Thought about Nontheistic Christianity

[Metacrock]

Christian mysticism isn't as rare as one might think.

It is rare in terms of being openly and explicitly embraced, although it is more acceptable today and growing in popularity (for example, Centering Prayer has crossed many denominational and even religious lines). It is certainly implicit in many writings and teachings, and it was a part of the Christian tradition for most of that tradition's history, but it got a bad rep a few hundred years ago and there was a purging of sorts in which certain forms of contemplative prayer and other forms of mysticism were modified or abandoned. Even St. John of the Cross fell under suspicion by the Inquisition. A skepticism and a bias towards mysticism in Chrisianity has persisted ever since. I am not the scholar on these things, so I refer to those who are for their accounts of Christian history, particularly within the Roman Catholic Church. But whether it is always explicitly acknoweldged or embraced, it is in a way a necessary aspect of a living tradition.

I'm not at all sure that I would not be able to remain faithful to just an ancient text or a set of doctrines, if I didn't have personal experience of God as well.

Probably the number one complaint of ex-Christians, which is why then the focus of the veracity of faith shifts to formal apologetics and logical debates about issues such theodicy.

The RCC has always been touchy about its mystics. Most of the time they made life hell for them, treated them like heretical dirt and tried to prevent the spread of their pracitices and beliefs. But for those who survived all that and accomplished something the chruch is very proud of them in their face to the world. They make them Saints, give them honors, name Universities and churches an monestries after them. But while they are alive, they are canon fodder. Its' like "don't try this at home."

Unfortunately most Christian mysticism has been monastic. There are exceptions,and there have been periods when mysticism was very popular in the church, in modern times. In the early 20th century, about 1910 to 1920s there was a blooming of interest in the mystics. Evelyn Underhill and Dean Inge and :Barran von Hugle are the heroic names of that era. In the 60's an d70s' it happened again. In these revivals mysticism moves out of the monetary and into mainstream boreois life. There have been a few Protestant mystics, not many. Johnathan Law (eighteenth century) was probably the greatest. Jacb Bhoema might also qualify but he is usually considered a heretic, (Renaissance). The Wesley Brohters and Servana Rola might just qualify.

[KR Wordgazer]

There have been a few Protestant mystics, not many. Johnathan Law (eighteenth century) was probably the greatest. Jacb Bhoema might also qualify but he is usually considered a heretic, (Renaissance). The Wesley Brohters and Servana Rola might just qualify.

Can we define Christian mysticism, then? I feel the presence of God and sense Him speaking to me on a fairly regular basis. Most of my friends would say the same. So would my children. Are we Christian mystics-- or do you have to be famous or "great"?

[tinythinker]

Christian mysticism isn't as rare as one might think.

It is rare in terms of being openly and explicitly embraced, although it is more acceptable today and growing in popularity (for example, Centering Prayer has crossed many denominational and even religious lines). It is certainly implicit in many writings and teachings, and it was a part of the Christian tradition for most of that tradition's history, but it got a bad rep a few hundred years ago and there was a purging of sorts in which certain forms of contemplative prayer and other forms of mysticism were modified or abandoned. Even St. John of the Cross fell under suspicion by the Inquisition. A skepticism and a bias towards mysticism in Chrisianity has persisted ever since. I am not the scholar on these things, so I refer to those who are for their accounts of Christian history, particularly within the Roman Catholic Church. But whether it is always explicitly acknoweldged or embraced, it is in a way a necessary aspect of a living tradition.

I'm not at all sure that I would not be able to remain faithful to just an ancient text or a set of doctrines, if I didn't have personal experience of God as well.

Probably the number one complaint of ex-Christians, which is why then the focus of the veracity of faith shifts to formal apologetics and logical debates about issues such theodicy.

