Thursday, January 26, 2006

Kundalini & Kinda Loony

We start today's session with just your average anonymous kundalini question, Suppose a person came to you for treatment of troubling mental symptoms resulting from the spontaneous awakening of kundalini. Would you consider his case to be a psychotic episode, a spiritual emergency, or a combination of the two?

First of all, for those who are out of the loop, kundalini is the "spiritual energy" that supposedly lies dormant at the base of the spine. Various spiritual practices--in particular, tantric yoga--are designed to "awaken" this dormant energy, sending it upward through various chakras or spiritual centers. The centers are located in the genital area, the belly, the heart, the throat, the area between the eyes, and the top of the head (there are also "sub chakras" in other areas, for example, the hands).

Spiritual energy is real, but it is conceptualized in different ways by different traditions. One might think that the concept would be foreign to Christianity, but perhaps you haven't seen a frenzied Pentecostal all cross-eyed & painless, speaking in in tongues with a twelve inch diameter pool of saliva on the floor below his mouth. Perhaps you haven't seen the Reverend Al Green give himself over to some other-worldly force in his gospel excursions. Can I get a witness?! Perhaps you haven't read descriptions of the saints such as John of the Cross or Teresa, with her ecstatic swooning in the presence of the holy spirit. For that matter, perhaps you haven't seen the Chabad Telethon, with the rabbis ecstatically dancing around on your TV screen.

Having said that, I must confess that I've never treated someone wherein the process went "haywire" and they needed help. In fact, if someone came to me with such symptoms, I would be much more likely to view it as a garden-variety hysterical reaction that falls well within the bounds of psychoanalytic explanation. Over the years, you wouldn't believe range of somatic disorders I've seen.

A somatic disorder occurs when the individual unconsciously converts emotional pain or conflict into somatic pain or dysfunction. I've seen 'em all, and I can well imagine how a spiritual practitioner with a latent psychosis could unleash a somatization process and then call it an awakening of kundalini, featuring all sorts of bizarre symptoms. For example, I remember reading about some of Krishnamurti's experiences after he broke away from the Theosophists, which struck me more as psychotic separation anxiety than enlightenment.

What sort of therapy do you feel would be most helpful in this instance? Do you feel that most licensed mental health professionals are qualified to provide this type of care, or would he need to be referred to someone who specializes in treating such complications of meditative practices as he's experiencing?

As a matter of fact, such individuals are notoriously difficult to treat. They have no insight into the somatization process--technically, it's a psychotic process, except that it takes place in the body rather than the mind per se (actually the infantile bodymind). It cannot be communicated symbolically, because the body is the symbol. Indeed, that's the crux of the problem. The word has been made flesh. Except in a bad way.

Petey is hardly the only one who says that it is always important to work within an established tradition with a real teacher in order to avoid these types of problems. Better yet, avoid it altogether. Let your spiritual growth be the leading edge, and the energies will follow. Don't try to imagine that you can merely unleash some sort of magical energy and that enlightenment will somehow follow. As I mentioned, the descending spiritual approaches are much more organic, allowing the energy to gently come in from above and transform you, rather than you trying to seize the tiller of spirit and storm the gates of heaven.

Michael asked, Can the 10 commandments be put into evolutionary perspective?

You bet! In fact, I did exactly that on pages 231-244 of my book, where I demonstrated that the commandments have both an exterior and an interior meaning, and that each of them can be reconciled with the Upanishads (that's why I call them the Ten "Commanishads" or "Upanishalts"). Importantly, the interior meaning by no means contradicts or cancels out the exterior. It just adds an extra dimension of depth to it.

Much of what you say seems like an exercise in linguistic metaphysics. 'Thou shall not murder' is direct as God can be. Does the understanding change or does God's word stay the same today and always? When Christ says, He and He only is the Way, how can one be reconcilable to your 'one cosmos'? Can you give an example of the evolving Word? Maybe I misunderstood your point?

I specifically take care to avoid what you call "linguistic metaphysics." Metaphysics is a dead letter without the light of spiritual experience or the testimony of the saints. I want to help people have the experience, not simply play around with words and concepts. To the extent concepts are used, they must be analogous to bank notes that are backed by the full faith and credit of spiritual experience, and can be "cashed in" at any time.

