[
Replying to otseng in post #307]
Understanding the awe inspiring creative process involved in the formation of Galaxies, is a communion with the Living Mind of Creation which no book or movie could ever hope to replicate.
I do believe nature proclaims God's existence. But, as to how to have a relationship with God, I don't see how it can show that.
Then you have yet to establish a working-relationship with The Creator, as the creation does not just proclaim The Mind behind the creation, but is the main medium through which The Mind communes with individual minds and proclaims itself to be real and viable with the individual.
Mind is literally the immaterial [spirit] intimately and effectively involved with the material world.
We know the mind/consciousness is a real aspect of the material world, even that it is immaterial itself.
It can only be direct revelation from The Father. Oral tradition involves a third-party medium and appears to be primarily for those who cannot or will not establish for themselves a relationship of direct revelation.
If it is direct revelation from God, who's to say who is hearing from God correctly?
What business is it to anyone else? It is enough that the individual establishes the connection without doubt.
The accuser has no business in the affairs of the individual and The Mind behind creation.
If the individual allows for the accuser to make the rules as to what constitutes that connection, then the individual has not established that connection sufficiently, and the connection will be lost/become disconnected.
What if what you hear is different from what another person hears?
That is to be expected. That is the point of being an individual. Each of us are unique persons, and thus our relationship with The Mind will also be unique and we would understand that about one another.
It is not a competition between siblings to be recognized as the parents favorite child. If such behavior goes on, one would identify in the nature of it, that all claimants involved most definitely do not have any established relationship with the living Mind behind creation.
Because, if they did, then they would not be behaving as they do.
Or what if what you hear today is different than what you hear tomorrow?
That is par for the course. The MBC understands that it is dealing with "orphans" who are infested with false ideas taught to them throughout their formative years. The relationship develops under those quite normal circumstances as a work in progress and requires the slow and sure striping away of those false ideas, which is just what the MBC has to work with re the individual.
Some ideas will be strongly clung to and will take time to allow for the individual to understand the impact the falseness has had, and let those things go. The MBC will slowly and surely show the individual the falseness as the individual adapts to the procedure and becomes willing to examine things which it has been convinced are true but are evidently seen to be false, only when the individual allows their self to be shown.
What objective criteria would there be to say what is correct?
There is no necessity for any objective criteria [in this case the bible use re religion] to pronounce that the subjective individual mind is or is not in relationship with the MBC. That is between the individual and the MBC.
Therein, there is no single item [Biblical study, philosophy, math, science, history, arts, religion etc] which cannot be useful in the continuing journey into all truth, but these are not singular methodologies in themselves which will help anyone actually establish a direct relationship with The Mind.
We obviously have different ways to have a relationship with God as expressed through all the religions. Which one is the correct one?
Religions are formed through the formation of structures presided over by priesthoods as a means of attempting to control the relationship between the individual and the MBC by becoming the medium or intervening culture. Those who succumb to the role of religion have to forfeit their chance at establishing the genuine by settling for the counterfeit.
I'm asking this rhetorically because this can lead to another huge topic.
It is really the same topic. The bible, as a storybook about different unique folk having alleged relationship with the MBC but is mis-used in the upholding the particular religions involvement and focuses on the priesthood and official paperwork [bible in this case] as the intercession devices proclaimed as necessary by the priesthood. Without 'church' without 'script' [the individuals are informed] there is "no way in which the individual can actually have a real and viable relationship with the MBC."
That is false news.
But, the point is without some objective criteria of what is the correct way to have a relationship, then there's no way to determine if a way to have a relationship with God is right.
Where did you get this information and why do you believe it is truth?
Problematic to Christianity is the belief that the bible alone IS equal to "Establishing and maintaining a relationship between the individual and The Father"
Yes, the Bible is a guide for belief, but there is another side of practice of belief. Having a relationship with God involves more than just mental assent to the Bible, but also prayer and other disciplines.
And what establishes this 'correct' way of connecting and maintaining an alleged relationship with the MBC?