The RCC has always been touchy about its mystics. Most of the time they made life hell for them, treated them like heretical dirt and tried to prevent the spread of their pracitices and beliefs. But for those who survived all that and accomplished something the chruch is very proud of them in their face to the world. They make them Saints, give them honors, name Universities and churches an monestries after them. But while they are alive, they are canon fodder. Its' like "don't try this at home."

Unfortunately most Christian mysticism has been monastic. There are exceptions,and there have been periods when mysticism was very popular in the church, in modern times. In the early 20th century, about 1910 to 1920s there was a blooming of interest in the mystics. Evelyn Underhill and Dean Inge and :Barran von Hugle are the heroic names of that era. In the 60's an d70s' it happened again. In these revivals mysticism moves out of the monetary and into mainstream boreois life. There have been a few Protestant mystics, not many. Johnathan Law (eighteenth century) was probably the greatest. Jacb Bhoema might also qualify but he is usually considered a heretic, (Renaissance). The Wesley Brohters and Servana Rola might just qualify.

I am not the historian of religion and Christianity that you are, but I got the impression from folks like Fr. Keating that the Church was much more open to mystical and contemplative traditions prior to the events such as the rise of the Jesuits or the initiation of the Inquisition. Would you say that was accurate?

There have been a few Protestant mystics, not many. Johnathan Law (eighteenth century) was probably the greatest. Jacb Bhoema might also qualify but he is usually considered a heretic, (Renaissance). The Wesley Brohters and Servana Rola might just qualify.

Can we define Christian mysticism, then? I feel the presence of God and sense Him speaking to me on a fairly regular basis. Most of my friends would say the same. So would my children. Are we Christian mystics-- or do you have to be famous or "great"?

There can be many answers to what mysticism is because of associations we have picked up concerning that term, but I have always been a fan of the late Brother Wayne Teasdale's definitions. Here is how he defined mysticism from an excerpt of an unpublished essay written after his two commercially successful books (which I personally think are great) and before he died [emphasis added]...

Mysticism is direct, or unmediated experience of Ultimate Reality, whether we mean by that term God, Spirit, the Tao, the Wakan Tanka of the Lakota Native Americans, the One, the Absolute, and Unmoved Mover, the Divine, or Infinite Consciousness. Whatever word we employ, the Ground of all being and existence is what is meant. This reality is experientially accessible to us in the mystical, contemplative, or fully actualized spiritual states of the mind, in the depths of consciousness itself. We are always able to reach these realms of consciousness if we follow a disciplined spiritual life. The various great world religions all have methods to do so.

Like science, mysticism is empirical, since it relies on experience, not faith. When it is said that this experience is unmediated, this means it goes beyond faith, belief, or reliance on a priesthood, and approaches the Divine directly through the person’s own inner experience. When mysticism becomes a disciplined process, when it is a commitment of the individual, it then becomes a process of spiritual growth, and eventually of transformation as well.

Closely allied with mysticism is contemplation. The contemplative dimension is also part of mystical experience, that is, part of the process itself. Contemplation has a lot to do with the method, or spiritual practice chosen. Contemplation, in its depth and maturity, is an effortless receiving of the mystical gifts. These include direct awareness and experience of the Ultimate, the Divine, God, or Infinite Consciousness; metaphysical knowledge, illumination, self-knowledge; discernment of the hearts of others; insight into the nature and meaning of existence; and profound cultivation of the virtues, especially love, kindness, compassion, sensitivity, forgiveness, generosity, and patience. Contemplation is also a spiritual practice, often of the meditative variety. It is mystical meditation, a form that puts us directly on the path of perception of the Ultimate. Its greatest extent would be mystical contemplation, which is detailed in the spiritualities of the Hindu, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions, to name a few.

Spirituality names the individual commitment of each one of us to embrace the mystical path in our life. Doing so, we enter into the mystical process proper. The emphasis in spirituality is on our own individual commitment to live the spiritual life. We do not lean on the institution to accomplish our transformation for us, but rather, accept that responsibility as our own. No religious institution is capable of transforming us. That is our own individual task. Spirituality is not opposed to religion, and often exists in a religious tradition. The emphasis here is on individual responsibility and discipline to carry on in the spiritual path, the journey to wholeness, or integrity, transforming virtue, holiness of life, and effective compassionate, loving action consistent with the demands of love and kindness.

