Paying money to church pastors and musicians

[Terrywoodenpic]

Are there any points that you think I've got wrong? I don't think I gave any factual statements that are controversial: there were violent aspects of both the Indian independence and US civil rights movements; The British Empire did collapse after (and predominantly because of) World War II. Do you disagree with these points?

The collapse of the British Empire started long before that. Protests and riots started to escalate after the First world war. It was well established by the time of the second world war. WW2 had little to do with it. Though the weakened state of the UK, made it impossible to resist.

The days of Empires was past... Perhaps the last to fall was the USSR. Though some could say that the USA has many of the attributes of an Empire.

 

[drsatish]

(Penguin..this is humor...don't take it to heart..)

9 - 1Oths Penguin (your avatar) means 9/10th Penguin
Penguin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

..sweet, docile, non-violent creatures!

All Humans Agree!

All small fish, squid, octopus and crustaceans DisAgree!

What Do Penguins Eat

Are you advocating Rationality, Non-Violence or Violence or an evading, nobody-knows what answer..."All?"

Satish

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I want to make this a rigorous exploration of the issues.
As an Indian, living in India, the common notion is that
Gandhi….got the Freedom for India (hence he being recognized as the Father of the Nation)
Indian independence movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
&
not
Subhas Chandra Bose
Subhas Chandra Bose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Though I have been to the U.S and have studied it,
you may know something more about it, (assuming you are there).
Please enlighten,
Satish

It's not an either-or. The Indian independence movement had both of them. Maybe Gandhi was more important than Bose (actually, I'd agree with this), but Bose was still a part of it, as were the outside forces that were probably more important than the two of them put together.

Indian independence was only possible because the British Empire was in decline. Do you think that a similar movement would have been successful when the British were at their height of power?

Many of the reasons for the success of the Indian independence movement weren't rooted in India at all, so I don't think you can credit the Indian non-violence movement as the reason for independence.

(Penguin..this is humor...don't take it to heart..)

9 - 1Oths Penguin (your avatar) means 9/10th Penguin
Penguin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

..sweet, docile, non-violent creatures!

All Humans Agree!

All small fish, squid, octopus and crustaceans DisAgree!

What Do Penguins Eat

Are you advocating Rationality, Non-Violence or Violence or an evading, nobody-knows what answer..."All?"

I'm advocating a balanced view of history, mainly.

However, I do think that violence has its time and place. While I think non-violence is a worthwhile goal, sometimes the best way to reach that goal is through violent means. As the Japanese saying goes, "the sword that kills is the sword that gives life." The cause of good is better served by confronting and stopping evil than it is by being passive before it.

 

[drsatish]

It's not an either-or. The Indian independence movement had both of them. Maybe Gandhi was more important than Bose (actually, I'd agree with this), but Bose was still a part of it, as were the outside forces that were probably more important than the two of them put together.

Indian independence was only possible because the British Empire was in decline. Do you think that a similar movement would have been successful when the British were at their height of power?

Many of the reasons for the success of the Indian independence movement weren't rooted in India at all, so I don't think you can credit the Indian non-violence movement as the reason for independence.


I'm advocating a balanced view of history, mainly.

However, I do think that violence has its time and place. While I think non-violence is a worthwhile goal, sometimes the best way to reach that goal is through violent means. As the Japanese saying goes, "the sword that kills is the sword that gives life." The cause of good is better served by confronting and stopping evil than it is by being passive before it.

