his heart, to will), to act on his understanding.
That is why the Spirit of Holiness ministers to both head and heart; as the Spirit of Truth, to give Light (enlightenment); as the Spirit of Love, to bring forth Good that is willed in love, for what is goodwill, good deeds, and charity, but love in action, according to the truths of faith (held in the understanding)?
In winter there may be quite enough light, but in the absence of sufficient heat, there is no growth, and if any life remains, it is hardly discernable. So it is with those who seek Light only; who revel in the delights of spiritual knowledge, yet their hearts are cold as stone or ice, with no love toward God and neighbor.
In order to bear fruit, love must act on truths understood, else no Good comes from it. Good has Truth as its form; it expresses itself in Truth, and in turn, Truth expresses itself as Good. Thus LOVE (the ultimate Good) is expressed in WISDOM (the ultimate Truth), and Wisdom expresses itself in Love.
The Spirit of Holiness is the Spirit of Christ, and "he who has not the Spirit of Christ has no part in Him," and is thus hardly a Christian. This is the Spirit who guides us into all Truth, to set us free with the liberty that is in Christ, so that we may freely Love (to will) Good.
Love and Wisdom are mere intellectual ideas and thus nothing, until acted on or given away.
Respectfully,
Learner
Mark 9:
23" 'If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes." 24Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"
But Christianity is not an intellectual exercise, nor should it be intellectualised ... then it becomes an abstraction. It ends up as s series of trick techniques, and an exercise in self-justification.Yes Christianity for me is intellectual.
Christianity is not dependent upon a quality of intellect. Love is not an operation of the intellect, but of the will.The trouble is that the intellect has become so devalued, society as a whole no longer values the quality of intellect necessary for Christianity but rather just glorifies associative thought.
Yes. God will stomach any offence, and never turn away ... but if you turn away from Him, then ...Do you really think that this just means "Sinning against the Holy Spirit is refusing the offer of Salvation."
That depends on who is saying what, and why. It's not for me to judge the hearts of men. I make assessments, but I may well be wrong.Does this mean that all that walk around condemning Christianity and the Holy spirit are guilty of eternal sin.
No I am not. I am concentrating on "the one thing needful". Attentiveness to the fact that we can do nothing without divine assistance is the first rule, but when 'attentiveness' becomes a technique, then I think the point of attentiveness has been lost.You are ignoring the purpose and value of attentiveness.
Again, I think this intellectualises the text, and misses the common sense point.Paul is describing an intellectual function that begins to discriminate between night and day...
I disagree. I think she lacked common sense. I think starving herself to death is evidence of that.It is the opposite. Simone acquired common sense through a quality of attention few are capable of.
Sorry, but that strikes me as intellectual posturing.You might think that Simone had too much head but not enough heart but she had a heart capable of the following: "Purity is the power to contemplate defilement."
We obviously have different values.Who in the church now has the necessary quality of heart to impartially do such a thing and without judgement? Yet she could.
Sorry Nick ... that does make me smile. Have you read Benedict XVI? Have you read his texts, in particular, that challenge the quasi-intellectual posturing of the West? His constant critique of Relativism? I think you lost sight of the church a long while ago ...The church has become oblivious of the nature and importance of the intellect.
people talking about the Holy Spirit....
It is more honest to admit ones lack ....willing to admit that they lose the Spirit...
we are the "wretched man"....
we know our fallen nature is our personal reality and provides the solid foundation of humility upon which someone can begin to become Christian..
"someone can begin to become a Christian"...and talk in the Holy Spirit...
Do you allow for the remote possibility of speech in the Holy Spirit?
Was it the Cure of Ars' intellectual prowess that made him "the doctor of all of France?"
Do not feel that you should answer, Nick, I know, you're looking for, and are more interested in people willing to admit that they lose the Spirit and pervert the idea of it.