All of the great world religions have originated in mystical consciousness. This is their generating source and inspiration. The Sanatana Dharma, or the Eternal Religion, as Hinduism is called, can be traced back to the rishis, the forest sages of Indian antiquity, who were these extraordinary mystics who had direct experience of the Divine Reality, the Brahman. The experience of God by these sages, and the founding mystics of other traditions, existed long before the concept of God, or the Divine. Similarly, the Dharma, the Buddhist tradition, owes its existence to the inner process of enlightenment of Siddhartha Gautama Sakyamuni, known as the Buddha, the Enlightened One; his experience is paradigmatic for every Buddhist in every age. In the Western traditions, we find that the faith of Israel, the Jewish tradition, has its origin in the mystical experience of its patriarchs and prophets, who all encountered, and were encountered by God, or Yahweh. Moses and the prophets each describe their own experience of this Mysterious Presence, the Divine Reality, the Infinite Spirit.

The same is true when we examine the life of Jesus Christ, regarded in Christianity as the Incarnate Son of God. All of Christianity takes it life and being from the inner consciousness of Jesus in his intense, pervasive awareness of his father, who is presumably our Father, as well, and the very same Presence who is Yahweh, the Lord of all. We can also discern a similar mystical content behind the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, who received a twenty-three year private revelation from Allah through the mediation of the Archangel Gabriel, who commanded him to recite, that is, to utter passages that would later constitute the Qur’an. Each of these represents a mystical experience that became a process through a commitment to the spiritual path, or journey, the journey to greater and greater knowledge, wisdom, and transformation...

We have seen how mystical spirituality is the origin of religion as such. The breakthroughs it gave to the founders of the world’s religions became the foundation for the religions as institutions in history and world. Mystical spirituality is the source that continually nourishes civilization and culture, that inspires individuals to heroic acts of self-sacrifice, that guides people in their lucid moments of self-examination.

Spirituality, in this contemplative, mystical sense, is also the starting point forexploration between and among the religions in their depth core experience of the Absolute, the Divine, or Vast Awareness. The fact that we have this dimension in common, means that we also have a meeting place in it. I am fond of pointing out that the real religion of the human family isn’t religion at all. It is spirituality, and spirituality is the universal tradition, although this tradition is nether intentional, nor systematic. No one decided to create a universal, overarching tradition of global mysticism, or spirituality. The term rather, names the phenomenon of the omnipresence of spirituality at the dawn of every tradition. In that sense, it is the universal tradition as a dimension of human experience found in all ages and cultures. That being the case we have very significant common ground for dialogue, and for experiential explorations by more generous members of the various world religions...

From his other writings, it appears that according to Teasdale anyone who makes the commitment to appreciate or realize their connection to Ultimate Reality is, in fact, a mystic. Now, in some cases, this term is reserved for people who are very practiced at entering a state of complete conscious union with this Source, but Teasdale at least saw being a mystic as a right and as a goal for all sentient beings. Perhaps a difference that Metacrock is recognizing here is the difference not just in having a feeling of the Divine but the view of the Divine that one acquires after having a less-filtered, more direct experience of God. In some cases those who acquired or who were on their way to acquiring this more expansive, less-possessive view of the Divine were seen as blasphemers, heretics, or even as being possessed because it didn't mesh well with certain elements of some religious communities such as legalism and exclusivism. I don't think it means that Protestants or the non-famous cannot be or were not mystics, but rather that such a path to understanding the Divine was frequently discouraged. As with the aforementioned case of St. John of the Cross, you often had to be "famous" (or well-supported by the right people) to get away with openly being a mystic, but this isn't the same as needing to be famous to follow the path of a mystic.