I agree that a ‘Balanced View’ is practical…
even Buddha advocated the ‘Middle Path’
&
Aristotle advocated the ‘Golden Mean Rule’.
But as far as I know, NEITHER advocated a
Sometimes violent…sometimes non-violent path.
VIOLENCE = basically a Balance of Violent Forces
(eg 5888 nuclear bombs of Me vs 5889 nuclear bombs of Them)
..hence I build 5988 nuclear bombs..
..and hence THEY build 6088 nuclear bombs….
..and it Spirals!
…and sometimes..Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties…come into place…
(most probably because of NON-ACCESS to Ability to MINE Nuclear Forces from Mother Earth
rather than NOT MINING the Nuclear Forces RIGHT UNDER YOUR FOOT!)
Hence, I agree with the main thrust of your argument.
But we are RATIONAL creatures and not just GREEDY, POWER HUNGRY yesterday-creatures.
Ok, now let’s put the 2 sword statements on a Ninja Fight…
“the sword that kills is the sword that gives life’ ….that is 2nd degree Maths
Vs
Jesus’
Live by the sword, die by the sword - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
…3rd degree Maths…
If the RED BUTTON is PUSHED…inadvertently or purposefully,
Where do you think the MOST CAUSALITIES would be in the FIRST WEEK of EXCHANGE?
…U.S or RUSSIA?
United States - 8,500
Russian Federation - 11,000
List of states with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you have any idea on WHAT 8500 + 11000 Nuclear BOMBs can DO to DNA on Earth…? (USA & Russia having been vaporized!)

Lesser Nuclear Countries like Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, N.Korea etc WILL BE SPARED for the FIRST WEEK…
…after THAT…
..Nuclear Fall-Out & Nuclear Cloud will TAKE OVER!
&
Darwin like Perceptive Minds will have to be REBORN….on Another Planet or Another Time Scale on Earth.

When SUCH is the Rational Understanding,
can you please tell me
why I should either SHARPEN MY KNIFE
or
become SHARP ENOUGH to Migrate To Manhattan Island?
Manhattan Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Satish

 

[sojourner]

What are ISSUES?....Spiritual or Materialistic?

You see, the inner core of Truth SHINES....irrespective of the "LIMITS" within which it is supposed to shine...by vested interests.

One DOES NOT HAVE to be a CHRISTIAN to get the message of what Jesus said. As already being discussed in other threads, even 38000 denominations of Christianity are not clear about Christianity.

Pls check
Amazon.com: Gandhi and Jesus: The Saving Power of Nonviolence (9781570757662): Terrence J. Rynne: Books
The Kingdom of God Is Within You - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Spirituality & Practice: Book Review: Gandhi & Jesus, by Terrence J. Rynne
From Jesus To Gandhi: Re-Reading the Gospels - The Daily Dish - The Atlantic

Satish

smokescreeen. You're asserting that Jesus' "main message" was nonviolence. And then you're bringing other stuff into the mix that have nothing to do with Jesus or his message to prove your point that Jesus' "main message" was nonviolence. In order to find out what Jesus' "main message" is, all you have to do is read the gospels. Following his baptism, Jesus went about the countryside preaching. His message was: "turn your lives around, because God's kingdom has come near." It's that simple. I don't give a tinker's da** what Gandhi or MLK did. It has nothing to do with Jesus' "Main message."

Additionally, I couldn't care less about the links you posted. They're not worth my time. They shed nothing on the issue of Jesus' "main message" that could possibly interest me and that I'm not already aware of.

 

[drsatish]

smokescreeen. You're asserting that Jesus' "main message" was nonviolence. And then you're bringing other stuff into the mix that have nothing to do with Jesus or his message to prove your point that Jesus' "main message" was nonviolence. In order to find out what Jesus' "main message" is, all you have to do is read the gospels. Following his baptism, Jesus went about the countryside preaching. His message was: "turn your lives around, because God's kingdom has come near." It's that simple. I don't give a tinker's da** what Gandhi or MLK did. It has nothing to do with Jesus' "Main message."

Additionally, I couldn't care less about the links you posted. They're not worth my time. They shed nothing on the issue of Jesus' "main message" that could possibly interest me and that I'm not already aware of.

"turn your lives around"

That is something you and I agree with COMPLETELY

"God's kingdom has come near"
is subject to interpretation as per insight.

What gives you the RIGHT to INTERPRET WHAT JESUS Meant?

