parents spoke in tongues...

[Adrian]

Greetings everyone,

The cross has been a sacred symbol from the beginning, and among most civilisations from the Mayans to the Alanteans to the Celts.

I believe that the equilateral cross has a similar, if not identical universal meaning. The vertical axis of the cross represents the middle pillar of higher consciousness as it extends from Malkuth at its lower aspect, to The "All" (Divine Providence, The Akasha Principle)at its very highest aspect. The horizontal axis represents all of creation based in the physical aspect of consciousness, in which we all now exist. The intersection of the axis then represents the aspiration of the true seeker, the initiate, in the ongoing ascent and path, and his/her aspiration ultimately to Cosmic or Divine consciousness. The equilateral cross in absolute terms therefore respresents the goal of us all, that of Spiritual ascent and truth, and ultimately the objective of perfection and unity with "The All".

Of course - this has little of nothing to do with the christian cross which was adopted retrospectively as a symbol of the "crusifixion".

With best regards,

Adrian.

[Lysear]

I have something to add to Adrians previous post. It has also been said that the cross is a development from a much more basic idea than kabbalistic theology.

The cross, it is argued, is actually a symbol of fertility. The upward bar as the errect penis, and the upper bar represents the female. This is much easier to see when you think of older versions of the cross where there was a loop at the top as well. But perhaps the modern cross also has these sexual connotations?

[goingslow]

I get a little tired of the electric chair analogy.  If you chose not to wear a cross or to disregard its meaning thats fine but I get tired of people who put it down and even call it disgraceful.

At this point it has to do with what it represents and I never see any good coming out of mocking something which to others has meaning.

I chose to wear a cross because of what it represents to me.  

Another thing I dont understand is people who talk about going through all these different beliefs as if its a sign of progression.  They seem to honestly believe just because they went through a form of worshiping nature to modern christianity and now to "real" interpretations of the bible thats what the natural progression is.

I happened to be raised catholic but even then I never conformed to that religion. I didn't go through a catholic phase where I argued catholicism over every other religion.  Since I was a kid i would argue the parts I didnt believe in such as you had to be baptised to go to heaven.  I knew since a young age i should figure it out for myself.  I think I was closer to the truth then than to a person who is a devout baptist, then a devout catholic. Then a person who's into "new age stuff".  Seems they're looking for the truth in all these organized religion.  
When a person says they've been through so many faiths Im more likely to let them move through the current one than waste my time debating.  

I myself am still searching for the "truth" but im not doing it by arguing against any religion and conforming to a new perspective.  I mean "real christianity" now?  Why even bother?

I just get a little tired of people who have now found their "real religion" insulting others.  What is the true interpretation of the bible?  You're not even reading the original language it has already been interpreted.

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by James S

Anyone who quotes Terry Pratchett has got to be a good sort![^]
James.

Terry is the man.

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by kakkarot

however, to clarify why i said "perhaps you should focus less on the "letter of the law" and more on the spirit of it", it is because the old law was imperfect in that it relied on people to follow "letter of the law" (the old law in and of itself wasn't imperfect, but the fact that people were only "saved" based on being able to follow the letter of the law was the imperfection of it).

Humm, interesting. May I ask what faith you follow? Just curious.

Paul makes a very good presenation in his letter to the Romans in that salvation has always been through God's grace and God's mercy and never by following the law. The law was a mere tutor which was meant to point the way to God and not a means to an end in itself.

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by timeless

A lot of people followed Jesus around.  They were called followers.  They were not necessarily disciples.  The disciples were taught in detail by Jesus and had close conversation with him and insight into his ways.  I don't think as a follower I can claim to be a disciple.

That is a VERY good observation. Even in the church today we have followers and not disciples. A true christian is forced to be a disciple. Even Jesus makes the distinction between disciples and followers. A disciple is one who has a relationship with Him and not just in name only. Matthew chapter 7 is a good example of that.

quote:Personally I think there are an awful lot of people out there that think they are disciples because they are followers and blindly lead the blind with their interpertations.