You asked how Christ's statement that "He and He only is the Way" can be reconciled with my approach. It depends on how you understand Christ. If you understand Christ the way that he and the enlightened saints down through the ages understood him, then there's no problem. The Christ is eternal, outside space and time. He antedated the historical Jesus--in fact, antedated time and history: "Before Abraham was, I AM." The eternal I AM is perpetually given birth in the ground of being, and we may participate in that birth. It is now standard Catholic doctrine that one may know Christ without literally knowing Christ, so to speak. It's not the ideal, it just means that Christ can be working through someone without that person even being aware of it.

An example of the "evolving word." This is really very simple. Words are containers that accumulate meaning through experience. You could say, for example, that you understand the word "swim," although you have never personally been in the water. Will the meaning of the word not evolve once you take a dip?"

How about a more complex word? A child knows what marriage is. But what is it really? For that matter, plenty of adults are married. But are they really? In what sense?

Yes, God's word stays the same today and always. Except that it's a holographic word hyperdense with meaning, not a linear word with the type of one-to-one correspondence that is adequate to describe lower orders of being, such as brute matter.

Certainly there are multiple layers to Bible verses and education matters. One can be misled with false teachers.

Ah, but you shall know them by their fruit of the looms. They're always washing their dirty laundry in public. If you squint a little with your third eye, you can see it.

We should all be careful to pinhole 'fundamentalist'. Many of them know this already to be true and love the duality of word and verse meanings and many fundamentalist teachers readily use this device of teaching to peel away layers of understanding. But its not some type of gnosis or esoteric understanding that is required.

Beg to differ. What does the Bible mean where it says that Jesus did and said many things to his inner circle that "opened their eyes?" What is the holy spirit, why did he send it, and what does it do? Is spiritual vision really as mundane as scientific knowledge, involving no gnosis at all? Is there a difference between knowing and understanding?

There are very simple laws for a reason such that - 'a child can understand them'.

Of course. But when I was a child, I understood as a child. Scripture also allows for personal growth, so that an adult may understand as an adult. Again, it doesn't contradict the earlier understanding--it transcends and embraces it. It's a more expansive understanding.

I agree in response to secular humanist uprisings, a new Christian fundamentalism is arising as well. But this also is due to new avenues in media savvy by the old guard of Christian fundamentalist. They're learning how to fight fire with fire and are not afraid to do it. This battle is as old the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Yes, but I'm afraid that fundamentalists are fighting fire with fire--scientific materialism with spiritual materialism. It's just a fight as to whose literalism and materialism will prevail. Fire needs to be fought with water.

Personally, I've never been one to accept all religions/one cosmos theory movement.

I don't either. I'm polymonotheistic. I don't believe in blending but correlating or cross-fertilizing. Mainly, I want to help people get more out of their own tradition. This is a genuine stumbling block for many modern intellectuals who don't see how they can reconcile modernity and traditional religion.

I definitely think that some traditions ar better than others, but I would rather not get into that, because I don't want to alienate people. Also, It's not always cut and dry. For example, a deeper version of one religion might be superior to a shallow version of another, and vice versa.

But let me again re-emphasize that if your approach is working for you, I have no desire to question or change it. The key for me is whether or not someone's approch is working--that is, whether or not it is resulting in real change, real understanding, and real growth.

I cannot talk for others, but in Christian doctrine and Judaism there is only one God and those who worship idols(i.e. wooden, gold and ornamental renderings made by the hand of man) are a clear abomination to God the Father of Torah and His Son, Christ Yeshua of the Gospels. There is no sharing amongst the religions. God is a 'jealous' God. And while some see this as 'fundamentalist' thinking, really its just the pure acceptance of belief in the teachings of Christ. Christ never said go and seek other ways to God.

Christ never said a lot of things, like "go and cure polio," or "the scientific method is the best way to understand the material world," or "always remember that inflation is tied to monetary policy," or "harsh parenting is just going to create a neurotic adult." I find that the greatest error committed by fundamentalists is that Christ is often reduced to an informational teacher as opposed to the transformational teaching.

How do you reconcile such language Or, do you ignore it? Do you teach that such language does not matter? Do you address such concerns at all?