(when even Peter, who lived by him 24/7 had trouble understanding what he meant)

..because you call yourself Christian, or you Swear by the Bible...
..or You are the Head of Catholics or you are the Head of Protestants?

Satish

 

[sojourner]

"turn your lives around"

That is something you and I agree with COMPLETELY

"God's kingdom has come near"
is subject to interpretation as per insight.

What gives you the RIGHT to INTERPRET WHAT JESUS Meant?

(when even Peter, who lived by him 24/7 had trouble understanding what he meant)

..because you call yourself Christian, or you Swear by the Bible...
..or You are the Head of Catholics or you are the Head of Protestants?

Satish

There's no need for interpretation. That's what the text, itself, says. That's the "main message" that we are told Jesus went about preaching.

"Rights" are not necessary to interpret a multivalent text. However, education is, if one wants to make an informed inquiry. As a member of the clergy with standing, I have spent a reasonable amount of time acquiring such, to the end that I can make such informed inquiry. So can a lot of other people. None of it depends upon what Ganhdi or MLK did.

 

[drsatish]

There's no need for interpretation. That's what the text, itself, says. That's the "main message" that we are told Jesus went about preaching.

"Rights" are not necessary to interpret a multivalent text. However, education is, if one wants to make an informed inquiry. As a member of the clergy with standing, I have spent a reasonable amount of time acquiring such, to the end that I can make such informed inquiry. So can a lot of other people. None of it depends upon what Ganhdi or MLK did.

There's no need for interpretation. That's what the text, itself, says. That's the "main message" that we are told Jesus went about preaching.

"we are told"
WHO told you This?

TEXT?
Approved Gospels or Gnostic Gospels?
Satish

 

[sojourner]

There's no need for interpretation. That's what the text, itself, says. That's the "main message" that we are told Jesus went about preaching.

"we are told"
WHO told you This?

TEXT?
Approved Gospels or Gnostic Gospels?
Satish

Might I suggest that you read the Bible -- particularly Mk 1:14-15 and Mt. 4:17. It would be helpful to you at this point in the game. Mark is the oldest canonical gospel text. Matthew is next, and includes this passage of Mark in its text. It happens immediately following Jesus' return from the desert after having been baptized. That's the crux of Jesus' message that causes, as LK says in 4:14, "a report about him to be spread through all the surrounding country."

 

[drsatish]

Might I suggest that you read the Bible -- particularly Mk 1:14-15 and Mt. 4:17. It would be helpful to you at this point in the game. Mark is the oldest canonical gospel text. Matthew is next, and includes this passage of Mark in its text. It happens immediately following Jesus' return from the desert after having been baptized. That's the crux of Jesus' message that causes, as LK says in 4:14, "a report about him to be spread through all the surrounding country."

We can argue for the next 2000 years and yet not come to a conclusion, as to who or what Jesus was or what he taught - as this has not been settled unanimously even after the last 2000 years. My view on the matter parallels more or less what is mentioned in this article:
Elaine Pagels on "Jesus and his Message in the Gnostic Gospels"
Jesus and his Message in the Gnostic Gospels
Some key sentences from here:

• Any Christian who has paid attention to the readings of the gospels in church will realize that there are significant differences in their perspective on the nature of Jesus.
• Among the myriad of Jesus' followers were the Gnostics, a group so-called because they believed one could seek after God and find secret knowledge or wisdom by studying oneself (the Greek word gnosis literally means "those who know"). The Gnostics' appraisal of Jesus' teachings was a stance we have come to associate today with the religions of the East, which are permeated by similar drive after personal enlightenment. Indeed, Pagels' favorite Gnostic saying of Jesus, gospel of Thomas 70, fits comfortably within these mystical traditions: "You must bring forth what is within you to be saved; if you do not, you will be destroyed."
• The Gnostics believed that by investigating the source of sorrow, joy, love and hate, one could cultivate insight and discover God as the fountainhead of all of these states of being. The significance of Jesus is interpreted to be that of a model, one whose instruction to come and know oneself as he did will transform human beings into sons (and daughters) of God like him. Consistent with the scholarly consensus that Jesus' purpose was not to found a new religion centering its devotion upon him, the Gospel of Philip, a companion text to the gospel of Thomas, urges followers not to become Christians, but rather new Christs.
• Pagels gives a more rational explanation for why the Church deemed the Gnostic gospels to be dangerous and banned them. The coexistence of this Gnostic Theology alongside other views of Jesus' divinity was a direct challenge to the consolidating power structure of the Church.
• The Gnostic understanding of Jesus rendered the Church's existence unnecessary; one did not have to go through Jesus and the Church, but could approach God on one's own.