You and me both.

quote:They allow each person to judge themselves not set up an endless set of 'interperted rules' to govern and control others.  So I do not buy that all Christian followers are automatically disciples that should be interperting and setting up rules for others as if they have the master's insight.  To likely it is the blind leading the blind.

Ah, but Jesus also said that He would send the Holy Spirit who would lead us into all truth. John the disciple said that since we have the Holy Spirit we have no need for someone to teach us.

I think the biggest problem in the church is that people do not read the bible and rely only on other people's interpretation.

 

quote:As a woman you can imagine my opinion of Paul is not all that high.  Especially since I braid my hair and am not submissive to my husband. You know what Paul thought about women like that.  Want an apple![]  Also the poor guy seemed sort of tortured.

Humm, interesting. Have you studied Paul personally or did someone show you what Paul wrote regarding women?

quote:Sure glad I'm not this confused and Jesus the master certainly wasn't.  Paul kind of discredits himself here as a master. Thank goodness or I would still be in the kitchen.[]

Actually he wasn't confused at all. His point in that particular passage is that he was doomed outside of Christ for he wrote in the next chapter : "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. "

quote:Anywho...at this point I should likely be very frank with you, especially since I have hi-jacked sublimes thread. Sorry sublime[:I].

I apologize as well Sublime.

quote:The hidden flaw to this certainty was that I was denying the validity of much of reality. It was just another cookie cutter mold I had jumped into.  Life is too big and God is to big to be contained in the interpertated rules of any scripture. People could blindly be bickering over those interpertations for years and miss the real point.

Humm, what is "reality"? I'm curious. What is "God"?

I'll agree that people will bicker over scripture. I will be doing my best to get people to read their own bibles. Once they do that it's not longer "Well, I THINK it says this" or "I feel that it means THIS", naw, it should be "the scripture says this". Then it's no longer my interpretation vs your interpretation because we both have functioning brains and it's about time christians started using them. =)

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by goingslow

I get a little tired of the electric chair analogy.  If you chose not to wear a cross or to disregard its meaning thats fine but I get tired of people who put it down and even call it disgraceful.

Humm, who else has been using my analogy?

I would never put down the cross of Christ. However, what christians SHOULD understand is that the cross was a disgraceful symbol. The early church would have been abhorred that it was used as jewlery.

quote:I chose to wear a cross because of what it represents to me.  

What does it represent to you? I'm curious.

quote:I just get a little tired of people who have now found their "real religion" insulting others.  What is the true interpretation of the bible?  You're not even reading the original language it has already been interpreted.

There is never an excuse for insulting others. Has it appeared that I have done that here?

If I translated the original language for you would that carry any more weight than me quoting from a recognized translation? I could do that. It would be hard to read since I would be giving you the straight dope, but I could do that. Just would it make any difference or be in any way more impressive? Or any more sincere?

[kakkarot]

the early christians were told to take pride in the cross because it now symbolized the birth of the new kingdom (jesus death on the cross -> jesus resurrection which was the confirmation of why people should follow the christ rather than other "religions" -> jesus built up the kingdom on the "third day", his resurrection -> so the cross, to a follower of christ, is no longer disgraceful because God used it to bring about His goals).

the cross is a symbol of disgrace to those who view it as what it was mainly used for and not what God used it for (kind of ironic though, eh?)

i follow God's will: there is only one faith.

(side note: the literal translation of the bible from the greek language is really neat, especially the sentence structures. i think everyone should check it out sometime. it really makes you think about the decisions that the translators had to make when rearranging the sentences so that it would be understandable to english-reading people.)

"Paul makes a very good presenation in his letter to the Romans in that salvation has always been through God's grace and God's mercy and never by following the law. The law was a mere tutor which was meant to point the way to God and not a means to an end in itself." bingo, that's the point i was trying to make all along. good to see that you already know it. [|)]

~kakkarot

[sublime]

i gave up reading all of this it sort of got off topic but you guys go ahead

[goingslow]

Nightfall i hope you dont think you made that up.  
Bill hicks said it over and over and it was even in that article "freedom of choice" adrian put up in another thread.

