Grace and the Law

[Luce NDs]

The Gods (like Caesar) demanded cleanliness ... but Marie Antonito said the common people could eat cake ... which was probably translated from ancient Gael as choque ... a mud Pi ... everyone needs a ration of dirt (mire) to see what fallout and failure is like ... some need to repeat life ... and thus resurrection ... and the topic is up again ...

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

Perfection to me is not just at the cellular (and physical) level. And you described this well when you said "it isn't drinking from dirty cups or eating out of a dirty bowl that makes us impure it is the thoughts that are born within our hearts and minds.

The modern teachings say:
“The most important temples in life are the spirit, which must be fed with sincerity, the mind, which must be fed with honesty, and the body, which must be fed with right food. This will create harmony in mind, spirit and body.”

And so "perfection", it seems, is in the harmony or the syntheses between the spirit, mind and body. In the East, they called this process "polishing the mirror". This process was also described by the Master Jesus on the cross when He said "Thy will Father, not mine". Perfection, therefore, is a matter of alignment between spirit and the form (aka the "flesh").

If we, as mere humans, can even begin to align our words (our spirit), our thoughts and our actions, then we can begin to walk the path of perfection.

"Synthesis", says the Tibetan, "dictates the trend of all evolutionary processes today; all is working towards larger unified blocks, towards amalgamations, international relationships, global planning, brotherhood, economic fusion, the free flow of commodities everywhere, interdependence, fellowship of faiths, movements based upon the welfare of humanity as a whole, and ideological concepts which deal with wholes, and which mitigate against division, separation and isolation."
- from the AAB book The Rays and the Initiations

"Revelation concerns Oneness and nothing else. The practical nature of this truth is only recognised when the disciple attempts to do two things: To realise it individually and to bring the nature of planetary unity and of non-separateness to the minds and into the lives of men everywhere."
- Ibid

You may find this useful.

 

[chansen]

That's actually pretty clever, but whether new age or age old, it's all still just bulls**t if you can't back it up.

 

[Jaebius]

That's actually pretty clever, but whether new age or age old, it's all still just bulls**t if you can't back it up.

So anything is bulls**t chansen if it can't be backed up? What about joy? Hope? Aspirations? What about love?

 

[chansen]

So anything is bulls**t chansen if it can't be backed up? What about joy? Hope? Aspirations? What about love?

All wonderful things that are arguably important to every person. But they don't come with claims about a supreme being who is enough of a micromanager to provide instructions by proxy of things he really does or does not want you to eat/wear/have sex with.

 

[Jaebius]

All wonderful things that are arguably important to every person. But they don't come with claims about a supreme being who is enough of a micromanager to provide instructions by proxy of things he really does or does not want you to eat/wear/have sex with.

So it sounds like really you just think God's bulls**t. Things that can't be proven are okay in your book. Got it.

 

[Neo]

You may find this useful.

Ok, so you know that St Paul and St John and all those "old" guys who penned the New Testament were "new age" at the time, right? Do you even grasp the concept of the "ages"? That should be a thread in itself.

As far as the BS meter goes, it should be gaged using your own intuition, which is that upper part of the mind that has experience. Intuition sits atop of knowledge (where the proofs are based) and is the next level of awareness for humanity.

 

[Neo]

So it sounds like really you just think God's bulls**t. Things that can't be proven are okay in your book. Got it.

God is as real as the planet we live on. Like cells in a body, "we live and move and have our being" within Him. This is the science of aggregation, where the smaller always makes up a larger. We see it nature everywhere.

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

Don't wear it out!

 

[chansen]

So it sounds like really you just think God's bulls**t. Things that can't be proven are okay in your book. Got it.

You want to equate "God" with feelings and emotions. What I'm saying is that feelings and emotions just "are". They are a consequence of being alive. And now you're on the edge of your seat, ready to tell me how God just "is", but I think most people can see that this is a non sequitur - it does not follow. You've got a very specific being, from a very specific book, that you really want other people to believe in like you believe in him. In your corner, you have scary threats, fantastic claims, and a mix of good and dubious philosophy that isn't nearly as unique as you might pretend it is. For people who are not impressed by fear tactics and are skeptical of marketing claims, your God is just one more thing in this world that is of little consequence and can be safely ignored. I'm not so wired to completely ignore it, because I think the belief is potentially harmful, so I rather enjoy arguing against it and potentially chipping away at the credibility of Christianity. Plus, it's just a funny topic.

