Jim Marion-Nondual Consciousness

[Tamara224]

With Love Tamara, With Love . we speak the truth in Love

read the letter to Ephesus in Revelation 2 it may very well speak to this situation .

Oh I get it Michael. It's love when you say it, but not love when I do.

 

[probinson]

Riiiiight. The fact that New Thought is the origin of the concept and phrase "Christ consciousness" has no bearing on whether that concept is in mind when that term is used. The fact that every google result is a New Age or New Thought website isn't indicative at all that the people who use the term are New Age or New Thought.

Are you saying the inverse of your earlier statement is false? You said that just because someone uses "Christian-sounding" terms doesn't mean that they're teaching Christian doctrine. I agree. But I would also say to you that someone using "new-age-sounding" terms doesn't mean that they're teaching new thought.

P.S. The implication that it's "worldly" to suggest that people should google something is . Seriously, Pete? Seriously?

You have an uncanny ability to see things that are not there. Where did I even "imply" that using Google was "worldly"?

But, I do know how you like to wrangle about words, so let me clarify.

Telling someone to use Google is not "worldly", and I never said (or implied) that it was. It was a simple figure of speech. I said that your response of "Just Google it" was pervasive in the world. IOW, it simply means that lots of people on planet earth (aka: "the world"), whether they be Christians or not, use that (mostly meaningless) statement in their arguments.

 

[Tamara224]

I don't know. I don't think it's that hard to spot false teaching based on the content of what someone is saying, and not the terminology and catch phrases they use. As soon as someone denies that Jesus came in the flesh or that Jesus is not the ONLY way to salvation, then there's something to be concerned about and that person should be marked and avoided.

I think this is hilarious, Pete. You and I came to the same conclusion, but according to you I'm still wrong.

I wonder what that indicates?

 

[Tamara224]

Are you saying the inverse of your earlier statement is false? You said that just because someone uses "Christian-sounding" terms doesn't mean that they're teaching Christian doctrine. I agree. But I would also say to you that someone using "new-age-sounding" terms doesn't mean that they're teaching new thought.

I'm saying there's a difference between a "New Age sounding" and New age.

Phrases, terms, words, have accepted usages and meanings.

The terms "Christ consciousness" and "Christ concept" have accepted usages. They sound vaguely Christian because of the word "Christ" but they are solely used in New Age and New Thought religion.

There aren't alternate meanings for those phrases. No Christian writer, apologist or theologian, AFAIK, has ever used those phrase to describe any Christian doctrine. So to suggest that it might be a Christian teaching just using New Age sounding phrases is silly. That's clearly not the case.

It's just the same as Nirvana is a Buddhist concept and Karma is a Hindu concept.

"Christ consciousness" is a New Age/Thought concept.

You have an uncanny ability to see things that are not there. Where did I even "imply" that using Google was "worldly"?

But, I do know how you like to wrangle about words, so let me clarify.

Telling someone to use Google is not "worldly", and I never said (or implied) that it was. It was a simple figure of speech. I said that your response of "Just Google it" was pervasive in the world. IOW, it simply means that lots of people on planet earth (aka: "the world"), whether they be Christians or not, use that (mostly meaningless) statement in their arguments.

Riiight. No one would expect a Christian to use the term "the world" to mean anything other than just the planet earth. No one could possibly think you meant "worldly" when you said it was "pervasive in the world."

Yes, yes I was born yesterday, actually.

 

[probinson]

I think this is hilarious, Pete. You and I came to the same conclusion, but according to you I'm still wrong.

I wonder what that indicates?

We're talking about 2 different things.

You're talking about Jim Marion being a false teacher, which before I started this discussion, I made my opinion quite clear;

Before I respond, I would like to reiterate that I believe, based on the interview posted earlier in the thread, that Jim Marion is teaching falsely. I believe that because he seems to be implying, if not directly stating, that Jesus is not the ONLY way to salvation.

I'm talking about examining the content of what people are actually saying, vs. passing judgment on them because they use a term that you find objectionable.

 

[probinson]

Riiight. No one would expect a Christian to use the term "the world" to mean anything other than just the planet earth. No one could possibly think you meant "worldly" when you said it was "pervasive in the world."

Yes, yes I was born yesterday, actually.

This actually illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. You saw me say "pervasive in the world" and because this sounds vaguely familiar to "worldly", you make the leap of logic that I am suggesting it's "worldly" to use Google. Worse still, when I attempted to clarify what I actually meant and even said explicitly that using Google is in fact NOT "worldly", you still hold on to your presupposition, in doing so essentially calling me a liar.

