The Christian Downfall ---The Error Of Balaam

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Kimmio said:
Thanks. I should change it. Hard to take that goofy mug seriously.

And by agnostic...I can't know with any scientific certainty, of course...but I believe in God and in peace, a God of Peace...and nothing can convince me that God wants us to hate. And too much religious dogma encourages hate and judgment against people who do not follow the same dogma...that's not mine to make. So, I have to just say, ultimately, I can see where good is in the world, and that is where there's people helping, and not hating, people. And that's enough. And that's what motivates me.
Click to expand...
Amen .....
Kimmo ... I really appreciate your posts....
Hugs
Rita
 
The judgment even happens in the liberal Christian institutions. I had someone tell me I was a bad Christian because she asked me to do something I wasn't able to do for her, to take on a job for her. I needed her help to understand me as much as she needed mine to understand her...and so instead of working that out (we were probably both right and wrong for certain reasons), she called me a bad Christian. Like a weapon. So, things like that trouble me when we start putting labels on people and stop seeing the people for themselves.
 
GeoFee said:
Hi revsdd...!

Threads jump a bit as time passes. Let me take a step back.


As Paul notes: Not that we have already obtained, but we so run that we may obtain; something to that effect.

I suspect you have two categories labelled Christian. One which is conformed to Christianity and one which is born from above. You have the latter in mind when stating that all Christians are in the process of transformation by the Holy Spirit. Is this assumption correct?

I am aware of the Spirit's presence and activity in and through many called and equipped persons in the earth. I do not see much indication of this counter-cultural perspective and initiative in the Christian institution. What I see is a consensus of conformity shaped by interests and powers at substantial variance with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

You suggest that I apparently do not see the fruits of the spirit. By what indications?

George
Click to expand...

Apologies for the delay in replying, George. It's been a busy week - and it's only Wednesday.

My interpretation of your words: "This being the case, might we not expect our time and place to overflow with the fruit of the Holy Spirit? Is that what we see?" was that you were suggesting that you don't see the fruits of the Spirit being displayed in much abundance. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

I also draw a distinction between Christian persons and Christian institutions, and I generally believe that the fruit of the Spirit will be displayed through persons and not institutions. Hopefully the institution will nurture those persons and cause them to burst forth with fruit. Many do. But, ultimately, institutions usually fail in that regard because institutions (Christian or any other faith, religious or secular) are among the principalities and powers that draw us away from God. Ultimately, they make us serve them rather than God and neighbour. The institutional church is as much a principality or power as any other. It forces us to serve it, in a sense. It may be a necessary one since we are, of course, not to neglect to assemble together according to the Book of Hebrews, and once people assemble together they inevitably create a structure or institution. Then we wear ourselves out serving it rather than refreshing ourselves in the service of God and neighbour. We become fixated on the institution's health and well-being at the expense of living out the gospel. We're seeing that in the United Church right now. God bless the task force that's working on reforming the structures of the church (I can't even remember what it's called off the top of my head) but in my opinion anyone who believes that structural reform is going to help us live out the gospel better is naive. It's just going to give us a different structure to serve. And I don't even think that's cynical. I think it's just realistic. The United Church of Canada is among the principalities and powers; it's convincing us to serve it rather than God and gospel; it's sapping our energy trying to keep it afloat. That's just reality.

Most people, when they think of the "principalities and powers," think of demons and other evil spiritual beings. I think they're the institutions of the world (from the little local Christian congregation to nation states to the huge multinational corporation) that inevitably set themselves up in place of God. I was very heavily influenced in my thinking on the principalities and powers language by Charles Campbell in a book called "The Word Before The Powers: An Ethic Of Preaching."
 
Awhile back I posted about a new model being done in Seattle - a bringing together of a Christian mission and secular groups/ projects. And I thought it was cool (pardon the word cool, but I did) because it just seems so much more of a natural, unforced, way for human beings to come together and work together for common good. However if it became a model that was replicated and over-organized and instituted, like someone putting their McStamp on it and franchising it, that would then diminish the whole point.
 
revsdd said:
Apologies for the delay in replying, George. It's been a busy week - and it's only Wednesday.

My interpretation of your words: "This being the case, might we not expect our time and place to overflow with the fruit of the Holy Spirit? Is that what we see?" was that you were suggesting that you don't see the fruits of the Spirit being displayed in much abundance. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

I also draw a distinction between Christian persons and Christian institutions, and I generally believe that the fruit of the Spirit will be displayed through persons and not institutions. Hopefully the institution will nurture those persons and cause them to burst forth with fruit. Many do. But, ultimately, institutions usually fail in that regard because institutions (Christian or any other faith, religious or secular) are among the principalities and powers that draw us away from God. Ultimately, they make us serve them rather than God and neighbour. The institutional church is as much a principality or power as any other. It forces us to serve it, in a sense. It may be a necessary one since we are, of course, not to neglect to assemble together according to the Book of Hebrews, and once people assemble together they inevitably create a structure or institution. Then we wear ourselves out serving it rather than refreshing ourselves in the service of God and neighbour. We become fixated on the institution's health and well-being at the expense of living out the gospel. We're seeing that in the United Church right now. God bless the task force that's working on reforming the structures of the church (I can't even remember what it's called off the top of my head) but in my opinion anyone who believes that structural reform is going to help us live out the gospel better is naive. It's just going to give us a different structure to serve. And I don't even think that's cynical. I think it's just realistic. The United Church of Canada is among the principalities and powers; it's convincing us to serve it rather than God and gospel; it's sapping our energy trying to keep it afloat. That's just reality.