Yes, like the constitution, there are aspects of scripture, such as "You shall not murder" that are analogous to clear statements in the constitution requiring a two-thirds majority. But what does "cruel and unusual punishment" mean?

Again, even seemingly unambiguous scriptural statements contain an exterior and interior meaning. Do you not understand more of the inner meaning of scripture as you develop and grow spiritually? Is there such a thing as spiritual growth? If spirit is alive--indeed, if it is life itself--how can it not grow?

Why did Jesus speak in parables? Is there only one way to understand a parable? If so, why didn't he just skip the parable and say what he meant?

What does it mean, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth?" Could it mean that in the perpetual beginning that is happening right now, God creates the vertical and the horizontal?

John says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." How can the Word simultaneously be God and with God? "In him was the life and the life was the light of men?" What's that all about? Mere biological life? I don't think so. The light waves described by quantum physics? Hmm, I think not. The darkness didn't comprehend it? How can darkness comprehend anything?

That's the point, isn't it? Scripture must be trancelighted in order to be understood. Call it gnosis if you want. I call it seeing the light with the eyes Darwin didn't give you.


***And don't forget to see what Joyce says about the matter, over on the sidebar.

+++Oh, and be thinking of questions for the next round, maybe this Saturday.

24 Comments:

Blogger Goesh said...

I've also suspected that Petey is a traditional Native American, one of those medicine men kept out of mainstream anglo culture until childhood passed into early adulthood, but then what the hell do I really know?

1/26/2006 10:41:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

You're close. Petey says he was first conjured by an old ayhuascadero who found himself in a tight spot. Of course, this was many years go, before our association.

1/26/2006 10:59:00 AM  
Anonymous primal_john said...

I like Stan Grof's work with the kundalini spiritual emergence problems. These "emergencies/emergences" look like psychoses but since you can communicate with the individual undergoing the experience, they can be resolved over time without medication.
Unforunately, the kundalini sufferers usually get pumped full of anti-psychotic drugs which unfortunately bypasses their actual resolution. Like you said, Bob, it's early material which gets converted to a lot of body symptoms but with emotional pain also.

1/26/2006 11:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Gang of One said...

Very good stuff here, Bob. In all your reading, have you ever come across the URantia Book, and if you have, what are your impressions?
I would tell you mine, but this is YOUR space ...

1/26/2006 12:04:00 PM  
Blogger LiquidLifeHacker said...

Goesh, you crack me up with all your suspicions! I always laugh when you share one about Petey! Who really knows for sure...Petey could actually be a bit of Bob's DNA that is part of some undercover top secret lab experiment! Bob shares little clues but can we be sure? Maybe they are clues to throw us off if we get too close! LOL

Oh my, maybe we should do that here...maybe Bob will set up a thread where we all get to "guess" and "describe" who 'we think' Petey really is or "what Petey looks like" or "I shared a convo with Petey when Bob wasn't around" kinda thingy? Oh that would be fun huh? Are you game Bob? Do you 'got game?'

1/26/2006 12:09:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

As I said, this forum is not only open to questions of me, but to Mrs Gagdad and to Petey. Petey may or may not respond if he's "just not into it" or "can't relate," but you never really know ahead of time what will catch his interest. You just have to expect a certain level of passive-aggressiveness but not be put off by it.

1/26/2006 12:21:00 PM  
Blogger Spiritual Emergency said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/26/2006 08:29:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Spiritual emergency--

In my response, I was operating out of the assumption that 999 times out of 1000, the person is not having a spiritual emergency but a psychological one that falls within the bounds of conventional psychoanalytic understanding. If there is intense somatization going on with no insight, these case are difficult for the most skilled therapist to treat, again, because the patient cannot symbolize their conflict in words but only through the body. This defense is like a brick wall.

As for a genuine spiritual emergency or spontaneous kundalini awakening, I've just never seen such a case, nor do I know anyone who has, so I can't comment.

1/26/2006 09:00:00 PM  
Blogger Spiritual Emergency said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/26/2006 09:20:00 PM  
Blogger Kip said...

What a beautiful post.

I'm going to print it out and stick on the wall!

