There are two paths for believers: “We have the truth, and we must firmly hold on to institutional positions so that they will not be removed,” or “We open ourselves to the transcendence of a new light in Christ, if we want to grow spiritually."
Nobody could say it any better! Thank you, for your voice crying in the wilderness.
I got to here.
And then things seemed to go sideways.
For whatever reason Jesus died and left us with nothing of himself or his gospel.
And he hasn’t spoken personally to anyone for over 2,000 years.
So for the believer the option is to try to decipher Jesus’ gospel by scrutinizing stories others have written about him.
Or one can cut out the middle man and connect directly with Jesus’ dad via the Holy Spirit, which I’m convinced is just another word for divine consciousness, and understand organically that our separation from the source of all that is was only ever an illusion.
As far as I’m concerned there is no better news, or gospel, than that.
You’re fighting too hard. There are many ways of communication.
Remember when I said I believe that if more is better then too much is just right?
IOW, I don’t think it’s possible to resist literalism enough.
(I get what you’re saying though, and don’t dispute that the Bible can serve as a gospel primer.
But any advanced student knows that book learning is not a substitute for OJT and that real knowledge always requires field work and can only come from real experience.)
Absolutely. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to live in the ambiguous world of the “spirit”,despite the fact that most of our life proceeds from the sub conscience. We get programmed early in life and the rest of what we learn and experience is an interpretation. To be “born again” is actually pretty miraculous and goes against common human experience.
I understand the life and death of Christ as necessary “morality play” for us humans who have a hard time with intangible concepts.
I haven’t seen any evidence to make me think the universe is necessary.
So the notion that anything needs to happen in a cosmos which is only optional seems immeasurably less than necessary.
With all due respect, would you recognize any such evidence?
There are so many analogies for this, like the blind men describing the elephant they can’t see; but I think about our state of affairs being similar to being born and reared on a tropical island outside of the shipping lanes. In that case, our descriptions of our universe would be just as valid as yours.
What evidence do you have that our creator was compelled to create anything?
Perhaps we are here because of our creator’s love for creating, or simply due to the fact that he, she or it gets bored when there is no physical universe.
But either of those conclusions-or the belief that we are created for no reason al all-is subjective and there is no empirical, evidence-based way to determine the universe’s “purpose” or prove that the existence of the cosmos is mandatory.
I love the idea of never being able to explore or understand the universe thoroughly, just as a blind person is only ever able to partially experience an elephant, as this means there will always be more experiences to assimilate. But my point is that there is no need to think that either the observed nor the observed needs to be.
When one realizes this, not as a only as a concept but an experiential fact, the pressure to experience life “correctly” is relieved and one’s existence, as well as the existence of the universe, instantly becomes infinitely more fun!
But they both are.
If I were to get a special plate for my car it would simply say “WHY”. The answer to that question, after any and every statement and mandate, tells you everything you need to know about the person issuing the opinion or, orders.
Who ever said the universe was “mandatory”? It’s here and we have to deal with it. “Why?” - who knows. Maybe it’s like my night shirt says, “SLEEP-COFFEE-REPEAT”. But you and I know there’s more to it than just survival. There are concepts like - love - fulfillment - beauty - happiness - relief etc.; and their opposites, that make life complex and exciting. We’re not smart enough to have come up with all that on our own. There is something that’s been included that makes us able to recognize our own reflection in a puddle of water. There is no logical reason to know that.
You said something to the effect that humans need the passion play.
I’m saying there’s no such thing as a “need” in a universe that doesn’t need to exist.
Admittedly, not all that profound unless one simply wants to take a step back, reduce the pressure a bit and enjoy life a little more.
I think the “To be or not to be” question is always open-ended.
We’re just playing with words here.
Look, early on we experience pain and pleasure. Once the pain goes beyond the superficial, we start asking questions. Science has proven itself by answering many of the difficult questions, but never answers the “why”. Life is a quest for the “why”. If you don’t care, then you’re on the level of a feather blowing in the wind - settling on the nearest thing in your way, waiting for the next puff of wind - boring.
Science tells us there is always a prerequisite - a why. Even if we can’t answer intelligently, doesn’t mean there is no answer - we just don’t have enough information.
I don’t see how advocating for more fun in life can be interpreted to mean “apathy”.
But again, it only goes to show how anything is possible when playing with words.
I don’t know Bruce, when I wake up at three in the morning, the thing that keeps me from going back to sleep is not wondering how I can have more fun .
The basic point of the article is true in that it’s difficult for any of us to accept a long held belief is wrong and adopt a new one. The Jewish nation including the disciples definitely struggled with this and so do we as modern adventists/Christians. I think as humans it’s just in our nature.
We have to constantly be surrendering to the Spirit and alllowing Him to guide us.
However, that doesn’t mean every doctrine we believe will one day be hanged and if we don’t accept constant revising of core beliefs it’s because we’re closed minded.
The below quote is absolute non-sense.
Blockquote
What does that mean? That I can discard the Bible and God will just speak to me directly? Jesus spoke about condemnation plenty of times, He spoke about judgment, the 3 Ángels message is the gospel but in light of the fact the judgment is at hand. Jesus clearly gave the scenario when He returns all will be gathered and separated as sheep and goats, which is judgment. Yes many go too far in this area but putting aside important topics that Jesus Himself spent plenty of time on is destructive.
And how exactly do we put aside the filter of the prophets? Everything written in the Bible is through the filter of whichever, prophet or scribe wrote it down. I’m not sure what that phrase even means. Even the portions of scripture that quote what Jesus said, or relayed what he did, were not written by Jesus himself. What the author is effectively arguing is that we don’t need the Bible to know God. We can know Jesus directly and independent of the entirety of scripture. And, although I agree, we can’t make gods out of our doctrines, putting a side the prophets is something Jesus never advocated for.
Even the quote the author uses about searching the Scriptures is evidence that Jesus wanted us to read the entire Bible and not “put aside “the prophets
Yes.
Jesus didn’t leave his followers with one word of scripture.
He sent the Holy Spirit.
In fact, it is only by relying on that direct source that one has any hope of sifting through scripture and all of the other data we perceive on a daily basis in order to make sense of our lives.
Quel dommage….
How do you know He left us the Spirit? Where did you get that idea?
I have heard this from countless sources and have verified it though every logical and spiritual means possible.
Are you saying your omnipotent god hasn’t told you this himself?
BTW, and according to your most reliable source, doesn’t it bother you that Satan quotes the purported words of god in both the OT and NT?
It’s from the Gospel of John, which I’d expect you’d be an expert on, given your support of the biblical text.
Here’s my proof-text. 
So there. Isn’t proof-texting fun?
That’s my point, Jesus didn’t write the Bible. However, you quote John to prove it’s the Spirit that guides us. But my question, and my point is: how can you know it’s the Spirit that leads us if you’re depending on scripture (which Jesus didn’t write) which was supposedly written by John.
I hope you can see the contradiction in your reasoning. You say the Spirit can lead us, but that idea comes from the Bible. So actually you are depending on the Bible for your beliefs.
So logically you cannot both believe in the Bible and simultaneously agree that we don’t need it because the Spirit alone is sufficient.
That’s why I disagree with the article because we can’t have a knowledge of the Spirit without a basis, the Word.