[Metacrock]

I am not the historian of religion and Christianity that you are, but I got the impression from folks like Fr. Keating that the Church was much more open to mystical and contemplative traditions prior to the events such as the rise of the Jesuits or the initiation of the Inquisition. Would you say that was accurate?

Yes I agree with that. Mysticism became a phenomenon of the monastic life. Then the monastic life became militarized. In the middle ages and before it wasn't militarized. In the Celtic church they were not under the RCC at all. So for them it was open.

There have been a few Protestant mystics, not many. Johnathan Law (eighteenth century) was probably the greatest. Jacb Bhoema might also qualify but he is usually considered a heretic, (Renaissance). The Wesley Brohters and Servana Rola might just qualify.

Can we define Christian mysticism, then? I feel the presence of God and sense Him speaking to me on a fairly regular basis. Most of my friends would say the same. So would my children. Are we Christian mystics-- or do you have to be famous or "great"?

There can be many answers to what mysticism is because of associations we have picked up concerning that term, but I have always been a fan of the late Brother Wayne Teasdale's definitions. Here is how he defined mysticism from an excerpt of an unpublished essay written after his two commercially successful books (which I personally think are great) and before he died [emphasis added]...

the definition I go by is that by W.T. Stace, probably similar to that of Evelyn Underhil: a heightened state of consciousness, of a Christocentric nature, focussed upon the experience of God beyond word, thought, or image my paraphrase. as best i can remember Stace.

Mysticism is direct, or unmediated experience of Ultimate Reality, whether we mean by that term God, Spirit, the Tao, the Wakan Tanka of the Lakota Native Americans, the One, the Absolute, and Unmoved Mover, the Divine, or Infinite Consciousness. Whatever word we employ, the Ground of all being and existence is what is meant. This reality is experientially accessible to us in the mystical, contemplative, or fully actualized spiritual states of the mind, in the depths of consciousness itself. We are always able to reach these realms of consciousness if we follow a disciplined spiritual life. The various great world religions all have methods to do so.

that's good. the emphasis upon beyond word thought or image because many think it is visions and voices, while mystic can have these this is not what makes them mystics.

I embrace a sort of philosophical mysticism, although I have these experiences, but I don't boil it down just to a lit of phenomena. Philosophical has more to do with understanding rationalistically now to come to terms with the bits beyond word, thought or image.

Like science, mysticism is empirical, since it relies on experience, not faith. When it is said that this experience is unmediated, this means it goes beyond faith, belief, or reliance on a priesthood, and approaches the Divine directly through the person’s own inner experience. When mysticism becomes a disciplined process, when it is a commitment of the individual, it then becomes a process of spiritual growth, and eventually of transformation as well.

exactly! well said!

[Metacrock]

Closely allied with mysticism is contemplation. The contemplative dimension is also part of mystical experience, that is, part of the process itself. Contemplation has a lot to do with the method, or spiritual practice chosen. Contemplation, in its depth and maturity, is an effortless receiving of the mystical gifts. These include direct awareness and experience of the Ultimate, the Divine, God, or Infinite Consciousness; metaphysical knowledge, illumination, self-knowledge; discernment of the hearts of others; insight into the nature and meaning of existence; and profound cultivation of the virtues, especially love, kindness, compassion, sensitivity, forgiveness, generosity, and patience. Contemplation is also a spiritual practice, often of the meditative variety. It is mystical meditation, a form that puts us directly on the path of perception of the Ultimate. Its greatest extent would be mystical contemplation, which is detailed in the spiritualities of the Hindu, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions, to name a few.

Spirituality names the individual commitment of each one of us to embrace the mystical path in our life. Doing so, we enter into the mystical process proper. The emphasis in spirituality is on our own individual commitment to live the spiritual life. We do not lean on the institution to accomplish our transformation for us, but rather, accept that responsibility as our own. No religious institution is capable of transforming us. That is our own individual task. Spirituality is not opposed to religion, and often exists in a religious tradition. The emphasis here is on individual responsibility and discipline to carry on in the spiritual path, the journey to wholeness, or integrity, transforming virtue, holiness of life, and effective compassionate, loving action consistent with the demands of love and kindness.