As far as what does it mean to me.  I feel no need to say that here.  I dont sit around jumping from religion to religion in order to debate and try to sound intelligent.

If anything is disgraceful its a person jumping from religion to religion like its a sport.  DEbating how each new found religion is superior to the last one you were into.

Get over yourself.  You're not onto something now with your "real interpretations".  I feel no need to talk to a know it all religious person only here to push his views on other people.

[goingslow]

Your interpretations of the bible are nothing different than anyone elses.  You just think they are.  Again the bible has already been interpreted and much has been left out.  Maybe you should settle down.. look at everything first before you start declaring how right you are.

Im so sick of know it all christians personally.  Hope you dont turn every thread into a religious debate though.  So far you've preached in almost everyone.

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by goingslow

Nightfall i hope you dont think you made that up.  
Bill hicks said it over and over and it was even in that article "freedom of choice" adrian put up in another thread.

Link?

quote:If anything is disgraceful its a person jumping from religion to religion like its a sport.  DEbating how each new found religion is superior to the last one you were into.

Humm, when did I ever imply that I jumped from religion to religion? In my intro on the main page? If you want to know details, my intro spans a 15 year time period.

quote:Get over yourself.  You're not onto something now with your "real interpretations".  I feel no need to talk to a know it all religious person only here to push his views on other people.

Ah, and when exactly have I "pushed" anything? I came on as a christian and therefore I can say what a christian is or is not because christians take the bible as their authority and it defines what a christian is or is not.

Just as I would expect you to speak authoritatively in your arena. If you do not, then the question becomes : why speak at all if you cannot explain what you have come to know as truth?

If truth does not exist at all, then all we're doing is sharing our own personal beliefs and what's to take offense at that?

If truth does exist, then wouldn't it be rather important to find out what is the ultimate truth?

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by goingslow

Your interpretations of the bible are nothing different than anyone elses.  You just think they are.  Again the bible has already been interpreted and much has been left out.  Maybe you should settle down.. look at everything first before you start declaring how right you are.

Humm, when did I declare I was the sole authority of what's right?

quote:Im so sick of know it all christians personally.  Hope you dont turn every thread into a religious debate though.  So far you've preached in almost everyone.

Preached? You would read my posts are preaching? interesting.

[Frank]

This thread has provided an interesting debate IMO. I would like to engage but the specifics are beyond my comprehension. But it is nice to read people posting about their beliefs in a passionate manner.

Yours,
Frank

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by timeless

Yes I have read and studied Paul.

No, I'm familiar with the verses you are talking about, I was just curious if you had personally studied them. Thank you for clarifying that for me. =)

quote:My point and question is why spend so much time on some one who CLAIMED to be chosen instead of focussing on the Master's teachings?

Because Paul was probably the one who understood Jesus teachings better than ANYONE else at the time.

quote:The real founder of Christianity is Saint Paul. Out of the 27 books of New Testament, 14 are attributed to him.  This is true even though the teachings of Saint Paul directly contradicted those of Jesus, and his directly chosen apostles, including James.

Sorry, I would have to respectfully disagee with you here. I'm sure you expected that, so let's talk about it.

quote:When asked what a man must do to get eternal life, Jesus advised us to follow the commandments of the Old Testament (Mark 10:19).

And when the young man answered that he had kept the commandments Jesus said "Follow me."

quote: He further said "Think not that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. ... till heaven and earth pass away, not an inta, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-19).

Jesus did fulfill the law. Paul makes that very clear in Romans and Hebrews.

quote:Apostle James wrote, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24).

"For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law" (Romans 3:28)

Paul vs James is a pretty common argument in MANY circles so I've been forced to study the issue.

If you get a chance, look at Romans 4 and James 2. If you happen to have a bible, look at the references that are given when both these passages talk about Abraham.

