[another email...many posts on this blog are originally emails...]
This book - Practical Mysticism by Evelyn Underhill - seems to be newly uploaded over at Christian Classic Ethereal Library.
Usual material. The meditation and recollection chapter gets at self-remembering somewhat, but missing it of course. (Remember always that practical self-remembering can be seen for what it is by seeing sleep itself. Make an aim to self-remember, inevitably fall back into waking sleep, then when you do wake up see the difference. Keep this in mind and you won't begin to no longer value self-remembering.)
But the 10th chapter of the book seems interesting. It's an apologia for the whole process of inner development which leads to only finding yourself still in the world and ho hum. I didn't read the whole chapter, but I skimmed it.
2.24.2009
2.22.2009
Living Time, perspective, development
> On a work tack. I don't think I should care. It will
> happen as it happens.
> The Work is not about building nation states but simply
> finding the
> conditions for work. And as we know, that requires some
> dissemination of
> work ideas - and hence, individually, time to study the
> ideas to gather the
> knowledge but crucially the opportunity to study those
> ideas in the cauldron
> of being through work efforts. Relatively speaking we
> probably need 25% time
> to study the ideas and 75% time to practise work efforts to
> maintain some
> balance on the understanding/being front or else it tips
> quickly towards
> more knowledge. What the world does, the motions it goes
> through. That's all
> there, ever changing. We work in the world.
Interesting when you think of your time, your stretch of living time, and how you judge it by what used to be (prior to your birth), and worries about what will be, even beyond how long you could even live. I think everybody's stretch of living time is full of a noxious mix of race wars and 'things falling apart' and predictions of disaster, no matter what era the stretch of living time exists in. And all our childhoods are more ideal because we don't know any better and don't have all the mechanical impressions connected to everything. Our mother takes us swimming at some public pool. We aren't thinking "You can catch disease from some baby's diaper in these pools, and who are those people over there, are they going to start trouble?, and..." No, we are experiencing the sunshine and water and seeing our mother sitting in the grass as we run up to her out of the pool, feeling the grass under our feet, then run back, then have sandwiches, then get tired on the drive back to home, then take a nap. It's all ideal. Everybody's childhood, except in a Pol Pot hell or something, is similar.
No matter the era, there's always too many people, or there's always too much desolation and too little to do, there's always the impossibility to make ends meet, or there's the decadence of having everything on a silver spoon, and it's always beyond the golden age for them.
Higher perspective shows this. Your time, from birth to death, is your living time. Time doesn't exist for you beyond your death. There is fifth-dimensional eternity you enter, but right back to the same fourth-dimensional living time. Until you escape. And you do that NOW, if you do it. When you develop vertically, and not horizontally, which is merely change, you are doing it. Remember the time diagram: movement inward toward the axis (magnetic center) via the first conscious shock is movement in the fifth dimension; then movement upwards via the second conscious shock is movement in the 6th dimension, even as you are still moving around the edge of the circle which is the 4th dimension of time. It become a spiral upward. Consolidate that development and you escape. If you value escaping. Some dogs don't want to be humans, they are happy to still be dogs. Some no longer want to be dogs.
2.20.2009
Keltoí
I'll never leave Jesus Christ. Murray made a statement in that video on 1 Cor. I mentioned in an email where God takes care of his own. If someone messes with one of His He deals with it in time. I've experienced that. I've experienced how prayer can be effective relative to different things. I am in the Kingdom. Jesus Christ is my King. I also understand and hold to orthodox doctrine as the apostolic and Reformation times - schools - taught it. I see it and value it.
What the trap is once you get all that is to get caught in the level of the obvious sleeping, village of morality fools of the churches. Not to put them down. We are all where we are. They are a general law force though.
These other influences are for real Christians. These other influences we speak of.
Music at its highest levels, getting understanding of it, hearing it all, this trains one to not be lured by it when sirens use it or something similar. The music isn't bad, how its used can be. In the spiritual realms if you've already heard all great music and you have exhausted it and you know its limit you are armoured against that particular weapon that can be used against you.
Just a twist on that activity with all the higher music.
An example of new thinking, seeing new things, seeing into the higher world.
The hidden ones. The Keltoí. A universal term. Tall and blond, or short and dark. Hidden from the apprehension of the world.
Seeing the spiritual realms, using different languages, higher visual language, higher centers, it's all something that is snuffed out by the church level. They have their names: "Gnostic!" They police pretty heavily. You can get tainted with their policing pretty easily, even not realizing it.
Even when an orthodox theologian veers into such realms, instead of writing that theologian off they just pretend he didn't write the 'off the ranch' parts. Calvin, Kline, Jonathan Edwards are three that get treated like this. You know what I mean.
To sum things up, for where we are, humans, gods, goddesses of old, nymphs, centaurs, all, spiritual warfare is it. If the dark forces are still about, and if the holy mountain is still being fought over, and if the gathering to it has not been completed, then you are in a state of battle. Quest. Pilgrimage. Stranger. On the Way. In this world, not of this world.