All of the great world religions have originated in mystical consciousness. This is their generating source and inspiration. The Sanatana Dharma, or the Eternal Religion, as Hinduism is called, can be traced back to the rishis, the forest sages of Indian antiquity, who were these extraordinary mystics who had direct experience of the Divine Reality, the Brahman. The experience of God by these sages, and the founding mystics of other traditions, existed long before the concept of God, or the Divine. Similarly, the Dharma, the Buddhist tradition, owes its existence to the inner process of enlightenment of Siddhartha Gautama Sakyamuni, known as the Buddha, the Enlightened One; his experience is paradigmatic for every Buddhist in every age. In the Western traditions, we find that the faith of Israel, the Jewish tradition, has its origin in the mystical experience of its patriarchs and prophets, who all encountered, and were encountered by God, or Yahweh. Moses and the prophets each describe their own experience of this Mysterious Presence, the Divine Reality, the Infinite Spirit.

The same is true when we examine the life of Jesus Christ, regarded in Christianity as the Incarnate Son of God. All of Christianity takes it life and being from the inner consciousness of Jesus in his intense, pervasive awareness of his father, who is presumably our Father, as well, and the very same Presence who is Yahweh, the Lord of all. We can also discern a similar mystical content behind the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, who received a twenty-three year private revelation from Allah through the mediation of the Archangel Gabriel, who commanded him to recite, that is, to utter passages that would later constitute the Qur’an. Each of these represents a mystical experience that became a process through a commitment to the spiritual path, or journey, the journey to greater and greater knowledge, wisdom, and transformation...

We have seen how mystical spirituality is the origin of religion as such. The breakthroughs it gave to the founders of the world’s religions became the foundation for the religions as institutions in history and world. Mystical spirituality is the source that continually nourishes civilization and culture, that inspires individuals to heroic acts of self-sacrifice, that guides people in their lucid moments of self-examination.

Spirituality, in this contemplative, mystical sense, is also the starting point forexploration between and among the religions in their depth core experience of the Absolute, the Divine, or Vast Awareness. The fact that we have this dimension in common, means that we also have a meeting place in it. I am fond of pointing out that the real religion of the human family isn’t religion at all. It is spirituality, and spirituality is the universal tradition, although this tradition is nether intentional, nor systematic. No one decided to create a universal, overarching tradition of global mysticism, or spirituality. The term rather, names the phenomenon of the omnipresence of spirituality at the dawn of every tradition. In that sense, it is the universal tradition as a dimension of human experience found in all ages and cultures. That being the case we have very significant common ground for dialogue, and for experiential explorations by more generous members of the various world religions...[/quote]
From his other writings, it appears that according to Teasdale anyone who makes the commitment to appreciate or realize their connection to Ultimate Reality is, in fact, a mystic. Now, in some cases, this term is reserved for people who are very practiced at entering a state of complete conscious union with this Source, but Teasdale at least saw being a mystic as a right and as a goal for all sentient beings. Perhaps a difference that Metacrock is recognizing here is the difference not just in having a feeling of the Divine but the view of the Divine that one acquires after having a less-filtered, more direct experience of God. In some cases those who acquired or who were on their way to acquiring this more expansive, less-possessive view of the Divine were seen as blasphemers, heretics, or even as being possessed because it didn't mesh well with certain elements of some religious communities such as legalism and exclusivism. I don't think it means that Protestants or the non-famous cannot be or were not mystics, but rather that such a path to understanding the Divine was frequently discouraged. As with the aforementioned case of St. John of the Cross, you often had to be "famous" (or well-supported by the right people) to get away with openly being a mystic, but this isn't the same as needing to be famous to follow the path of a mystic.[/quote]



this is great lecture material. you should teach a class or something .