Romans 4 will give you Genesis 15. James will give you Genesis 22.

What's the point? Paul says that Abraham was justified because of his faith (Genesis 15). So as far as God was concerned ol Abe was righteous.

James says that "it was fulfilled" and he points to Genesis 22. James is writing to Christians and James is telling them that Abraham fulfilled Genesis 15 by lifting the knife in Genesis 22. James is making the point that "Look guys, you claim you have faith, you claim to believe in one God, you claim all this stuff but how do I know? I can only know what you believe by what you do".

In other words, before God abraham was justified in Genesis 15 by his faith. Before men, Abraham was justified in Genesis 22 before men by what he did. You've got a time period of 44 or so years between Genesis 15 and Genesis 22.

quote:"Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." (Hebrews 9:22).
"Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith" (Romans 3:25).

I see that you believe Paul wrote Hebrews. Good, I do too. Yes, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Jesus fulfilled that. He fulfilled the law requiring either total holiness or death. He died so to fulfilled the entire law, allowing those who would accept that free gift to have eternal life.

quote:Paul is a sea of contradictions:
(1) On women he says, Women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says." (1 Cor 14:34)
On the other hand he says they should have equal place within family, church and society at large. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
Hmmm! Which is it?[][)][] Or was he just clowning around.

It's both. He wasn't clowning. =)

One thing to beware of when reading ancient writings would be the cultural context. The culture at the time Paul was writing was that the men sat on one side of the temple, the women on the other. You can still see this today in Mosques and the early church was organized this way. When a teacher talked the women had the tendancy to yell over to their husbands "What does that mean?" and other such questions. So what's the solution? Wait till you get home to ask questions. Be quiet while the teaching is going on.

But I'm glad you quoted Galations, you can find the same thing in Ephesians. Paul put women on the same level as men, yet in church he had to impose restrictions on their right to speak.

In fact, Paul lays a heavier burden on the man in Ephesians. If you'd like to look at that passage we can.

But what Paul wrote was revolutionary for that time period. He said women were equal to men. And only in christianity was this ever taught. The romans had a LOT of rules regarding women. The jews had a LOT of rules regarding women. Yet God in the gospel writings and through Paul raised them up to their rightful place.

quote:On one hand Paul insists that salvation comes not by anything we can accomplish on our own, or by works of the law, but rather "by faith in Christ." (Gal 2:16)  
On the other he says "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:22) Hmmm! Now everyone runs around trying to save me!  Wonderful.  We all appreciate this so much!

Huh? Could you elaborate on this a little? I'm not sure what to respond to. Sorry.

quote:(3) I could go on with contradictions about homosexuality but we have just been through this mess[xx(] and a few people might throw a few stones at me. Ouch! Warning shots mostly.

Ah, link?

quote:Why so many contradictions in Paul?  I think it is because he was not a master. WHY would do people spend so much time on a struggling student? Perhaps out of interest and curiousity?  But in the end it was the master who showed us the way. Personally I will not waste anymore time on Paul.  Too much gold in the masters of this world.

Humm, I'm interested in your phrasing thoughout this post. Could you please define what a master is and is not?

quote:You want the truth eh!  The Truth is the light. The light is the way.  When you have seen the light.  Your perception of the the truth will never be the same again.  The light is the light (literally).  When the light (literally) comes and visits you one day all this will not hold the same allure to you.  All these words become an academic exercise of curiosity. This is yet another reason why I do not believe Paul's CLAIM, for words were everything to this zealous Pharisee.

Again, I'm interested in your phrasing. Could you tell me more about this light?

But I do appreciate your polite post. I guess I've ticked off some other people, so I'm happy that you're not angry.

[James S]

Sublime,
I'll try and fit in an example here that will hopefully steer back to your original topic.

Having studied the scriptures myself for about 16 years, and attended different churches with different focuses on the scriptures, I have come to feel that theology has become more important to many christians that Christ himself.