I have explained 'what' that is.
The truth of the matter is, that the individual is having a relationship with a book and often also a denomination [church] and in that, with a priest/preacher...
The MBC requires the individual seeking
genuine relationship, places those things aside and in doing so, changes the things asked for in prayer etc...they are being 'led by the spirit" [immaterial reality - MBC] not by the mediums. Their connection is direct.
It is not an easy path to traverse, for those who set themselves to walk it. However, the results are better than anything the mediums have to offer.
It is most obviously like that. And so too are those who believe it is authoritative as 'the word of god'. That is precisely why folk label it 'the word of god'. To give it an air of authority.
Well, I already covered in depth one case study with the attack on Jerusalem. Would you classify that as folklore?
That is not what I am arguing otseng.
You said: "Fireside storytelling attempts involving first-humans in a paradise and folklore about angels and demons and dragons and talking serpents and floods and fatal bear-attacks on cheeky children and blood sacrifices and other mythological beasties, flies in the face of our actual reality and makes the God of The Great Apes look like something the Greeks and Romans would have thought up, rather than an actual creator Mind of this reality before us, which we call Nature."
Are you referring to the Bible with the above? If so, then what I'm countering is the Bible is not as what you portray it to be.
I am not trying to portray the bible as only those things. I am saying that those things in the bible fly in the face of our actual reality and present an image of the MBC in far less light of authenticity than do the discoveries of science.
Once the biblical image of the MBC would have appeared awesome, but because of the nature of the bible [being a non-living document] it has not been able to keep up and today the imagery is poor in contrast to the actual evidence.
But the MBC is not beholding to any religious priesthood or book, and continues to BE as it is, regardless of how many contrary claims competing religious organizations make.
It is my understanding [correct me if I am misunderstanding] that you do not consider the bible to be the word of The Father?
I personally believe the Bible is the word of God.
And if you were told that you would have to drop this belief in order to strengthen your connection with the Living MBC, would you be able to do so?
In that regard, the bible can be said to be a false idol, phesdo-performing a role of medium between a human being and a false image of The Creator.
What evidence and arguments backs up your claim?
I have already said.
Christianity claims the bible is the WOG. Therein they have their 'authority' re the bible.
It is Christianity which makes the claim, therefore it is up to Christians who believe in the claim to produce the evidence and argument to back up the claim.
The evidence I have is that no Christian has ever been able to back up that claim. They simply believe it on faith - through third-party processes - and won't budge from that position because it is non-negotiable.
I myself prefer a hands on living relationship with The Mind Behind Creation.
That's not considered evidence to back up your claim.
Says who, and why does whoever say that?
As for backing up the claim the Bible should be considered authoritative, that's what I've been discussing in this entire thread.
Yet clearly you have not yet backed up the claim and I for one do not see that you or anyone else could hope to back up the claim, as the claim is false.
The WOG is whatever the living MBC speaks. reveals, enacts re the individual mind intimately connected and can never be a book.
As I also agreed with - by stating that there is no single item [Biblical study, philosophy, math, science, history, arts, religion etc]
which cannot be useful in the continuing journey into all truth, but these are not singular methodologies in themselves which will help anyone
actually establish a direct relationship with The Mind.
At best, the biblical stories [as with every other religious manuscripts] are examples of outlines as to what an individual might expect, but clearly those stories all have their unique and individual qualities regarding this process and therefore it should also be expected by the individual that their own story in relation to that connection between the MBC and their self, will be different from anyone else's story.
Connected, yes. The same, no.
This is primarily why it is false to proclaim any set of writing as 'the word of god' as it elevates the inanimate into a position of assumed authority which it does not and cannot possess, because it is not a living thing.
Therefore, ANY mention of the WOG which is in the bible, is NOT referring to script, and if it is, then it is false/mis-information which would require investigating in a non-bias manner.
Therefore, anyone proclaiming that the bible is the WOG, is proclaiming mis-information and require investigating in a non-bias manner, in order to find out exactly why such folk are making such proclamations.