My suggestion to you would be:
1. Become more open-minded.
2. Read the ‘church-banned’ gospels – in your non-church time (in secrecy or in defiance).
3. Read the inner-core experience of founders of other religions and their practitioners, their interpretations and the philosophies they evolved out of these experiences.
4. Abandon a purely intellectual approach and Explore Your Inner Self using methods like introspection, concentration, meditation etc.
5. If you are a 100% devout Christian, forget the Church and approved gospels and go after the Inner Self – which is Jesus or what Jesus experienced as the Inner Self. Both your Inner Self and Jesus’ Inner Self ARE THE SAME.
Be Blessed,
Satish
PS: You can also try initiating Gnostic methodology in the Church.

 

[sojourner]

We can argue for the next 2000 years and yet not come to a conclusion, as to who or what Jesus was or what he taught - as this has not been settled unanimously even after the last 2000 years. My view on the matter parallels more or less what is mentioned in this article:
Elaine Pagels on "Jesus and his Message in the Gnostic Gospels"
Jesus and his Message in the Gnostic Gospels
Some key sentences from here:

• Any Christian who has paid attention to the readings of the gospels in church will realize that there are significant differences in their perspective on the nature of Jesus.
• Among the myriad of Jesus' followers were the Gnostics, a group so-called because they believed one could seek after God and find secret knowledge or wisdom by studying oneself (the Greek word gnosis literally means "those who know"). The Gnostics' appraisal of Jesus' teachings was a stance we have come to associate today with the religions of the East, which are permeated by similar drive after personal enlightenment. Indeed, Pagels' favorite Gnostic saying of Jesus, gospel of Thomas 70, fits comfortably within these mystical traditions: "You must bring forth what is within you to be saved; if you do not, you will be destroyed."
• The Gnostics believed that by investigating the source of sorrow, joy, love and hate, one could cultivate insight and discover God as the fountainhead of all of these states of being. The significance of Jesus is interpreted to be that of a model, one whose instruction to come and know oneself as he did will transform human beings into sons (and daughters) of God like him. Consistent with the scholarly consensus that Jesus' purpose was not to found a new religion centering its devotion upon him, the Gospel of Philip, a companion text to the gospel of Thomas, urges followers not to become Christians, but rather new Christs.
• Pagels gives a more rational explanation for why the Church deemed the Gnostic gospels to be dangerous and banned them. The coexistence of this Gnostic Theology alongside other views of Jesus' divinity was a direct challenge to the consolidating power structure of the Church.
• The Gnostic understanding of Jesus rendered the Church's existence unnecessary; one did not have to go through Jesus and the Church, but could approach God on one's own.

My suggestion to you would be:
1. Become more open-minded.
2. Read the ‘church-banned’ gospels – in your non-church time (in secrecy or in defiance).
3. Read the inner-core experience of founders of other religions and their practitioners, their interpretations and the philosophies they evolved out of these experiences.
4. Abandon a purely intellectual approach and Explore Your Inner Self using methods like introspection, concentration, meditation etc.
5. If you are a 100% devout Christian, forget the Church and approved gospels and go after the Inner Self – which is Jesus or what Jesus experienced as the Inner Self. Both your Inner Self and Jesus’ Inner Self ARE THE SAME.
Be Blessed,
Satish
PS: You can also try initiating Gnostic methodology in the Church.