[2thePoint]

I realize I'm about to chop off my own head now, but here goes...

1- God is a being, and a personal one. Non-beings are not self-aware, do not have a "self" at all, and do not possess their own will, thoughts, or power. The God of the Bible is all of that and more.

2-- "There is salvation in no other name" but Jesus (Acts 4:12). "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:18). And what does it mean to believe in Jesus for salvation?

"By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:2-4).

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that person be under God's curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let that person be under God's curse!" (Gal. 1:6-9)

3-- The word "Christian" means "Christ follower". Anyone not following the Christ of the Bible is therefore not a Christian, and the "Christ of the Bible" is the Jesus of point 2.

4-- Mysticism is not Christianity; it is never mentioned at all in the NT. We see a lot of personal relationship but never any rituals or postures or mind-clearing meditations. There are "mystical" or unknowable aspects of it all, but the practice of what is commonly called mysticism is foreign to scripture and the gospel.

What is missing from most churches is not "mysticism" but salvation! One must have a Savior in order to have a relationship with him, and most of those churches have been practicing empty rituals for centuries. God is clearing away the chaff, beginning to separate sheep from goats. The ones with the Spirit are the ones who have trusted Jesus alone for salvation-- not mysticism, or philosophy, or ritual.

Yes mysticism is growing, but is leading people away from the gospel like a pied piper. Doctrine (truth) is tossed aside for "the experience", which is as poor a substitute for The Relationship as dry ritual.

Paul, the great theologian who could get very deep into all this, also recognized the need for simplicity at times: "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Cor. 2:2)

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor. 1:18)

[Hazard]

I realize I'm about to chop off my own head now, but here goes...

1- God is a being, and a personal one. Non-beings are not self-aware, do not have a "self" at all, and do not possess their own will, thoughts, or power. The God of the Bible is all of that and more.

2-- "There is salvation in no other name" but Jesus (Acts 4:12). "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:18). And what does it mean to believe in Jesus for salvation?

"By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:2-4).

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that person be under God's curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let that person be under God's curse!" (Gal. 1:6-9)

3-- The word "Christian" means "Christ follower". Anyone not following the Christ of the Bible is therefore not a Christian, and the "Christ of the Bible" is the Jesus of point 2.

4-- Mysticism is not Christianity; it is never mentioned at all in the NT. We see a lot of personal relationship but never any rituals or postures or mind-clearing meditations. There are "mystical" or unknowable aspects of it all, but the practice of what is commonly called mysticism is foreign to scripture and the gospel.

What is missing from most churches is not "mysticism" but salvation! One must have a Savior in order to have a relationship with him, and most of those churches have been practicing empty rituals for centuries. God is clearing away the chaff, beginning to separate sheep from goats. The ones with the Spirit are the ones who have trusted Jesus alone for salvation-- not mysticism, or philosophy, or ritual.

Yes mysticism is growing, but is leading people away from the gospel like a pied piper. Doctrine (truth) is tossed aside for "the experience", which is as poor a substitute for The Relationship as dry ritual.

Paul, the great theologian who could get very deep into all this, also recognized the need for simplicity at times: "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Cor. 2:2)

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor. 1:18)

Hi.

Point One; I agree.

Point Two; I agree.

Point Three; I agree.

Point Four. I agree.

Don't chop off your head.

I also believe that Its God's job to call people and not peoples job to call people.

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44) We can pass the message God left us, ie., the Bible and then its up to free moral agents to choose. Many say the Bible is not God's Word but as one put it on another board, "Its a book of mixed up fables and unbelieveable stories made up by mere men." To this statement I say this; Over fourty different authors wrote the sixty six books of the Bible during a period of over 1,800 years; and they all had one theme____the creation and redemption of the human race by God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. These books were written by men from all walks of life such as kings, priests, judges, lawyers, princes, shepherds, soldiers, courtiers, statesmen, musicians, inventors, singers, poets, preachers, prophets, fishermen, farmers, tent makers, publicans, physicians, richmen and poor men. They were written in many various lands of three continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa. They were written in different ages by many men, some who never ever saw each other or even knew what the others wrote on the same subjecs, yet when their writings became one book, there is not one contradiction among them.