What the trap is once you get all that is to get caught in the level of the obvious sleeping, village of morality fools of the churches. Not to put them down. We are all where we are. They are a general law force though.
These other influences are for real Christians. These other influences we speak of.
Music at its highest levels, getting understanding of it, hearing it all, this trains one to not be lured by it when sirens use it or something similar. The music isn't bad, how its used can be. In the spiritual realms if you've already heard all great music and you have exhausted it and you know its limit you are armoured against that particular weapon that can be used against you.
Just a twist on that activity with all the higher music.
An example of new thinking, seeing new things, seeing into the higher world.
The hidden ones. The Keltoí. A universal term. Tall and blond, or short and dark. Hidden from the apprehension of the world.
Seeing the spiritual realms, using different languages, higher visual language, higher centers, it's all something that is snuffed out by the church level. They have their names: "Gnostic!" They police pretty heavily. You can get tainted with their policing pretty easily, even not realizing it.
Even when an orthodox theologian veers into such realms, instead of writing that theologian off they just pretend he didn't write the 'off the ranch' parts. Calvin, Kline, Jonathan Edwards are three that get treated like this. You know what I mean.
To sum things up, for where we are, humans, gods, goddesses of old, nymphs, centaurs, all, spiritual warfare is it. If the dark forces are still about, and if the holy mountain is still being fought over, and if the gathering to it has not been completed, then you are in a state of battle. Quest. Pilgrimage. Stranger. On the Way. In this world, not of this world.
2.17.2009
Something on de Sade
When I include de Sade in a book list I often get negative responses.
P. of England recently responded to my latest post below with:
So then S. of Australia responded to P. of England with:
Then I wrote:
A shallow Christian would say: "Maybe get married? Duh?" No, shallow church Christian, this is about understanding. It's not about married sex. And it's about not getting trapped into the pit of the world prior to getting understanding of it all, then not getting trapped at all. A Christian has to have understanding. A shallow Christian is nigh worthless other than to breed other Christians, which is not a useless thing, but it's not the faith, and it doesn't get one understanding.
I'm talking about a de Sade regarding its potential value to 'get you over' being *captured* or *entranced* by sex and violence and such things. With real understanding you transcend such things. Which is rare. If you don't confront it it is still in you though in darkness. Confront it, get understanding of it, get above it. If you don't have control of it, it will have control of you. (If you are a potential serial murderer then go read books that one can find in the average Christian bookstore.)
And to reiterate: in our era one hardly has to pick up de Sade. Just turn on your computer. But when an influence gets you understanding of something don't pretend that you had it all along. You needed the influence. Just as a Dostoevsky, living in the 1800s, or a Nietzsche, needed a de Sade. (Although, regarding S. of Australia's point above, de Sade *still does* have a unique standing among all influences that show our fallen nature at its worst.)
Christians and Christian so-called 'leaders' are shallow. That is a fact. The faith calls for us to develop understanding. Real understanding. The call is all through the Bible.
One note: de Sade's 'philosophy' he strews all through his porn and violence is not what is being discussed. That is maybe just a complimentary intellectual baseness to accompany the base activities. Now, who reads de Sade? (Other than S. of Australia...ha ha, just kidding, S.) If I was growing up in the middle of nowhere in the 1800s I'd value it. Then burn it. No. Yeah, what would you do with it once you've gotten out of it all one can? Eh, leave it on the bookshelf, as if you don't know what it is or where it came from... Some other developing soul will stumble upon it...
Having said all the above: DON'T READ DE SADE! IT'S STUPID AND UNNECESSARY! And if you do skim through some, don't admit it, and don't recommend it. Leave that to me. I have no worldly standing and village of morality honor to protect...
P. of England recently responded to my latest post below with:
I recall this discussion a long way back... I objected to de Sade and I again find myself saying No de Sade! The world is fallen, it surrounds us, we don't need Sade. We have television. We have the internet. De Sade is a dumb idea. A real time waster. There is enough hideousness without him. If you haven't read de Sade before you encounter the Work I can see no use thereafter. Faith Hope Charity Love.
So then S. of Australia responded to P. of England with:
I have to disagree - I read desade, and as an influence it transmits something powerful. It captures the depth of whats possible in terms of evil and depravity, yet at the same time it communicates the HOLLOWNESS of it all.
Once you've read De Sade, you see internet porn in a different light. Its not shocking, its just DUMB and empty. The thing with De Sades work is that he actually takes it as far as it can possibly go until its becomes ridiculous, and even laughable. You can see that there is a bottom to depravity, the pointlessness of it all.