1/26/2006 09:34:00 PM  
Blogger Spiritual Emergency said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/26/2006 09:35:00 PM  
Blogger Spiritual Emergency said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/26/2006 09:38:00 PM  
Anonymous primal_john said...

spiritual emergency:
I understand that what pushes for release is usually early repressed trauma, often, however, in symbolic fashion, or if simply later material tied to the earlier stuff by the same feeling component.
The "language" is often of a transpersonal nature in which a Jungian analyst might feel well at home.

1/27/2006 06:21:00 AM  
Blogger Spiritual Emergency said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/27/2006 08:42:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

There is no relationship between true schizophrenia or psychosis and spiritual vision. That is romantic twaddle. Anyone who tells you otherwise is completely naive about the suffering entailed in these conditions and about what causes them. People like Joseph Campbell and R. D. Laing simply do not know what they're talking about.

1/27/2006 08:51:00 AM  
Blogger Spiritual Emergency said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/27/2006 09:00:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Spiritual emergency--

The last time I had any significant contact with psychotics and schizophrenics was 20 years ago during my internship at Camarillo State Mental Hospital.

The purpose of this blog is not to treat mental illness, but to communicate ideas.

1/27/2006 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger Spiritual Emergency said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/27/2006 10:06:00 AM  
Blogger LiquidLifeHacker said...

spiritual emergency, I read the link you left here, and IMHO, and I in no way have a phd or anything, but since we are exchanging ideas... I do not think that was schizophrenia at all...I have seen grief do alot of weird things to people and everyone reacts and responds to it differently and goes back and forth through stages, as far as writing a story and getting lost in that to escape the pain of reality, I am just thankful this person didn't get lost in some fantasy over some real object or person much like stalkers do. Anyway...its great this person survived whatever it was, but if you have ever been around a person that really suffers from schizophrenia you'd see the difference. I know there is one case where a guy that suffers from the real thing thinks he is god and I think his family has struggled alot about their spirituality in coping with his disease. Grand delusions are quite sad and I am sure that they would love to be able to control the voices in their heads as easily as this person did with "her characters" on paper but its not that simple. Thank goodness for the drugs that are helping those that suffer with the disease.

1/28/2006 03:24:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

liquid--

You are correct. Schizophrenia has nothing whatsoever to do with enlightenment, and enlightenment has nothing whatsoever to do with schizophrenia. People like R.D. Laing who conflated the two know nothing about either. And people like Joseph Campbell who romanticize severe mental illness as a "shamanic journey" are just talking through their hats. It is a category error of the first magnitude. Where do you draw the line? Charles Manson believes he's enlightened.

Ken Wilber writes about this ad nauseum with his concept of the pre/trans fallacy. Spiritual states are higher, not lower.

1/28/2006 06:35:00 AM  
Blogger Spiritual Emergency said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/28/2006 08:11:00 AM  
Blogger Spiritual Emergency said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/28/2006 08:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Bob, thanks for the response. I agree with you in certain context, materialist answers for example is an excellent point. I was trying to state that Christians(not just fundamentalist) were adapting to new technology to spread the Gospel. Of course the message should be spiritual and not materialistic. I disagree in many other areas with your logic.

Your concept of our existence seems to be we find our way eventually by different paths, maybe Hindu, Islam or other Ways. We do not need Christ to be redeemed and forgiven. Or, that God manifest spiritually in many alternative forms and are just as valid or maybe its now your 'one cosmos' way. I even get the feeling we're a hologram may be appropriate? We could just be part of a grand matrix?

Did you have another web site prior to this blog about this new religion? It seems familiar territory.

But this denies the story of Abram in Ur and the false wooden gods he destroyed. It denies the God of Torah who distinguishes between one chosen people of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and then Christ to disicples and the world.

That Christ is someone else's Dali or someone else's Muhammed is a nice cultural way to get along in today's worldview amongst 'enligtened' people and certainly UN acceptable apologetic synthesis of World Council of Church theology. It meets all the criteria for one world government as well as one cosmos.

One thing I forgot to ask. Do you believe in reincarnation?

In creating One Cosmos, you've made yourself God. You've taken the great I AM, Alef/Tov and sequenced Him through alternative cycles of enlightenment.