Learner
Mrs. Schucman, co-author of "A Course in Miracles", who said "suffering did not exist" died a painful death from pancreatic cancer barely a year after publishing the book "A Course in Miracles". Schucman, a Columbia University professor and psychologist, was an acquaintance of Fr. Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R.. Fr. Groeschel gave a eulogy at her funeral. Fr. Groeschel wrote, "This woman who had written so eloquently that suffering really did not exist spent the last two years of her life in the blackest psychotic depression I have ever witnessed." Fr. Groeschel is a holy, practical, wise, no nonsense priest, and psychologist. During an October 1994 lecture on "Discernment" given at Holy Cross Church, Rumson, N.J., Fr. Groeschel stated that he believed that Helen Shucman's experience with the channeled "spirit" was possibly a true diabolic manifestation.
Matthew 12:
43"When an evil[f] spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation."
Hi Nick —
But Christianity is not an intellectual exercise, nor should it be intellectualised ... then it becomes an abstraction. It ends up as s series of trick techniques, and an exercise in self-justification.
Christianity addresses the whole person, but more than that, it addresses the person in relation ... to God, to one's neighbour ... to the world.
Christianity is not intellectual (although it can be, that is not all it is, however), it is relational.
Christianity is not dependent upon a quality of intellect. Love is not an operation of the intellect, but of the will.
Learning by example is far more powerful and dynamic activity.
But be that as it may, Christianity has consistently tried to preserve against the 'dumbing down' of the intellect, and got all manner of criticism for so doing ... as I do here, often.
Traditional Christianity = the illumination of the intellect.
New Age Christianity = associative thought, and novelty.
+++
Yes. God will stomach any offence, and never turn away ... but if you turn away from Him, then ...
That depends on who is saying what, and why. It's not for me to judge the hearts of men. I make assessments, but I may well be wrong.
No I am not. I am concentrating on "the one thing needful". Attentiveness to the fact that we can do nothing without divine assistance is the first rule, but when 'attentiveness' becomes a technique, then I think the point of attentiveness has been lost.
If we each and every one of us attended to the needs of our neighbour, without thought for ourselves, all would be well.
Again, I think this intellectualises the text, and misses the common sense point.
Don't get me wrong. I love that kind of stuff. Last night I was contemplating the inner meaning of Peter's release from prison by an angel — every word is dripping with symbolic import 'first ward', 'second ward', 'iron gate' ... but I never let myself forget the main point is ... the literal text.
I think Paul is saying what John says, in the Spirit we walk in the light, and out of it, we walk in darkness. And what is the Spirit? Love (1 John 4:8).
Read v11 of your own chosen text: "Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."
A bit more of that, and we wouldn't need to intellectualise anything. It would be as plain as day.
As John says ... how can you tell a Christian? Because they love one another.
We attend to what we love, and we attend to ourselves too much. Any discipline that causes me to pay more attention to myself, and less to God, is suspect.
I am suggesting the danger is shaping Christianity to suit my intellectual disposition, rather than conforming my intellect to the essential message of Christ which is love and service to God and one's neighbour ... humility and the will of God.
I disagree. I think she lacked common sense. I think starving herself to death is evidence of that.
Sorry, but that strikes me as intellectual posturing.
Love sees but does not judge, and sees beyond the defilement. Purity might see it. Love can heal it.
We obviously have different values.
I think Mother Theresa's simple act of picking up a dying man, of treating him with dignity, outweights every intellectual essay ever written.
And look how much we carp and criticise, judge and bemoan, ridicule and complain ... the enormous amounts of criticism she garnered, the insistence that her motives were this ... or that ... she didn't do this ... she should have done that ...
... but I don't see her critics getting off their own backsides to help anyone.
I think we should attend to the fact that three score years and ten is a twinkling in the scheme of things, we should get over our existential angst, and get on with doing something instead of intellectualising at length and actually doing nothing.
Sorry Nick ... that does make me smile. Have you read Benedict XVI? Have you read his texts, in particular, that challenge the quasi-intellectual posturing of the West? His constant critique of Relativism? I think you lost sight of the church a long while ago ...
Anything that makes 'doing' Christianity more complex than it need be, is barking up the wrong tree, in my book.
Thomas
No I am not. I am concentrating on "the one thing needful". Attentiveness to the fact that we can do nothing without divine assistance is the first rule, but when 'attentiveness' becomes a technique, then I think the point of attentiveness has been lost.