All of the content of me explaining what I meant was 100% irrelevant to you. You heard "worldly" (despite the fact I never said it) and that was the end of the rational discussion.

 

[Tamara224]

We're talking about 2 different things.

You're talking about Jim Marion being a false teacher, which before I started this discussion, I made my opinion quite clear;


I'm talking about examining the content of what people are actually saying, vs. passing judgment on them because they use a term that you find objectionable.

The phrases "Christ consciousness" and "Christ concept" are part of the content of what the person is actually saying.

I don't find the term objectionable. It's just a term.

I know that the concept the term describes is a New Age/Thought concept.

Just as I know that Nirvana is a word that indicates a Buddhist concept.

I mean, I know it's kind of hard to wrap your brain around the idea that the meanings of the words and phrases a person uses might actually indicate what they mean but... well, that's language for ya.

 

[probinson]

I mean, I know it's kind of hard to wrap your brain around the idea that the meanings of the words and phrases a person uses might actually indicate what they mean but... well, that's language for ya.

Unless of course those terms are "Christian-sounding". Then this no longer applies, apparently.

 

[Tamara224]

This actually illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. You saw me say "pervasive in the world" and because this sounds vaguely familiar to "worldly", you make the leap of logic that I am suggesting it's "worldly" to use Google. Worse still, when I attempted to clarify what I actually meant and even said explicitly that using Google is in fact NOT "worldly", you still hold on to your presupposition, in doing so essentially calling me a liar.

All of the content of me explaining what I meant was 100% irrelevant to you. You heard "worldly" (despite the fact I never said it) and that was the end of the rational discussion.

Yeah, Pete, keep talking. It will make you seem more right the more you talk.

Of course, you couldn't possibly just say "oops, I apologize. I realize how someone might reasonably interpret "pervasive in the world" to mean "worldly" but that's not what I meant."

No, no I must be an irrational person who is just out to get you.

Yes, yes we all believe you. We're obligated to. You defended yourself. We must therefore believe that you, the semantics king of CF, didn't know exactly how your words might come across.

 

[Tamara224]

Unless of course those terms are "Christian-sounding". Then this no longer applies, apparently.

Ahh, that's sweet. You're really attached to that strawman, aren't you? He is kinda cute.

 

[probinson]

Yeah, Pete, keep talking. It will make you seem more right the more you talk.

Of course, you couldn't possibly just say "oops, I apologize. I realize how someone might reasonably interpret "pervasive in the world" to mean "worldly" but that's not what I meant."

No, no I must be an irrational person who is just out to get you.

Yes, yes we all believe you. We're obligated to. You defended yourself. We must therefore believe that you, the semantics king of CF, didn't know exactly how your words might come across.

Why don't you just come right out and call me a liar? It would be much quicker than all these sarcastic, mocking posts.

 

[Tamara224]

Why don't you just come right out and call me a liar? It would be much quicker than all these sarcastic, mocking posts.

I guess I could go on and on about how you just misunderstood me and it's really your own fault for thinking I implied something I didn't imply.

 

[JimfromOhio]

After reading... I agree with Tamara. Good responses Tamara.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I guess I could go on and on about how you just misunderstood me and it's really your own fault for thinking I implied something I didn't imply.

I noticed that is a common trend.

 

[probinson]

I think this is hilarious, Pete. You and I came to the same conclusion, but according to you I'm still wrong.

I wonder what that indicates?

After reading... I agree with Tamara. Good responses Tamara.

Now that's interesting... Even though Tamara said that her and I came to the same conclusion, according to Jim, he agrees with Tamara (which, BTW, was a shocking and totally unexpected response. )

*ahem* "I wonder what that indicates?"

 

[Tamara224]

Now that's interesting... Even though Tamara said that her and I came to the same conclusion, according to Jim, he agrees with Tamara (which, BTW, was a shocking and totally unexpected response. )

*ahem* "I wonder what that indicates?"

You're killin' me, smalls.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No one is judging the Biblical idea of having the mind of Christ.

We're saying that the New Ager who tries to usurp that phrase for twisted purposes doesn't mean what the Bible means. They take some of the words of the Bible and twist them to mean something completely different.

New Age didn't steal the concept of "Christ consciousness" from the Bible because it's not a Biblical concept.