Christ was spiritual and literal in his teachings and prophecy. The temple was destroyed due to lack of spiritual recognition. Spiritual destruction always leads to physical destruction. Spiritual destruction always starts by allowing other gods into the equation. If other gods are allowed, Abram's story is invalid, its a lie and we are following a false god. The stories are nothing more than myth. He could've easily followed the wooden green lizard which told him to pray 4 times a day in the direction of Ur. The destruction of whole societies who believed in other gods are false. God is cruel jokster because he crushes Israel for a golden calf, but allows other to worship their own way and still find enlightenment.

As for parables, there are multiple reasons for them besides the Torah indicating the Messiah would do so, but they have literal interpretations and predictions of lifes outcomes. Very serious literal interpretations for peoples lives. Otherwise the Word could never become flesh. Our actions have no impact and our bodies no suffering. It is both spiritual and physical in this world for a logical reason. Christ showed us why through his life example.

So, while Christ is living water, he is also utter and final condemnation by fire; please see 2Peter3:7. He is both. He is Wonderful Counselor and also a double-edged sword splitting the soul and the spirit. He is righteous Judge in the end against 'ungodly men'. There is no seperation of him, the Holy Spirit, nor the Father, they are the same and they are not opposed. He is both merciful and decisive once his patience has been extended past his warnings. God did not appear as multiple manifestations of himself around the world only to cause havoc and war. It is exactly opposite. He appeared as himself always and clearly stated all other gods are false, all other ways are false and he taught it over and over again, from Adam to Noah, Abraham to Jacob, David to Yeshua. Yeshua to the World.

Little gods of no significance existed prior to Abram. God chose Abram precisely because Abram realized wooden idols had no power and were mens lost attempts to regain favor without true repentence or fear. Civilization fell after the first attempt to be godlike by their tower of babylon. The physical tower was a manifestation of their spiritual rebellion and God split them apart into different tribes and nations with different tongues. Pardon me, but just like you they wanted to be like God, making their own path to heaven.

As to someone driveling their spittal on the floor this is not a manifestation of God, it is directly opposite and neither is tongues taught without full comprehension by those present. To do so is against the teaching of Christ. He does not want people confused, he wants them to clearly understand. Parables were not for confusion, but for weeding out. Speaking in tongues is to enable others to hear, not confuse them with babel. Today's examples of people speaking in tongues cannot be given one single interpretation at all. If you were to ask 10 people what the person was saying in tongues, you would get 10 different interpretations and all of them wrong precisely because it is not of God at all.

The Holy Spirit does not make one incomprehensible to others it does directly the opposite, all others understand each other. You hit it really with the word, 'traditions'. These are traditions made by men, not by God. Just like Christ said then so it is today. Christ does not touch you and make you go into epilectic fits - HE PULLS YOU OUT OF THEM! The seizures stop! The mind is Clear! The body Whole! The man once on the ground with saliva running down his chin stands up firmly awakened from his fallen state of grace. You gave an example of the opposite of God's truth and instead put men's truth in place. This example goes against all things Christ taught his disciples. There is true worship and then there is drivel and spittel. If you think God is impressed by false impersonations of estactic behavior you are misinformed. It has always been and always will be most important what occurs in private with our Father where others do not see. Public displays are not proof of higher conscience, nor higher enligthement and never were. The teachings of the Holy Spirit were not as a cheap christmas ornament, but rather so others could hear the teaching of the Gospel in their own language.

Speaking of traditions of men,
despite what the Catholic Church declares, this does not make it so. This is an extension of 'good works', not grace. Some at one time believed money bought heaven too and they've declared Mary as Co-Redemptrix which is explicitly against Christ's teachings.

Billions will fail to get in heaven, few will. Otherwise the Gate is wide, not narrow. The Churches all have their problems, thus the reason for Revelations letters which hold true today.

People have tried to create their own gods by many different ways, but we cannot combine, merge or mix and match. God makes the decision. We are not allowed to choose other ways to intertwine with Christ through sentimental journeys that are not based upon His Word.

Its not a message one likes to hear, but Peter and Paul were not killed for multiple gods then, nor are Christians beheaded for strange gods today. They were and are killed because of the one true God.

