Burl

Spiritual formation is a skill, like learning to play piano. First you learn to find middle C. Then you learn scales and simple melodies, and move up as far as you are able. The piano of righteousness stays the same, but the piano lessons do get more and more demanding.

I am on a limited number of posts per hour here. Antispam defense grid. Women's right's, gay marriage, ecumenical cooperation . . . that's just the last half-century and you think are still waiting for the revelation of better version of morality since before the existence of homo sapiens? I think you are not at all serious and are just generating was absurd generalizations. Millions of years indeed. Get real, dude.

Chaos? Fractals maybe, but science has eliminated chaos as an explanation for creation. The chance of a single amino acid forming by chance was calculated by Hoyle (the astronomer, not the card sharp) and Wingrimshe (sp?) at over 10^e40. That is far beyond impossible in scientific terms. Life is not the result of chaos. To invert the second law of thermodynamics and have materiality which not only defies entropy but reverses it? Certainly chaos could not produce life. Free will? Absolutely. Some fatalists/predestinationalists feel it's is only an illusion but the Calvinist argument is lame. Yes, we can change the future. The skiier chooses how to tackle the mountan, and the surfer chooses how to ride the wave. The end result is predetermined, but free will is what makes the experience spiritual.

Look to life. Babies drink milk, then cereal, and more solid foods are introduced as they are able to physically handle them. The weakness of humanity is the issue. Adopting a moral code which fully realized God's righteousness would be like trying to drink from a firehose. Relevant Scriptural meditations are the six antithesese in Matthew 5 and the book of Romans in general.

I can agree with that. I see morality as fixed, but God in His mercy titrates his judgment and revelation to accomodate our moral evolution. Pretty much the same facts but a slightly different viewpoint.

No, you are not God. If you were, you would not need to ask questions. But if I am wrong and JosephM is God, please send me a pony.

Good one, Steve. The "path" analogy is common but inadequate. What we are all really seeking is deepening the experience of conscious contact with God by engaging every possible aspect of human existence. Sensation, intellect, emotion, love - spiritual formation is more like going to the gym than walking a path.

Jesus Christ is God, not an answer or a path to follow. There is no answer and there is no path because one is already in Christ. You too, JosephM. You are alive in Christ and you are alive in God. Whatever path your mind thinks you are on makes no difference because you cannot make a path to where you already are.

>>But, my real question here is "why, if accepted and adopted, do so few people practice it?" What is missing if this is a "universal"?<< Unsurprisingly, my answer is the denial of Jesus Christ and a God who works through society. Feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit the infirm and those in prison. No quid pro quo. "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.", Gilbert K. Chesterton

>>Take one of the many genocidal purges attributed to God in the OT.<< Here you are dealing with mythic history, the Israelite concept of holy war which cannot be political or have any booty retained, and the commanded destruction of the Nephilim and their non-human genotype. The context and content are both incredibly complicated. One book on this subject is promoted by our gracious hosts, and it would certainly take a book to cover the subject, but the fact that it concerns the extirpation of semi-human/demigod bloodlines leads me to dismiss it as irrelevant to everyone not hooked on watching 'Ancient Aliens' History Channel. Perhaps you could start a book study on that one? I think it is by John Crossen. I'll join in, but I don't want to lead it.

I don't see a quid pro quo in Matthew 7:12. Where do you find it?

I'm not debating, and I do enjoy your intelligent comments. Debate in Christian fora is a formal, classical debate between two persons in a sharply defined and limited structure. I'm not tacking any theses upon your church door. This was not meant as a personal criticism. I know what you post does not define who you are, and that you are not a bible scholar. I am making the point that one must respect the text exactly as translated when discussing English Bible. Mere prepositions are often critical to understanding, and if you ever wondered why 'non-progressive' Christians develop strange and superstitious ideas, it usually starts with a overly loose reading of the text. Are you aware of the 'pistis Christou' controversy? The entire understanding of Christian salvation hinges on the the interpretation of the word 'of'! In Koine Greek! It would Clintonesque if eternal life did not weigh in the balance. Small misreadings can have immense consequences, and an overtly Christian discussion board needs to be as textually accurate as possible. *** So, does Rabbi Hillel proclaim a universal morality? I believe he does. I also believe he infers God's will as the source of righteousness; righteousness being the missing concept in this conversation.

That is not what it says, and I do not accept your strawman argument. Obviously you are unable to deal with the text as written. Rephrasing and turning the text inside out just so you can fuss about it is invalid, and it is sophistry and is not criticism. But this a quibble within the overall discussion. The Golden Rule in one form or another is universal in almost all religions and in atheism. Satanists object, claiming 'Do what thy wilt shall be the whole of the law' but humanity in general has adopted this almost 100% as a moral and ethical standard.

Fun Friday post

What about the 'Golden Rule"? This is pretty close to being an objective morality. "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12

Ch. 4: More Doors for Future Generations TNH observes that both Christ and Buddha are doors to an immediately accessible God. He mentions that this view of an immediate access to the divine is supported by the gospel message, which is absolutely true. Mention of heaven is rare in Scripture, but the term everlasting life (which certainly includes present existence) is common. Biblical imagery is not of souls going up to heaven but of heaven materializing on earth. TNH has a better grasp of Christianity than many Christians.

American white gospel standard sung by the world famous Zulu Christian isicathamiya choir Ladysmith Black Mombazo. The eternal God is thy refuge & underneath are the everlasting arms. Deuteronomy 33:27

https://youtu.be/2qWxkPXpfIY

Agreed. A topic on the nature of time would be welcome.

Ch. 4: His Life is His Teaching TNH equates the recorded wisdom teachings of Jesus with Buddha. What impresses me is TNH recognition of the critical importance of Jesus' title "Son of Man". Scripture uses the term "Son of God" for many, but the term "Son of Man" is exclusive to Christ. So many Christians miss this, but TNH recognizes it immediately.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Kreeft & Tacelli.

No harm, no foul. Internet communications are a peculiar mix of written and conversational styles. Combine that with the way we project imaginary personalities onto each other and misunderstandings become the norm.

I thought this was a conversation, not a debate. I respect Islam and Muslims, and I get more and more uncomfortable going into detail about traditions which are not my own.

Paul, you are triangulating your main point, which was the progressiveness of biblical interpretation. You are being unnecessarily argumentative. I agreed with your statement that biblical interpretation was progressively relevatory. How much fuss do you want to make about a mutual agreement? Why are you turning an agreement into an argument?

CHAPTER FOUR: Living Buddah, Living Christ This is a lengthier chapter, and title of the chapter is the title of the book so let's read carefully and be precise. A reminder: this is a chapter by chapter discussion of this particular book and not a general discussion of meditation, Buddha or Jesus. Those are all excellent subjects for new topics but please try to stick to the book in this topic. Start a new topic if you are inspired to do so. If the names Christ and Buddha are not both in your post, you are likely to be getting off topic as the comparison of these two people is TNH subject.