You really need to study up more on Gnosticism. I don't have time to go into detail here, but suffice to say your POV with regard to Gnosticism is limited and it skews your thinking.

First of all, Thomas isn't a Gnostic gospel. It may have some gnostic elements, but that's not its locus.

Second, Pagels is wrong on the point of threat. The threat wasn't political, it was theological. You said it yourself:

The Gnostic understanding of Jesus rendered the Church's existence unnecessary

If you read the gospels, you will quickly find that they are extremely community-oriented. To be right with God implies relationship -- not only between an individual and God, but especially as the relationship is borne out and made manifest in our relationships with others. When we do these things to the least of us, we do them to Christ.

If your view of Gnosticism is correct, it is dangerous because it places an emphasis on individuality which runs completely counter to what Jesus was teaching by word and example: the establishment of God in community with humanity as a whole. The very reason why the doctrine of the Trinity was established was to establish community as the standard of our being. The Trinity -- God available in three Persons -- is the ultimate expression of God-as-community.

Gnosticism places a great deal of emphasis on doing and attaining. But orthodoxy (indeed, Xy itself) places the emphasis on being, and on becoming, with the caveat that it is creator God who effects the becoming in us, and not we, ourselves. We come no closer to God through the attainment of knowing. Rather, we come close to God because God comes close to us and makes God's Self known to us in the breaking of bread (which is done in community). the knowing is in being known.

Third, you have no idea how "open-minded" I am. I am perfectly willing to accept Gnostics into the Xian community, because I believe that hospitality is key, and because hospitality is key, unity is established. Unity does not mean "uniformity," it means an allowance for "diversity." Gnostics are part of the human family and, as such, they are part of Christ's kingdom, in all its wondrous variety.

Fourth, you also have no idea as to the disposition of my spiritual formation, so please don't pretend to lecture me in the finer points of it. You may be assured that I've got a real good handle on the matter. There is a time for every purpose. There is time to be alone with God. There is also time to be together with God in community.

Fifth, if I forget the church, I forget God, since the Church is the Body of Christ and Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity. If I forget the Church, I also forget the manifest God, because God is always manifest in and through the community.

Might I suggest that you do some further study of both Gnosticism and orthodoxy before preaching to the Preacher and directing the Spiritual Director? I think you've got some good ideas, but they need some fleshing out, IMHO.

 

[drsatish]

You really need to study up more on Gnosticism. I don't have time to go into detail here, but suffice to say your POV with regard to Gnosticism is limited and it skews your thinking.

First of all, Thomas isn't a Gnostic gospel. It may have some gnostic elements, but that's not its locus.

Second, Pagels is wrong on the point of threat. The threat wasn't political, it was theological. You said it yourself:

If you read the gospels, you will quickly find that they are extremely community-oriented. To be right with God implies relationship -- not only between an individual and God, but especially as the relationship is borne out and made manifest in our relationships with others. When we do these things to the least of us, we do them to Christ.

If your view of Gnosticism is correct, it is dangerous because it places an emphasis on individuality which runs completely counter to what Jesus was teaching by word and example: the establishment of God in community with humanity as a whole. The very reason why the doctrine of the Trinity was established was to establish community as the standard of our being. The Trinity -- God available in three Persons -- is the ultimate expression of God-as-community.

Gnosticism places a great deal of emphasis on doing and attaining. But orthodoxy (indeed, Xy itself) places the emphasis on being, and on becoming, with the caveat that it is creator God who effects the becoming in us, and not we, ourselves. We come no closer to God through the attainment of knowing. Rather, we come close to God because God comes close to us and makes God's Self known to us in the breaking of bread (which is done in community). the knowing is in being known.

Third, you have no idea how "open-minded" I am. I am perfectly willing to accept Gnostics into the Xian community, because I believe that hospitality is key, and because hospitality is key, unity is established. Unity does not mean "uniformity," it means an allowance for "diversity." Gnostics are part of the human family and, as such, they are part of Christ's kingdom, in all its wondrous variety.