To deny Christ as the only way as spoken of through his words is to deny him fully. Yes he existed prior to Abraham, but he did not enlighten us with his being fully until he came to us in the flesh. He did not appear in India, China, Russia, South America, North America, Australia or any other island through Sidhartha or Muhammed. He appeared in Israel first and he came at the will of the Father precisely because Israel had lost its way and upon the promise of the Father for a Messiah. The chosen were lost and had to be reminded of The Way. The process of weeding goes on today.

Some will hear and grow fully into his word. Others will fall by the wayside due to the ways of this world. Others refused entirely the message at first. Christ taught the Gospel would be spread through out the world. If people can be saved and appear in heaven through other means there is absolutely no reason at all for Christ to appear, nor disciples to spread the Gospel. The other manifestations of false religions you see are men's vain attempts to draw closer without leading the way.

Christ said, not all those who say, 'Lord, Lord...' will enter Heaven. If even those whom have heard his name and call upon him may not enter, how likely is it those whom have not heard his name?

God made his decision with Abram and left the others to their gods as was their decision and all generations since have been lost. This was no different than Israel in the desert. Left to their own ways, they seek other gods and forgot the truth and were then left to die forever outside the promised land. Its not that difficult to understand.

This is what I mean by gnosis and esoteric understandings. Myth gets mixed in easily when one strays from the Way or attempts to merge it with other false teachings. There is a reason that the Gnostic readings are not in the Bible. The gnostic text were found to be forgeries or attempts by some to make interpretations of how they wanted 'their god' to be.

I realize what I say will not be popular, but thanks for your response and allowing me to participate. You've been very kind. And I like much of what you say conservative-wise and even many of your words about Christ.

Problem is you're trying to create a new religion which points in multiple directions away from the actual teachings of Christ. A religion which says other ways are available and that is not true.
Bob, thanks for the response. I agree with you in certain context, especially the 'water to fire'. Materialist answers, Excellent point! I was trying to state that Christians(not just fundamentalist) were adapting to new technology to spread the Gospel. Of course the message should be spiritual and not materialistic. I disagree in many other areas with your logic.

Your conceptualization of our existence seems to be we all find our way eventually by different paths, maybe Hindu, Islam or other Ways. We do not need Christ to be redeemed and forgiven. Or, that God manifest spiritually in many alternative forms. I even get the feeling we're a hologram may be appropriate? We could just be part of a grand matrix?

Did you have another web site prior to this blog about this new religion? It seems familiar territory.

But this would then deny the story of Abram in Ur and the false wooden gods he destroyed. It would deny the God of Torah who distinguishes between one chosen people of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and then Christ to the gentiles and the world.

That Christ is someone else's Dali or someone else's Muhammed is a nice cultural way to get along in today's worldview amongst enligtened people and certainly UN acceptable apologetic synthesis of World Council of Church theology. It meets all the criteria for one world government as well as one cosmos.

One thing I forgot to ask. Do you believe in reincarnation?

In creating One Cosmos, you've made yourself God. You've taken the great I AM, Alef/Tov and sequenced Him through alternative cycles of enlightenment.

Christ was spiritual and literal in his teachings and prophecy. The temple was destroyed due to lack of spiritual recognition. Spiritual destruction always leads to physical destruction. Spiritual destruction always starts by allowing other gods into the equation. If other gods are allowed, Abram's story is invalid, its a lie and we are following a false god. The stories are nothing more than myth. The destruction of whole societies who believed in other gods are false. God is cruel jokster because he crushes Israel for a golden calf, but allows other to worship their own way and still find enlightenment.

As for parables, there are multiple reasons for them besides the Torah indicating the Messiah would do so, but they have literal interpretations and predictions of lifes outcomes. Very serious literal interpretations for peoples lives. Otherwise the Word could never become flesh. Our actions have no impact and our bodies no suffering. It is both spiritual and physical in this world for a logical reason. Christ showed us why through his life example.