 

[revjohn]

Ok, so you know that St Paul and St John and all those "old" guys who penned the New Testament were "new age" at the time, right?

Wrong.

New Age is a term which is at best 60 years give or take.

Nobody was "New Age" during the time that the New Testament material was written.

Some gnostic writings were debated (and ultimately rejected). Gnosticism doesn't even qualify as New Age. Today's New Age has more in common with Blavatsky's 19th Century Theosophy.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

You may find this useful.

Haha! That's hilarious. Awesome.

PG13...Matthew 19:26? John 21:25?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Don't wear it out!

Haha! I'm in stitches you guys.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Wrong.

New Age is a term which is at best 60 years give or take.

Nobody was "New Age" during the time that the New Testament material was written.

Some gnostic writings were debated (and ultimately rejected). Gnosticism doesn't even qualify as New Age. Today's New Age has more in common with Blavatsky's 19th Century Theosophy.

I think neo means they were "new" for their time and were leading into a new era of religious thought - that was out of the ordinary for the mainstream of that time - not literally that the concepts involved were similar to what is called "new age" now. (I think)

 

[Luce NDs]

Is BS something without logos ... the God of wisdom?

Some thought, data and intelligence included as integral to the sum of filtering through it ... to extract wisdom vois-La ... with hope when immersed in a very emotional setting.

Look around at evidence for solutions to immediate satisfaction schemes without any work to turn it up ... abstract spatial hope?

Are we in an emotional elle ... or just Hellenistic state of scroo-win about with data on life ... including a lot of indeterminate stuff ... things that could chew you to death leading to that inside gnawing ... many people deny data and facts ... and wish as they dream ... isolated entities regarding base lines!

Sets the eternal into chimers ... the inside dirt on creation?

 

[Neo]

I think neo means they were "new" for their time and were leading into a new era of religious thought - that was out of the ordinary for the mainstream of that time - not literally that the concepts involved were similar to what is called "new age" now. (I think)

Yes, thank you Kimmio, that's exactly what I meant.

And it was also a fact that the new teachings then also occurred when the Earth was on the cusp between two ages, like it is now. Hence the "new age teachings".

 

[blackbelt1961]

Yes, thank you Kimmio, that's exactly what I meant.

And it was also a fact that the new teachings then also occurred when the Earth was on the cusp between two ages, like it is now. Hence the "new age teachings".

but but , there teachings were completely based on OT scripture , even Jesus Himself upheld them as is,, where as new age gives a different non bible meaning all the while using the title of Christ as a means of validation . I find deception in that

 

[Neo]

but but , there teachings were completely based on OT scripture , even Jesus Himself upheld them as is,, where as new age gives a different non bible meaning all the while using the title of Christ as a means of validation . I find deception in that

Most of the new age today is a re-clarification of the old teaching. Take the concept of Karma, a so called "new age" concept yet undeniably based on ancient scripture. "Reap what you sow" was simply a new way of explaining karma.

And could you please explain what "non-biblical" means without using the words doctrine or dogma? What you're really saying is that new age doesn't conform with the traditional interpretations of the Bible. Interpretations, many of which, that were instilled into an illiterate mass of people by a select group of elitists, many of whom were politically backed and supported.

 

[Neo]

And then there is the hypocrisy of the tradional take on astrology, another so called "new age" teaching. The Bible is chocked full of references to Astrology, even the Christ Himself was called the Lamb of God during a time when the Age of Aries was still so influential.

 

[blackbelt1961]

Most of the new age today is a re-clarification of the old teaching.

correction, a clarification upholds its original meaning , New Age evacuates original meaning then gives it a new meaning

Take the concept of Karma, a so called "new age" concept yet undeniably based on ancient scripture. "Reap what you sow" was simply a new way of explaining karma.

lets take Christ words, teaching on divorce, Jesus Clearly said in the beginning it was not so, but because of the hardening of your hearts ect ect

And could you please explain what "non-biblical" means without using the words doctrine or dogma?

I find this very comical since your New Age belief is domag and doctrine as well

many of which, that were instilled into an illiterate mass of people by a select group of elitists, many of whom were politically backed and supported.

no different than the many millions of people who follow New age today

Spiritual Truth is not subject to consensus of the masses