I would submit my thoughts that the bible - the book itself is imperfect. It has been translated a great many times. It has been frequently modified over the years because of theological disagreements by church leaders, particularly during the middle ages where the sources of the original english translations were under the control of religious orders. As to the original greek and hebrew texts - just how *original* do we truly KNOW them to be.

As religious texts throughout the world go, the bible is one of the least consistent. Stack it up against the Qur'an. Every single copy of the Qur'an is identical to every other copy. If you get a copy in Iran turn to page 176, look at the third word in on the 5th line, it will be exactly the same word in exactly the same spot as a copy you might get in New York. There are no translational inconsistencies.

By comparison, a great deal of time is spent by christian theologins arguing not only interpretations, but translations. To what end? Better confusionment of christians? (Yes I made that word up, but I think it fits well anyway.) The more I studied the more I came down to this - the words of Jesus himself as recorded in the first four books of the new testament. These words are among the most accurately translated and consistent in the whole bible.

His words Are clear, easy to understand, hard to misinterpret, and if you follow what he says, most of the rest of the New Testament, especially Paul's lengthy bits of legalese, are almost redundant. If you take Jesus rather uncomplicated phrase "Love others as you would love yourself" and really take this to heart, all of the rest of the rules and regulations become unnecessary, because you will naturally start to follow them as side effect of following the teachings of Jesus.

The whole business of tounges is a really good example of how differing opinions within the christian church cloud the issue rather than making it clear. Some schools of thought will tell you it is the evidence of the Holy Spirit, others will tell you its one of the gifts of the spirit. PeacefulWarrior pointed this out very well, with many exaples to prove his point.

Exactly where do you think Sublime's mother would fit in here? Well, many other christians will tell you that its none of the above, that if she isn't a born again christian then she has to have been speaking in the tounges of demons.

Now, Sublime, your mother hasn't been practicing any strange dark rituals that you know of has she? I didn't think so.

Whatever the real cause of Sublime's mothers untranslatable oratory, it will be very hard to get a consistent opinion out of christians of different denominations. They will probably be too busy bickering over what it means based on what passages of the bible they will use as their "proof".

Just on that point, Nightfall, when I mentioned that Sublime's mother's words could have been a form of prayer or ward, I'm fairly sure this was not as a christian would have it, but that gives it no less potency or meaning. The Bible might not condone mediumship, but that does not mean that God, as in the Source of all that is, doesn't. I say this as I am yet to be convinced that the bible is God's first and last word on all matters spiritual.

James.

[sublime]

Ah James,
  Thank you for summing up things for me. I definitely see where you are coming from. It is sad that the Bible is translated differently over churches/time. It's also sad to me that the christian religion itself is so segragated. There are so many different outlets of the christian church that all fundamentally are trying to do the exact same thing (teach the word of Christ through the bible etc...) It's sad that they can't all do it together as one "Christian Church". This may be another reason as to why the Bible has changed focus throughout the churches. For example, the catholics emphasis on the Virgin Mother is not found in many other christian churches. By the way are Catholics considered Christians anyways?

   To the point about my mother, she does not practice any demonic sort of religion or whatever. From what I know, she has been a Christian all her life (Attends the Methodist Church). Now, I also believe that my mother is a VERY spiritual person. The reason I say this is because she is EXTREMELY emotional. Like for instance, a 30 second commercial that has a baby in it may make her cry. I guess it doesnt help that she is Manic Depressive but regardless, things seem to touch her deeply as they do with me as well. Music has been a wonderful example of this as well. She plays the flute by ear and can hardly read music. She will close her eyes and become emersed in the music that she plays. For me, it's more listening to music than performance. I listen to many kinds of music. I find that certain songs/groups send a major chill down my spine... (see one of my old posts when someone posted a thread about music and energy) Anyways, I almost feel spritually connected to certain songs and/or lyrics. It's almost a feeling I can't describe.

