So one comes to play the whetstone this morning. Let us see how sharp this sword can become in the Lord's own hands!!
For starters, orthodoxy bes anything BUT objective; it simply reflects a working consensus subjectivity for that time and place in which one has been established. The fact that several flawed, fallible human minds agree on something does not make it any more objective than if only a few minds did. Human religious experience and beliefs, by their very nature, bes subjective.
Likewise, depending upon how one comprehends gnosis (in the pure principle sense of the word, again, not referring to the dogmas of any classical Hellenistic gnostic sect), one might arguably state that it stands a better chance of being objective than mere human consensus. Gnosis in Greek simply means "knowledge" but applied spiritually in this context it refers specifically to divinely revealed knowledge of a sort coming DIRECTLY to the recipient (i.e., NOT first passing through others to be writsy downed and read and then interpreted) from the mind of God. In other words, revelation itself as opposed to revelation first diluted by codifying it into words then diluted a second time by needing to be read and processed through yet another earthly brain and then diluted a third time by having a group of earthly brains come to consensus.
Your arbitrary selection of the term "subjective" for this process merely because "subjective" typically gets associated with the personal, and assignment of the term "objective" to orthodoxies merely because they get associated with misguided notions that humans should have any authority whatsoever over the consciences and direct downloads of one another, constitutes in Moriah's opinion a very poor way to start off framing your arguments.
Now then ...
It will NOT tolerate having its entire BROAD spectrum of Biblical Truth Awareness condensed and dismissed in such a fashion just as it feels pretty certain you would not desire the sum total of everything Christ and salvation means to you summarized as "peddling eternal torture chamber scarytales" and thrown away prejudicially without a hearing. So let's agree that if we intend to talk, we will not play those stupid hairless monkey games. Can that be OK?
The fact of the matter happens to be that only in gnosis (again, as used in the sense of the principle and applied specifically to Christianity -- the personal encounter with God by the individual resulting in personal acquaintance, personal relationship, and revealed knowledge/awareness from the Holy Spirit which illuminates the Scriptures and makes their meaning comprehendable to the mind) -- can salvation be conveyed and experienced. Orthodoxy has no effectual mechanism for the transmission of salvation; it can only transmit codified ideas and belief structures. The ONLY possible individual response a person can make to orthodoxy consists in mental assent to these codified ideas and doctrines. Mental assent to ideas and doctrines does NOT -- repeat, DOES NOT -- constitute the experience of receiving Christ personally as Saviour, repenting of one's sin-life, and being born again or born from above into a new life.
This happens to be true whether one has entered the Reconciliation Awareness yet or not. This happens to be true whether one believes in the eternal-torment description of Hell or not. This happens to be true whether one believes in annihilationism (obliteration via lake of fire) or not. Because of this, the difference you had presupposed would inevitably account for a difference in our mutual value-assessments of both gnosis and orthodoxy actually, in fact, does not.
To be continued ...
OK but please be advised, Moriah used them to mean what they actually mean. By redefining them to mean something else, you have actually changed the terms of the discussion concerning them.Simon_Templar;48705973 said:
For starters, orthodoxy bes anything BUT objective; it simply reflects a working consensus subjectivity for that time and place in which one has been established. The fact that several flawed, fallible human minds agree on something does not make it any more objective than if only a few minds did. Human religious experience and beliefs, by their very nature, bes subjective.
Likewise, depending upon how one comprehends gnosis (in the pure principle sense of the word, again, not referring to the dogmas of any classical Hellenistic gnostic sect), one might arguably state that it stands a better chance of being objective than mere human consensus. Gnosis in Greek simply means "knowledge" but applied spiritually in this context it refers specifically to divinely revealed knowledge of a sort coming DIRECTLY to the recipient (i.e., NOT first passing through others to be writsy downed and read and then interpreted) from the mind of God. In other words, revelation itself as opposed to revelation first diluted by codifying it into words then diluted a second time by needing to be read and processed through yet another earthly brain and then diluted a third time by having a group of earthly brains come to consensus.
Your arbitrary selection of the term "subjective" for this process merely because "subjective" typically gets associated with the personal, and assignment of the term "objective" to orthodoxies merely because they get associated with misguided notions that humans should have any authority whatsoever over the consciences and direct downloads of one another, constitutes in Moriah's opinion a very poor way to start off framing your arguments.
Now then ...
Oh make no mistake, Moriah also believes that many people not only WILL BE deceived but presently, this moment, BES deceived, and bes deceiving others. That deception will happen? No doubt. That it will hurt people? Absolutely. That it must be exposed and people educated so they will not fall prey to it? Of course!!! But will that be the end of the story? Heavens no.Simon_Templar;48705973 said:
Possibly, or possibly not. Not going to commit either way till it sees where this bes going, but it seriously doubts this proposition.
OK first of all, the Reconciliation Awareness bes a natural extension and marriage of true soteriology with true eschatology. As such, it stands on its own as Biblically based and Biblically demonstrable and does not belong in ANY box with ANY type of "shut down brain and stop thinking here" flavored label. The label "universalist" and/or "universalism" ends up being a thought-STOPPER rather than a thought-PRECIPITATOR for anyone that has ever received negative programming about it from whatever arbitrarily self-appointed guardians of "orthodoxy" they look toward to tell them what to think, and as such, has no place in productive dialogue, not even as an artifact of condensatory shorthand.
It will NOT tolerate having its entire BROAD spectrum of Biblical Truth Awareness condensed and dismissed in such a fashion just as it feels pretty certain you would not desire the sum total of everything Christ and salvation means to you summarized as "peddling eternal torture chamber scarytales" and thrown away prejudicially without a hearing. So let's agree that if we intend to talk, we will not play those stupid hairless monkey games. Can that be OK?
The fact of the matter happens to be that only in gnosis (again, as used in the sense of the principle and applied specifically to Christianity -- the personal encounter with God by the individual resulting in personal acquaintance, personal relationship, and revealed knowledge/awareness from the Holy Spirit which illuminates the Scriptures and makes their meaning comprehendable to the mind) -- can salvation be conveyed and experienced. Orthodoxy has no effectual mechanism for the transmission of salvation; it can only transmit codified ideas and belief structures. The ONLY possible individual response a person can make to orthodoxy consists in mental assent to these codified ideas and doctrines. Mental assent to ideas and doctrines does NOT -- repeat, DOES NOT -- constitute the experience of receiving Christ personally as Saviour, repenting of one's sin-life, and being born again or born from above into a new life.
This happens to be true whether one has entered the Reconciliation Awareness yet or not. This happens to be true whether one believes in the eternal-torment description of Hell or not. This happens to be true whether one believes in annihilationism (obliteration via lake of fire) or not. Because of this, the difference you had presupposed would inevitably account for a difference in our mutual value-assessments of both gnosis and orthodoxy actually, in fact, does not.
To be continued ...