Most people, when they think of the "principalities and powers," think of demons and other evil spiritual beings. I think they're the institutions of the world (from the little local Christian congregation to nation states to the huge multinational corporation) that inevitably set themselves up in place of God. I was very heavily influenced in my thinking on the principalities and powers language by Charles Campbell in a book called "The Word Before The Powers: An Ethic Of Preaching."
Click to expand...

My impression is that you and George aren't really that far apart afterall.
 
blackbelt1961 said:
I wouldn't call Him energy , energy can not do other than what its characteristics are and based on them we can accurately predict outcomes, nor can we grieve energy , energy has no feelings, no self hood, no will, it cannot create, it cannot comfort or edify, it cannot guide or teach, nor can energy give Life .

what Jesus was and is , is Divinity Incarnate , Life itself
Click to expand...
You say that energy "cannot comfort or edify, it cannot guide or teach, nor can energy give Life". Is energy not present in the one who is comforts and edifies and the one who guides and teaches? And isn't God described in the OT as a "Consuming Fire"?

Energy can transform into any shape or form. It doesn't have to be the soulless and purposeless energy of today's science.
 
Thoughts and feelings are energy...in a material sense they can only be measured by their interaction with our bodies (I'm no scientist- I guess i mean measuring physiological response)...but in the spiritual sense, that is the energy that makes us who we are. So...thinking in abstracts (this can't be thought of in concrete terms)...if Christ is the Son of God, and we are in Christ and Christ in us...and as Son of Man, he is also one of us...then what is the difference between Christ and us (not talking about the historical Jesus - thinking in more abstract terms - bear with me)? ...and so next question- if we are one with Christ, shouldn't we bring about peace? So then, there's the Creator (the energy from whence we came) ...the Spirit (our conscience and our guide) ...and us ...and so the next question is why do we need any dogma at all? Why not just love one another?
 
Last edited:
Hi revsdd...

Time is an odd companion in this place. No need for apologies.

Whole hearted affirmation of your main paragraph. We are taken captive by secondary conditions and adrift of primary conditions. Were we to face and answer primary conditions we would find benefit sufficient to the survival and flourishing of our human being in and through the natural order.

I discern increasing evidence of the Holy Spirit moving over the face of our troubled waters. It appears in and through a dispersed aggregate of persons stepping out from subordination to the "powers and principalities". This stepping out sets into place a work of transformation (sanctification). We who so stepped out and are being so transformed are reaching what may be considered a critical mass.

A prophet once said, and continues to say, that multitudes are found in the valley of decision. There is a narrow way leading to survival and flourishing as there is a broad way leading to continued deterioration and final collapse. We will respond as sheep or goats; allowing resort to metaphor.

I wonder if the Comprehensive Review will take any notice of clericalism as a contributing factor in the shaping of our present state and trajectory? This is a perennial problem in the Biblical Canon as in the histories of Israel and the Church.

George
 
Neo said:
You say that energy "cannot comfort or edify, it cannot guide or teach, nor can energy give Life". Is energy not present in the one who is comforts and edifies and the one who guides and teaches? And isn't God described in the OT as a "Consuming Fire"?
Click to expand...

God is described as way way more that an Consuming fire


Energy can transform into any shape or form. It doesn't have to be the soulless and purposeless energy of today's science.
Click to expand...


energy with a conceous and will to move about uh, i think not, energy is a property of objects,

God is, God described himself to Moses as I am who I am,, God Himself refers to His being as a Who, not a what, energy is not a who
 
Last edited:
Name one thing, a what or a who, that is not some form of energy. If it's manifest in this Universe then it is made with energy.

The "Word" is an attempt to describe energy, but an energy with a divine purpose. It is energy that animates the Stars. All the energy of the Big Bang, the creation of science, still exists today. It cannot be destroyed.

The word spirit literally means breath, and breath implies the inhalation and exhalation of life, the cycles through which we exist. This movement is generated and perpetuated by energy.

There is not only no life without the forces of energy, there is nothing at all without energy. From the largest cluster of galaxies to the tiniest quark, there is energy.

If your definition of God includes the darkness and the void, then you may have a case. But wherever there is light, there is energy. Energy is the closest thing to which we can point to and say "this is God".
 
Neo said:
Name one thing, a what or a who, that is not some form of energy. If it's manifest in this Universe then it is made with energy.

The "Word" is an attempt to describe energy, but an energy with a divine purpose. It is energy that animates the Stars. All the energy of the Big Bang, the creation of science, still exists today. It cannot be destroyed.

The word spirit literally means breath, and breath implies the inhalation and exhalation of life, the cycles through which we exist. This movement is generated and perpetuated by energy.

There is not only no life without the forces of energy, there is nothing at all without energy. From the largest cluster of galaxies to the tiniest quark, there is energy.

If your definition of God includes the darkness and the void, then you may have a case. But wherever there is light, there is energy. Energy is the closest thing to which we can point to and say "this is God".
Click to expand...
Before anything was , energy included

God is
 
One form of energy transforms into another form of energy. Energy doesn't die, it changes. It is not just the 'property of objects' (I'm looking at my lamp that hasn't been turned on, for example), it's the thing that animates objects and moves them. I think spirit is type of energy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top