Fourth, you also have no idea as to the disposition of my spiritual formation, so please don't pretend to lecture me in the finer points of it. You may be assured that I've got a real good handle on the matter. There is a time for every purpose. There is time to be alone with God. There is also time to be together with God in community.

Fifth, if I forget the church, I forget God, since the Church is the Body of Christ and Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity. If I forget the Church, I also forget the manifest God, because God is always manifest in and through the community.

Might I suggest that you do some further study of both Gnosticism and orthodoxy before preaching to the Preacher and directing the Spiritual Director? I think you've got some good ideas, but they need some fleshing out, IMHO.

Ok, the results which both you and I HOPE to achieve through Jesus’ message:

• Reaching out to other humans (community service, as expressed by you).
• Non-violence and ‘enemy-negation & hatred destruction’ as per Jesus…and me.

What you are advocating is “External Pressure Influence” – The Church with its Rod & Candy.

I feel the majority of church-goers go to church because it is expected of them, a social routine, with not much importance – for fear of insult and ostracization if one refuses to comply with established routines.

To assess the REAL results of this approach, perhaps you can start COMPUTERIZING your CONFESSIONS and see the number of persons who have refrained from that act after the confession. Regional and Country specific averages can be worked out.

My approach is a "change from WITHIN approach."

Once the inner-self has been EXPERIENCED to be the SAME as the inner-self of ALL OTHER HUMANS, how will you get the impulse or desire to HARM another human? Somewhat like “will a human want to harm his own son or daughter –as he perceives them to be almost his own self replica, if not a complete replica.

This is Stage 1: When you don’t have ill intentions towards Any Human Replicas. You are absolutely non-violent and may be you are a bit aloof.

Stage 2: dawns, after having been in Stage 1 for some time – something hits your heart when you see the suffering of a little version of yours as a third party child – suffering, suffering due to some particular reason …..and then You Wake Up!.....and devote the rest of your life in alleviating such suffering and pain in other semi-clones of yours!
(which will appear as community service, from your perspective).

Net Result?

A 50-foot radius space AROUND each Christian BECOMES (your Becoming) Non-Violent & Peaceful!

When it is counted and calculated by Polyhedral, the equation becomes:
2,200 x 1,000,000 x π x r2 (where r is 50)
[FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol2/circle_area.html[/FONT]
= 2,200 x 1,000,000 x 3.14 x 50 x 50
= 17,270,000 000,000 Square Foot of Prime Peace Land on Earth!

Satish
PS: Do you have an idea of How Big that Land Mass is?
PS: “Your God” will be damn pleased of the Results Achieved…and may even call you over for a friendly chat!

 

[sojourner]

Ok, the results which both you and I HOPE to achieve through Jesus’ message:

• Reaching out to other humans (community service, as expressed by you).
• Non-violence and ‘enemy-negation & hatred destruction’ as per Jesus…and me.

You're misunderstanding me. I never said anything about community service or "reaching out to other humans." Those activities involve an individualistic POV. What I said was that orthodoxy takes a communal POV. Community service is something I do to the community. Reaching out happens between different spaces. Those acts represent a particularity of place: I am "I" -- the community is "thou." I am here, thou art "there." But to be community takes the particularity away. Since there is no particularity, "we" then stand in solidarity with those who suffer -- as Christ stands in solidarity with us by undergoing ultimate suffering.

What you are advocating is “External Pressure Influence” – The Church with its Rod & Candy.

Nope. What I'm advocating is internal synchronicity. There is no "outside"/"inside," if there is only "us" and no "them."

I feel the majority of church-goers go to church because it is expected of them, a social routine, with not much importance – for fear of insult and ostracization if one refuses to comply with established routines.

Orthodoxy, however, is not defined by what its weaker members do. Orthodoxy (again) isn't about doing. It's about being. We are reconciled -- even with all our warts. Even if we do "go to church because it's expected of us." That makes no difference to grace, in the orthodox POV.