Suppose fourty medical men, each in a different land and age, would write sixty books on how to cure a disease, what kind of cure would such a collection of books make. How much unity would we find in their writings?

There is perfect unity between the books of thje Bible, which speak of the hundreds of subjects in the realm of religion, politics, science, etc. This proves there is one divine author for all the sixty-six books. Who but a divine author could produce such a work. Even convinced a hard harted, major sinner like me that God does exist and His Word is real.

Haz.

[2thePoint]

Hi.

Point One; I agree.

Point Two; I agree.

Point Three; I agree.

Point Four. I agree.

Don't chop off your head.

I also believe that Its God's job to call people and not peoples job to call people.

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44) We can pass the message God left us, ie., the Bible and then its up to free moral agents to choose. Many say the Bible is not God's Word but as one put it on another board, "Its a book of mixed up fables and unbelieveable stories made up by mere men." To this statement I say this; Over fourty different authors wrote the sixty six books of the Bible during a period of over 1,800 years; and they all had one theme____the creation and redemption of the human race by God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. These books were written by men from all walks of life such as kings, priests, judges, lawyers, princes, shepherds, soldiers, courtiers, statesmen, musicians, inventors, singers, poets, preachers, prophets, fishermen, farmers, tent makers, publicans, physicians, richmen and poor men. They were written in many various lands of three continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa. They were written in different ages by many men, some who never ever saw each other or even knew what the others wrote on the same subjecs, yet when their writings became one book, there is not one contradiction among them.

Suppose fourty medical men, each in a different land and age, would write sixty books on how to cure a disease, what kind of cure would such a collection of books make. How much unity would we find in their writings?

There is perfect unity between the books of thje Bible, which speak of the hundreds of subjects in the realm of religion, politics, science, etc. This proves there is one divine author for all the sixty-six books. Who but a divine author could produce such a work. Even convinced a hard harted, major sinner like me that God does exist and His Word is real.

Haz.

And hi 2 U 2!

Of course, the reference to head chopping was personal experience talking. I have a bad habit of saying socially unacceptable things in message boards, and in this one, I've read some statements that seem to be quite the opposite of what I wrote. Whether the penalty is beheading or civilized disagreement depends on the people, and so far so good. (thanks)

Yes, the Bible is truly "living and active", an amazing witness to an amazing God. What's even more amazing is how many people view it as dead and irrelevant, something that does not speak to them and holds them back. It is frequently seen as somehow anti-spiritual, as if God's words are of lesser value and power when written. I just don't understand that.

God does call, but we are his hands in this world: "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God." (2 Cor. 5:20) How could I know that without the written Word? I think God wrote things down for good reasons, not the least of which is that miraculous unity you mentioned. But though God is a perfect "transmitter", we are imperfect "receivers" and need more than personal impressions to go by. My feelings come and go, but the Bible keeps me anchored.

[Hazard]

g-day again 2thePoint, no worries.
You know I was as you were only joking regarding the head chopping, but i liked that. What I like about this particular board, and I have only been here for a very short time so far, is that one seems to be able to say what one believes, thinks, assumes or asserts, without being accused of heresy, satanic teachings, or anything else, as long as the post is conducted in a civil manner and no presonal abuse is meted out against anyone. Refreshing to say the least. I hope to have a small grasp upon God's Word and I am learing each and every day and I like to share what I have learnt. If I am in error, and if my error can be shown to me in the Scriptures I will gladly change in an instant. So far, all I can say regarding your post is what I stated in my previous post; "I agree with all you have said."

Regards,

Haz.

[2thePoint]

Tanx, Haz, good to know.