So, while Christ is living water, he is also utter and final condemnation by fire; please see 2Peter 3.7. He is both. He is Wonderful Counselor and also a double-edged sword splitting the soul and the spirit. He is righteous Judge in the end against 'ungodly men'. There is no seperation of him, the Holy Spirit, nor the Father, they are the same and they are not opposed. He is both merciful and decisive once his patience has been extended past his warnings. God did not appear as multiple manifestations of himself only to cause havoc and war. It is exactly opposite. He appeared as himself always and clearly stated all other gods are false, all other ways are false and he taught it over and over again, from Adam to Noah, Abraham to Jacob, David to Yeshua. Yeshua to the World.

Little gods of no significance existed prior to Abram. God chose Abram precisely because Abram realized wooden idols had no power and were mens lost attempts to regain favor without true repentence or fear. Civilization fell after the first attempt to be godlike by their tower of babylon. The physical tower was a manifestation of their spiritual rebellion and God split them apart into different tribes and nations with different tongues. Pardon me, but just like you they wanted to be like God, making their own path to heaven.

Someone driveling their spittal on the floor is not a manifestation of God, it is directly opposite and neither is tongues taught without full comprehension by those present. To do so is against the teaching of Christ. He does not want people confused, he wants them to clearly understand. Parables were not for confusion, but for weeding out. Speaking in tongues is to enable others to hear, not confuse them with babel.

The Holy Spirit does not make one incomprehensible to others it does directly the opposite, all others understand each other. You hit it really with the word, 'traditions'. These are traditions made by men, not by God. Just like Christ said then so it is today. Christ does not touch you and make you go into epilectic fits - HE PULLS YOU OUT OF THEM!

Speaking of traditions of men,
despite what the Catholic Church declares, this does not make it so. They've simply put forward 'good works', not discernment of the spirit. Their leaders at one time believed money bought heaven too and they've declared Mary as Co-Redemptrix which is explicitly against Christ's teachings. Billions will fail to get in heaven, few will. Otherwise the Gate is wide, not narrow. The Churches all have their problems, thus the reason for Revelations letters which hold true today.

People have tried to create their own gods by many different ways, but we cannot combine, merge or mix and match. God makes the decision who is chosen and he has put forth exactly how this is to be done in only one Sacred Text. We are not allowed to choose other ways to intertwine with Christ through sentimental journeys.

Its not a message one likes to hear, but Peter and Paul were not killed for multiple gods then, nor are Christians beheaded for strange gods today. They were and are killed because of the one true God.

To deny Christ as the only way as spoken of through his words is to deny him fully. Yes he existed prior to Abraham, but he did not enlighten us with his being fully until he came to us in the flesh. He did not appear in India, China, Russia, South America, North America, Australia or any other island. He appeared in Israel first and he came at the will of the Father precisely because Israel had lost its way. The chosen were lost and had to be reminded of The Way.

One of his most important parables is about the seed. Some will hear and grow fully into his word. Others will fall by the wayside due to the ways of this world. Others refused entirely the message at first given. Christ taught the Gospel would be spread through out the world. If people can be saved and appear in heaven through other means there is absolutely no reason at all for Christ to appear, nor disciples to spread the Gospel.

Christ said, not all those who say, 'Lord, Lord...' will enter Heaven. Now, if even those whom have heard his name and call upon him may not enter, how likely is it those whom have not?

God made his decision with Abram and left the others to their gods as was their decision and all generations since have been lost. This was no different than Israel in the desert. Left to their own ways, they seek other gods and forgot the truth. Its not that difficult to understand.

This is what I mean by gnosis and esoteric understandings. Myth gets mixed in easily when one strays from the Way or attempts to merge it with other false teachings. There is a reason that the Gnostic readings are not in the Bible. They were found to be forgeries or attempts by some to make up their own interpretations of how they wanted 'their god' to be.

I realize what I say will not be popular, but thanks for your response and allowing me to participate. You've been very kind. And I like much of what you say conservative-wise and even your words about Christ.

Problem is you're trying to create a new religion which points in multiple directions away from the actual teachings of Christ. A religion which says other ways are available and that is not true. Unitarians, Bahai' and many other forms of one cosmos already exist and are not true either.

1/29/2006 07:20:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Michael--

Something told me you had no interest in my responses, but thanks for asking anyway. I plan to continue this blog when I'm in hell, so perhaps you could ask me some questions about what it's like when I get there. The answers may surprise you.

Bob

1/29/2006 07:34:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home