Re: Former Christian
Sep 05, 1995 11:45 AM
Hi there! Thought you had bolted. Welcome back.
>It is sad when one reads so many compliments to a heart felt
>letter from someone declaring deconvertion.
Sad to see people supporting one another in their own
>It is perversion.
It is compassion. (I seem to remember Jesus mentioning
that concept somewhere, no?) It is the support that, despite our
vehement arguments with one another, lies at the very root of
our association as fellow travellers. It is one of the highest
and noblest sentiments possible to the human heart - the
spontaneous joy and pleasure that leaps from all of us when any
in our family takes a stride beyong their own boudaries. The fact
that he chose to share something so powerful, so personal, both
moved and elevated me simply through the hearing of it. It
reminded me that beyond all our differences of perspective, when
any one of us takes a step, however small, achieves a larger level
of awareness *however that person defines it*, we are all given
the gift of sharing in the fruits of those efforts.
Is *that* what your version of Christianity calls
>Obviously it is clear that the same arguments that caused his
>redirection are the same arguments used to validate the origin of
Obvious to no one here except you.
>66books. 40authors. One message.
And as many interpretations as there are readers.
>I prayed about the loss and the Lord revealed two
>scriptures to me.
>For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened,
>and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become
>partakers with the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good Word of God
>and of the powers of the age to come,
>If they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they
>crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and PUT HIM TO AN
Are you sure the Lord didn't reveal those scriptures as a
gentle way of reprimanding *you* for your attitudes towards that fellow?
That perhaps the Lord of *Compassion* is not "crucified" again anytime
one with the arrogance to speak in his name engages in narrow-minded
condemnation? What was that 'ol story 'bout throwing stones?
>No one here has honestly and openly investigated the validity
>of the New and Old Testament. And if you had, your rose colored
>glasses caused you to be blinded from the obvious.
In fact, many people here have honestly and openly studied both
Testaments, and probably in ways that have never occured to you, and
would not be permitted by your perspective. [And quite a curious
Freudian slip, by the way, to say "blinded *from* the obvious" instead
of blinded *to* (-:)].
>There is SOOOOO much evidence that it baffles the intellect.
`Specially to minds given to being baffled. Tee hee.
>Only the depraved mind could interpret less than
>accurate and the reprobate less than inspired.
Yeow! Then 3/4 of the world's population are depraved
reprobates. God must just be beside himself.
>Will anyone here ask for the evidence to be presented?
Probably not, but I'm sure that won't stop you from presenting
it (-:). Are you willing to be as open to us as you want us to be to
you? It may not yet have occured to you, but calling the entire list
of people blind and stupid and deluded may not be the best way to start
a conversation (in fact, membership in a Theosophical organization is
absolutely *required* before you can call other Theosophists blind and
stupid and deluded har har har har har).
On my front bookshelf right now is the NIV Triglot Old Testament,
with the Hebrew according to the Masoretic text, the Greek according to
the Septuagint, and the English translation called the New International
Version. It sits next to the classic MacKenna translation of the Enneads
of Plotinus, Deussen's treatise on the Upanishads, the Qabala Trilogy of
Carlo Suares, Hegel's Phenomenology of Mind, the Graham translation of
Chuang-Tzu's "Inner Chapters", and a series of lectures entitled
Computational Solutions to Nonlinear Systems of Equations. And I am one
of the youngest, *least* scholarly people on this list. While the
approach you are using here may work in other places, you really must
understand that using the same model here will only cause people to
giggle at you, and quite soon, just ignore you completely.
Perhaps you might want to take a bit of time and see if there
are layers of your faith deeper than you have yet experienced, deep
enough to actually take *others* into account when you express it.
Maybe even consider that both the *spirit* as well as the letter of
what you advocate ought to be present in your *tone* as well as your
words. I've read the bible, as has virtually everyone on the list. You
are preaching only one of thousands of versions of Christianity that
have been preached over the last two millenia - and to most here (many
of whom, with all due respect, may know considerably *more* about both
theology and history than you do) your version is a very recent, and
particularly narrow and judgemental one ... and the more vehement and
strident your langauge becomes, the more you will likely be perceived
as an spiritual adolescent stamping his feet - to those who do not
simply begin deleting any post with your address on it.
>Remember, FAITH is the substance of things not seen and the EVIDENCE
>of what is hoped for.
Yes, but there are some here who are seeking to "walk through
the Death of the Shadow of the Valley" (?! he he he, get it Jerry?)
and desire to deepen Faith to the point that it becomes Knowledge.
[Go with the flow, *or else*! (-:)]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application