However, you seem to want to differentiate between "us" and "them." You seem to want to convey that perfection is something attained by action, rather than something granted by grace. That's why Gnosticism is heretical. it doesn't allow for Christ's act of grace to be efficacious.

To assess the REAL results of this approach, perhaps you can start COMPUTERIZING your CONFESSIONS and see the number of persons who have refrained from that act after the confession. Regional and Country specific averages can be worked out.

I don't know what you're getting at here, except to say that grace is not metered or quantified, as you seem to indicate. People take some steps forward and some back. So what? They're on a journey, not on a destination. People are always in process of becoming. They are never there.

My approach is a "change from WITHIN approach."

Once the inner-self has been EXPERIENCED to be the SAME as the inner-self of ALL OTHER HUMANS, how will you get the impulse or desire to HARM another human? Somewhat like “will a human want to harm his own son or daughter –as he perceives them to be almost his own self replica, if not a complete replica.

This is Stage 1: When you don’t have ill intentions towards Any Human Replicas. You are absolutely non-violent and may be you are a bit aloof.

Stage 2: dawns, after having been in Stage 1 for some time – something hits your heart when you see the suffering of a little version of yours as a third party child – suffering, suffering due to some particular reason …..and then You Wake Up!.....and devote the rest of your life in alleviating such suffering and pain in other semi-clones of yours!
(which will appear as community service, from your perspective).

Net Result?

A 50-foot radius space AROUND each Christian BECOMES (your Becoming) Non-Violent & Peaceful!

Well, OK, but I would say that the space around "each" contains "all." The "change from within" comes as we allow ourselves to be informed by and changed by the uniqueness of those with whom we identify. It's not a "join us -- be one of us" thing. It's a "Gee, I'm really excited to see how we might be changed by being open to one another."

It involves a change of paradigm as we embrace the grace that has been given us through Jesus. We don't attain it. We don't win it. We receive it.

 

[drsatish]

You're misunderstanding me. I never said anything about community service or "reaching out to other humans." Those activities involve an individualistic POV. What I said was that orthodoxy takes a communal POV. Community service is something I do to the community. Reaching out happens between different spaces. Those acts represent a particularity of place: I am "I" -- the community is "thou." I am here, thou art "there." But to be community takes the particularity away. Since there is no particularity, "we" then stand in solidarity with those who suffer -- as Christ stands in solidarity with us by undergoing ultimate suffering.

Nope. What I'm advocating is internal synchronicity. There is no "outside"/"inside," if there is only "us" and no "them."

Orthodoxy, however, is not defined by what its weaker members do. Orthodoxy (again) isn't about doing. It's about being. We are reconciled -- even with all our warts. Even if we do "go to church because it's expected of us." That makes no difference to grace, in the orthodox POV.

However, you seem to want to differentiate between "us" and "them." You seem to want to convey that perfection is something attained by action, rather than something granted by grace. That's why Gnosticism is heretical. it doesn't allow for Christ's act of grace to be efficacious.

I don't know what you're getting at here, except to say that grace is not metered or quantified, as you seem to indicate. People take some steps forward and some back. So what? They're on a journey, not on a destination. People are always in process of becoming. They are never there.

Well, OK, but I would say that the space around "each" contains "all." The "change from within" comes as we allow ourselves to be informed by and changed by the uniqueness of those with whom we identify. It's not a "join us -- be one of us" thing. It's a "Gee, I'm really excited to see how we might be changed by being open to one another."

It involves a change of paradigm as we embrace the grace that has been given us through Jesus. We don't attain it. We don't win it. We receive it.

I think you and I are talking about / expressing more or less the same thing : You are talking in Chinese and I am talking in Japanese. Many of the sentences of yours can be used to express what I am saying also. But the major point of difference, I feel, is one of architecture. You perceive the Universe as pyramidal and I perceive it as oceanic!

Happy Sailing! Or should I say Mountain Climbing?
Satish