 The reason I'm telling you all of this is because I really feel that instead of using religious terms and ideals to explain what may have happened to my mom, maybe use spiritual terms. Religion itself is so fuzzy in nature yet with things like out of body experiences, we are now able to have hands on experience with what I believe is the spirit. Personally, I believe in God and Christ as the savior but not everyone does. I have adapted buddhist philosophies as well. I have come to the conclusion that it is completely impossible for someone to say "These are my beliefs, this is what is right, if you dont follow this you are wrong and will go to a bad bad place" Culturally that just wouldnt work out. Spiritually it wouldnt either. We as human beings are touched spiritually in many different ways. We know so little about the human spirit and what some "superior being" may have in store for us. Since my mom spoke in tongues randomly while giving birth to two children on two seperate occassions, I'd really like to think that this wasn't some sort of a message so much as maybe proof that the sprit inside her exists and that spirit may hold the knowledge that it takes to live in other realms (ie... speaking various languages). So basically, I think it was possibly her spirit that spoke through her? Who knows? I think I've confused myself. Bah

[Nightfall]

James there are many things I would like to discuss with you offline. I hesistate to hijack Sublime's thread more.

So I will email you about them. =)

Sublime, while there are many different denominations, there is only one true church. The reason that catholics are considered christian is because they preach the same exact gospel that every denomination preaches. As agustine once said "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity".

In essentials there is only one christian church. In non-essentials there are many denominations. And in all churches there seems to be a lack of charity. Which I find sad.

But regarding the bible, the area of textual criticism is a pretty fascinating one. I could point you to several books which talk about the translation of the bible. The only point I wanted to make is that currently we have 24,000 different manuscripts in greek, aramaic and latin. The greek copies (not translations, but direct copies) are very prevalent. The bible versions that are currently being sold are based on the copies, not translations of translations. One particular example that I really like is the telephone example. We've all played telephone in school where something is whispered and by the time it gets to the end of the line the message is completely and totally changed. With regards to the bible, the same example would be that the original message was spoken, loudly and clearly (the original copies in the original languages) and then every third person could then repeat back to the originator to make sure they still had it right before passing it on. With that sort of example, errors would be minimized.

The same is true of the bible manuscripts, the copies we have. Critical scholars have estimated that between the 24,000 manuscripts there exists about a 99.99% accuracy.

The problem with the quran is that you need to understand arabic in order to "get" the miracle. Second there exists copies of the quran that do differ from the accepted.

[James S]

A young man has just started his novitiate in a monastery in the year 1750.
The Abbot explains to him that the primary function of this monastery is the reproduction of the bible. They had no press so the reproductions were done by hand.
The Abbot showed the young man around and explained the process, whereby the monks would take last years bibles and copy them word for word, as last years copy had not yet faded at all.

The young man questioned the Abbot on this point "Father, if we are reproducing only last years copy, isn't there a chance someone might make a mistake, and that mistake gets copied? Are we not able to use the original texts?"
"Oh no," the Abbot says, "the originals are far to valuable and delicate, and are kept locked up down in the cellars. Don't worry, our order is highly skilled at reproducing the texts accurately."

A few days later the young man is looking all around for the Abbot, and finally finds him down in the cellars moaning and banging his head against the wall.
"Whats the matter Father?" the man asks.
The Abbot replies "I thought about what you said the other day, so I came down here to compare our recent copies to the originals."
"And?"
"The word is CELEBRATE!"

[]
James.

[sublime]

One day, i had a discussion with my dad about astral projection (actually asking him if he was doing something that i saw while i floated into his room... he was) so anyways, we started talking and he didnt seem surprised at all at this and he went on to tell me some things that i didnt know about my family.
 he told me that when my mother was giving birth to both my brother and i, she spoke in tongues both times. he also said that there were many times while he was growing up that he would be driving or doing nothing out of the ordinary and he would feel what he described as a "whelling" up in his chest and then he would blurt something out in tongues. he went to see a priest or something about it and recalled a phrase that he spoke and the priest translated it to something like "God Lord Almighty" or something of that nature.

  I was just wondering if anyone has any information on this phenomenon and what it may possibly mean?

Mike