Higher consciousness, also called super consciousness (Yoga), objective consciousness (Gurdjieff), Buddhic consciousness (Theosophy), cosmic consciousness, God-consciousness (Sufism and Hinduism) and Christ consciousness (New Thought), are expressions used in various spiritual traditions to denote the consciousness of a human being who has reached a higher level of evolutionary development and who has come to know reality more accurately. Evolution in this sense is not that which occurs by natural selection over generations of human reproduction but evolution brought about by the application of spiritual knowledge to the conduct of human life, and of mental proficiency brought about by spiritual practices. Through the application of such knowledge (traditionally the preserve of the world's great religions) to practical self-management, the awakening and development of faculties dormant in the ordinary human being is achieved. These faculties are aroused by and developed in conjunction with certain virtues such as lucidity, patience, kindness, truthfulness, humility, and forgiveness towards one's fellow man – qualities without which, according to moral/ethical stipulations of the various traditions, higher consciousness is not possible. This assumes that our morality system in our 'lower' consciousness is correct.​

Hmm i could speak the gospel through that . if someone usurps a biblical sounding phrase . just subvert it back .. what's the big issue about?

Oh I get it Michael. It's love when you say it, but not love when I do.

When have you said love once in this dialogue? so far it has been about being right . and telling someone that they're wrong .

There are two types of love being discussed here

Phileo which is a love based on intellectual agreement

and Agape which is God's kind of love and is unconditional for example He all gives us life regardless of how good or evil we are . and regardless of how evil or good we are he takes in all who trust in His name Jesus Christ .

It is love when you say it . but it sounds very phileo . willing to be patient, kind, unproud, unboastful, etc .. so long as one agrees with you .

but that is not God's love .

Reading through the past couple of pages that transpired since i last posted .. I would expect more from a mod btw . but that of course is just MHO .

 

[JimfromOhio]

Hmm i could speak the gospel through that . if someone usurps a biblical sounding phrase . just subvert it back .. what's the big issue about?



When have you said love once in this dialogue? so far it has been about being right . and telling someone that they're wrong .

There are two types of love being discussed here

Phileo which is a love based on intellectual agreement

and Agape which is God's kind of love and is unconditional for example He all gives us life regardless of how good or evil we are . and regardless of how evil or good we are he takes in all who trust in His name Jesus Christ .

It is love when you say it . but it sounds very phileo . willing to be patient, kind, unproud, unboastful, etc .. so long as one agrees with you .

but that is not God's love .

Reading through the past couple of pages that transpired since i last posted .. I would expect more from a mod btw . but that of course is just MHO .

When we argue and disagree, we will know what kind of a Christian others are and what kind of a heart they have. We always argue over things that we love, or that we disagree. Love is the crowning Christian virtue (I Corinthians 13:1-3; Colossians 3:14), fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5) and the distinguishing mark of discipleship (John 13:34-35). Even though doctrinal differences may arise between Christians, we must still show love to one another. However, this does not mean that we are to ignore doctrinal error. 1 Corinthians 13:6 says that love "rejoices in the truth." So one aspect of loving one another is to strive for doctrinal purity by pointing out doctrinal error, not by ignoring it.

I thought Tamara did very well responding to comments which I found inappropriate.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

When we argue and disagree, we will know what kind of a Christian others are and what kind of a heart they have. We always argue over things that we love, or that we disagree. Love is the crowning Christian virtue (I Corinthians 13:1-3; Colossians 3:14), fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5) and the distinguishing mark of discipleship (John 13:34-35). Even though doctrinal differences may arise between Christians, we must still show love to one another. However, this does not mean that we are to ignore doctrinal error. 1 Corinthians 13:6 says that love "rejoices in the truth." So one aspect of loving one another is to strive for doctrinal purity by pointing out doctrinal error, not by ignoring it.

I thought Tamara did very well responding to comments which I found inappropriate.

doctrinal purity springs from a heart of love .

one must begin with love . because that is where God began and always will begin .

without love . all the doctrine in the world is just a creaking gate that deafens newborn babies .

without love . the scripture is just another way the enemy can enslave us .

without love . we are without the author and finisher of our faith .

since the scripture reveals that love surpasses knowledge

love must be the foundation . because God is Love .

God looks at us when we are sinners and dies for us . He doesn't do what many Revelatory Ephesians have been doing . He looks at what can be redeemed in this destitute mess . This is the love that comes from God .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----


Ephesians 3

16I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.


---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----