If we each and every one of us attended to the needs of our neighbour, without thought for ourselves, all would be well.
Again, I think this intellectualises the text, and misses the common sense point.
I am suggesting the danger is shaping Christianity to suit my intellectual disposition, rather than conforming my intellect to the essential message of Christ which is love and service to God and one's neighbour ... humility and the will of God.
I disagree. I think she lacked common sense. I think starving herself to death is evidence of that.
Anything that makes 'doing' Christianity more complex than it need be, is barking up the wrong tree, in my book.
Wrong, people should worry about what the DO, not who they are. If we do right, then we are right. Even bad folk can do right, and become right."People should not worry as much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctify our works." Meister eckharet
Wrong, people should worry about what the DO, not who they are. If we do right, then we are right. Even bad folk can do right, and become right.
What's worse than a bad man? A good man who does nothing to stop a bad man.
Coward's bane.
When it is love.How could attention not be an intellectual excercise?
You might not.We have no attention.
With love, it comes (super)naturally.Instead our attention is pulled through us by happenings in life. It takes real dedication to develop attention that IMO is vital not to become completely identified with external life.
It's called Eros. The will directed by the appetites. Desire directed by the will is called agape. Developed by self-discipline.You say that love is a function of will but we don't have will. Instead we respond to desire.
Then we hate ourselves.This is why we end up so often hating what we love.
Who is 'we'? You can speak for yourself, but not for everyone. I know a lot of Christians.Christianity says we must love our enemies but in reality we don't even love our friends which just shows how far we are from being Christian.
We hope ... not really our decision to make, though, is it? God could be the 'one wrong step and you're out' kinda guy, then where would we be?But as we are, one day we turn to God and away on the next. None of this is worthy of eternal sin.
Then again, you seem to assume your ignorance is general. It might not be.Again, we have no idea of what sin against the Holy spirit means and it is probably better for us that we are ignorant.
You're very judgemental, aren't you? A little charity wouldn't go amiss.The point of attentiveness is to remain attentive. We see that we cannot be attentive. The question than is how to be attentive without thought of egositic gain and not worry about use of techniques.
Nope, you're wrong. You'd be 'God intoxicated', like Eckhart.You would be a slave lacking inner aspiration. Since when is a willing slave without aspiration a good Christian?
No. They're the objectives. The essence is love, which makes the objectives possible (and without love they are, intellectually, impossible).What is the common sense point? The essence of Christianity is personal re-birth into the New Man and access to the kingdom. The secondary purpose is salvation from being asleep in the body of christ.
Loving one person doesn't count. Jesus said that. Loving one's friends is a doddle. Loving one's enemies is the tough bit.Hitler and his wife loved each other. Are they good Christians?
Rebirth in the Spirit ... of Love ... I'm not sure you understand Christianity at all.Again, the essential message of Christ is re-birth. Imagining that we love doesn't help.
Nor a Christian?True, it is why I'm not Catholic.
Not really. Her self-sacrifice achieved nothing. His achieved everything.She didn't starve herself to death but If you think that is bad, Jesus volunteered to hang on the cross. Talk about a lack of common sense.
So, how does this fit the end of her life. She was really sick - TB. They had collapsed the lung and it did not good at all. The dr. wanted to do it again. She refused [what today would be call the 'right to refuse treatment' - especially fruitless treatment. He got mad that she would not just acquiesce [like any patient, especially woman was expected to do] and so when she died he signed the death certificate that she died as a result of self starvation.
Here is where Pretrement comes in...documents the testimony of her nurse, some friends who would bring food in etc. Even goes to her confessor, 2nd doctor etc. Now, I have had some friends who have died and almost none of them wanted to each anything near the end...cancer, TB etc. there is a natural loss of appetite. So, I do not want to include all that in the encyclopedia article but want to put it out here for consideration.
Simone Weil's life and work has played a big part in your life. Could you perhaps, give us a brief anecdote to end with?
Don't be so quick to condemn what you don't immediately understand. It is safer to say simply "I don't know" and leave the question open.Well, here is an astonishing story. Though it has to do with Simone's after-life, am not making this up. I tell it because it has illustrative value.
