Encounter yesterday relates to Austen post (what Christ demands)

in stating your opinions or in disagreeing. You can see I disagree quite a bit. You said that humility is where you "attempt to post." My point was that you probably wouldn't need to say that if you were indeed advanced in humility.

I'm really tired now. Good afternoon.

Understood...

Again, have a great day.

I would like to offer these thoughts. The first is that there's an irreconcilable difference, to quote Barack Obama's Notre Dame speech yesterday, , between those who believe that there were early church teachings that were suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church, and those who believe that the early RCC got it right.

To me, it always comes down to canon formation and how I understand them to be formed. Basically, I believe that that early church used the texts that were already considered the most authoritative, not that they suppressed texts that a whole lot of people followed. I believe this partly because of my understanding of the history, but also because of the way that canons of literature form in general.

I also think that all of us have buzzwords that raise alarms for us. I particularly dislike certain terms used by evangelical Christians, and I try hard to get past them to sense what's going on beneath them. I think the same can happen with those who consider themselves orthodox, and those who believe they've retrieved a truer and more authentic Christianity that predates orthodoxy. Which I suppose brings me back to where I started, with the irreconcilable differences that have to be part of the discussion.

And this wasn't a critique, BTW--just a commentary!

is appreciated cradlerc. :-)

I do not know if I have any truer information than the next, I only know what I sense is right for me.

Isn't that what we all do?

I don't think my religion is only right for me, I actually believe it is right for everyone. It would be dishonest for me to say that I believe my religion to be just one path among many, when I profess every Sunday that I believe it is "the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic church."

This doesn't come from a sense of pride in my own intelligence or sense of rightness, but what has been my intellectul and spiritual assent to a set of arguments. It's not so much about me being right, but about my believing my church to be right.

Which means I also believe, to a certain extent, that other people have it wrong. At the same time, I'm interested in what other people believe, and I'm interested in places of overlap and of difference.

Having said that, I realize that this is what is off-putting about orthodox Christianity and orthodox Christians. And I'm not much for evangelization, I'm too cradle Catholic for that.

and I'd suggest that the most recent exchange illustrates another difference--between the "catholic" notion of truth (i.e., truth is universal) and the subjectivist notion of truth (i.e., if it works for me, it's true for me). But this could be like peeling an onion, because even the question of knowing whether it "works" for me is approached from totally different places. Which is to say, I'll know if my orthodoxy "works" for me sometime after I am dead; all I can say for sure now is that I believe it to be true and I appreciate the subjective sense of well-being it gives me, but it could both be false and giving me a false sense of serenity. It's not for me to say whether it works for me.

Human, I went back and read up on Ogiden. I didn't recall him being a Gnostic but, he was.

In reading your page, there are many commonalities with Traditional Christianity. A couple of the points on your page really resinate with me. For instance, when I think of the purpose of my own existence, the point is to move toward God. But, I don't do it because there is something in it for me, I do it because I am supposed to. I take the same attitude when trying to decide on the right thing to do, it is not for my benefit but rather I try to do the right thing for its own sake (and to serve God).

Now, my understanding of Gnostism was two things, that on this Earth we can be united with God (we don't have to die first) and, second, that union is only possible by having the correct knowledge.

So, you personally, is it your goal to have this union with God on this Earth? You obviously think this is possible but, how did you arrive at this being God's nature and He has this relationship to Man?

the eyes have it,
Sthil

Also, I trided to start this as a new thread, the forum could no post.

for the reply, if noting else, do I get points for the longer thread on the new forum so far?

In answer to your question, I have given my life over to God many years ago ( I pretty much did
even as a Catholic youth) and I live my life with the mindset that all I do is for God.

Am I prefect (yet) , no it won't happen in this lifetime itself, we are not designed physically and mentally
to be such. Austen pointed out that I do not portrait Humility, so there is one I need to work on.

As to experiencing God, I have had experience outside the Physical form and I do believe in the ability.
I have experience that which can only be described as Pure Loving Energy of which I learned we are made of.
But of course this is my subjective teaching so I cannot pass it on to you or anyone except as my thoughts on a page.

All I know and Feel is that God is Love and we are all part of God and worth Loving, if for nothing else, that alone.

If you are interested in my background, look into the Sant Mat Teachings (Light and Sound teachings).

This might be where our paths diverge. I had explored this viewpoint for a awhile. In the end it didn't seem True. I believe every human being has the potential to move toward God. That God's love, our love for God and our love for one another is all part and parcel of the relationship.

The differences may be whether God is an entity or a force. I believe him to be an entity. The other difference may be whether God is fully contained in the physical universe or if He is above and beyond the universe.

An analogy that struck a chord with me was comparing God's creation of the universe with a carpenter building a house. A carpenter does not "build" himself into a wall of a house he created. It is reasonable to believe that the creation reflects the attributes of the creator but, does not become part of His creation.

PS: I tried to start a new thread regarding Gnostism, it didn't work, I'll try again.