A man had a dream... He dreamt that he entered into a building, took an elevator up to the top floor, where he found a door and pushed the buzzer. Upon being invited to enter, he walked across an apartment and reached a room where he saw a large table at which someone was seated, who looked as if she might be a scholar.
"You must know many languages", he told her.
"Where I am, we speak only one language", she answered.
At this point, the man woke up. The language in question he guessed to be that of love.
Some time later, after he discovered the writings of Simone Weil, he made by telephone an appointment with Mrs Selma Weil (Simone's mother), and proceeded to number 3, rue Auguste Comte in Paris. When he came to the building, he recognized it. And he entered the very elevator he used in his dream, reached the same floor, saw the same door, walked through the same apartment and came to the same room, where stood the same table. On the wall, he noticed a photo which was that of the very same person he had seen in his dream. The books of Simone Weil he had read had not been illustrated. Thus he saw there for the first time the features of the person he had met in his sleep.
Since this story was told to me by the man himself, a reverend and furthermore a psychiatrist, and "there are more things in heaven and earth" than our philosophy can think of, I did not doubt his tale. He is dead now, but I hesitate to mention his name. The gist of the matter however is that this story brings home a point which was made by Pascal: "C'est le coeur qui connait Dieu." "It is through the heart that we know God". And, may I add: "And everything else also."
Quite.No. I've never discussed my primary sources.
And yet he stands for the one thing she stands against.However I do know how much Simone reminds me of Meister Eckhart ...
Well that's a twofold answer:Does anything make Christian love unique IYO?
No, it's in the Greek lexicon. As a term referring to the Trinitarian circumincession, however, it transcends all other determinations.Agape is not restricted to Christianity?
Yes, and an experience which is shared by others.Is this your experience?
By which I assume you mean catechumens? Once Baptised, one is Christian. How well one lives it, is another matter.I know very few Christians though many pre-Christians.
That's a pity.My experience is that even men and women in marriage love and don't love each other. It is the same with friends accept they are not around as much.
Utter rubbish. No Christian has ever said, or will ever say, they have mastered Christianity. To do so implies equality with God.True but a Christian has mastered Christianity.
Again, I think you're introducing unreal intellectual technicalities. Find me a doctor or a lawyer who says he knows everything there is to know about medicine or the law.A doctor has mastered medicine. a lawyer has mastered law. Students of law and medicine are not lawyers and doctors. A student of Christianity is not yet a Christian but a pre-Christian.
It is only in the Spirit that we know the Son.How do you differentiate between words against the son of man and speaking against the Holy spirit?
Then you have reject the Spirit first, because the Spirit prepares the way for Jesus.You could reject god's love by rejecting Jesus.
And yet the robber on the cross was worthy of paradise. So was the publican in the temple. So was the widow outside it.No. there is more here but I believe it requires a quality of understanding only a few have. Only a few could be worthy of either heaven or hell.
No ... He was asking them to demonstrate their love for Him.Do you really believe that when Jesus was reminding the disciples to stay awake he was asking them just to love one another?
Yet you choose to freely criticise the Church. You may well understand Weil, but I am saying neither she nor you understands the Church.Don't be so quick to condemn what you don't immediately understand. It is safer to say simply "I don't know" and leave the question open.
You are quite unique in your perspective on this interfaith forum, in considering me, not to be a Christian.You are not Christian. Why try to criticize profound Christian depth without first trying to understand it?
That's one way of looking at it.The modern-day organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses has remained sensitive to the leadings of God’s holy spirit for well over a century now.
Sadly, many misguided souls convince themselves that the voice they hear is God's, and not simply the voice of their own desires ..."Our Lord’s assurance," said Russell, "is that . . . the holy spirit of the Father, sent on account of and at the instance of Jesus our Redeemer, Mediator and Head, will be our instructor."
Actually, Rutherford got rid of them. The society lost 75% of its membership as Rutherford took control.These sincere Bible Students continued to take in the pure waters of truth from the Bible and proclaim them worldwide.—Revelation 22:17.