Then I wrote:
I agree with Simon (and Dostoevsky and other greats had the same experience with de Sade). I'll just add that my list is based on one being in the middle of the 1800s, and imagine not having porn or other media to see the vanity - and just the existence - of the 'non-public' activities and the depths of fallen man's behaviour, then a de Sade would be very valuable. Disturbing no doubt, but valuable. Of course, one in one hundred (or whatever) people encountering such an influence becomes a serial murderer I suppose, but... I imagine it would be a hard book to acquire back then. You'd be left to looking at the domesticated animals doing their thing. But ideally, if you could have all those influences, then it is a necessary one.
A shallow Christian would say: "Maybe get married? Duh?" No, shallow church Christian, this is about understanding. It's not about married sex. And it's about not getting trapped into the pit of the world prior to getting understanding of it all, then not getting trapped at all. A Christian has to have understanding. A shallow Christian is nigh worthless other than to breed other Christians, which is not a useless thing, but it's not the faith, and it doesn't get one understanding.
I'm talking about a de Sade regarding its potential value to 'get you over' being *captured* or *entranced* by sex and violence and such things. With real understanding you transcend such things. Which is rare. If you don't confront it it is still in you though in darkness. Confront it, get understanding of it, get above it. If you don't have control of it, it will have control of you. (If you are a potential serial murderer then go read books that one can find in the average Christian bookstore.)
And to reiterate: in our era one hardly has to pick up de Sade. Just turn on your computer. But when an influence gets you understanding of something don't pretend that you had it all along. You needed the influence. Just as a Dostoevsky, living in the 1800s, or a Nietzsche, needed a de Sade. (Although, regarding S. of Australia's point above, de Sade *still does* have a unique standing among all influences that show our fallen nature at its worst.)
Christians and Christian so-called 'leaders' are shallow. That is a fact. The faith calls for us to develop understanding. Real understanding. The call is all through the Bible.
One note: de Sade's 'philosophy' he strews all through his porn and violence is not what is being discussed. That is maybe just a complimentary intellectual baseness to accompany the base activities. Now, who reads de Sade? (Other than S. of Australia...ha ha, just kidding, S.) If I was growing up in the middle of nowhere in the 1800s I'd value it. Then burn it. No. Yeah, what would you do with it once you've gotten out of it all one can? Eh, leave it on the bookshelf, as if you don't know what it is or where it came from... Some other developing soul will stumble upon it...
Having said all the above: DON'T READ DE SADE! IT'S STUPID AND UNNECESSARY! And if you do skim through some, don't admit it, and don't recommend it. Leave that to me. I have no worldly standing and village of morality honor to protect...
Influences, books
I drew up this list last night:
King James Bible
Homer
Shakespeare
Democracy in America
Gibbon
On War
Wealth of Nations
Reformed Systematic Theology
Ouspensky
Thucydides
Plutarch
History of the World
de Sade (porn, violence, fallen nature)
Austen
I know it looks familiar. I was trying to imagine myself alive in the middle of the 1800s and thinking what list of books would make a complete foundation (not including science and art, you know, just what you get from literature).
There are fourteen works (22 if you break them down further). Not my usual ten or twelve list. Seven times two, perfection doubled? 22, the number of letters in the Hebrews alphabet. Anyway, I needed fourteen spots.
The interesting one for me is Austen. Instead of listing seven great novels, or whatever, I see the novel as a particularly feminine form. At best it tunes you into the intricacies of society and human interactions. Human nature and the ways of the world. Austen in limited in her canvass, but you get war and diplomacy and all that from history too. But for me I just recall I had to read Pride and Prejudice in high school and it was opaque to me. I needed to awaken and develop and be able to see human nature at work and subtleties of interaction. That is what the novel gives you. Or, maybe better put, the novel gives you something to gauge your development and ability to see such things. So I put Austen in the list to represent that.
Democracy in America is a French work, remember. To me it is one of those works that is just deeply on-the-mark regarding its subject. It has that common-sense, competent, tuned-in, expressed-completely-well, foundational elements of understanding. Works like that tend to be also prophetic. They describe a time or thing so well that it also describes the future.
One could, of course, instead of writing just Thucydides, put in Greek Historians, which traditionally refer to Herodotus and Thucydides.
I want to put in a word for Ouspensky's New Model of the Universe. Going over those essays again is profitable. I can see that I picked up a lot of the cosmological elements and understanding of the Work from that book. Remember he rewrote the book in the late '20's to incorporate his Work understanding.
A while back when I said I'd forgotten that you need Work material to go along with self-remembering effort, what I didn't see then was I wasn't missing the psychological half of the Work, but I was far away from the cosmological part of the Work. Which not only gives insight into time and such things but provides metaphor to see the psychological part more deeply and in new ways.
King James Bible
Homer
Shakespeare
Democracy in America
Gibbon
On War
Wealth of Nations
Reformed Systematic Theology
Ouspensky
Thucydides
Plutarch
History of the World
de Sade (porn, violence, fallen nature)
Austen
I know it looks familiar. I was trying to imagine myself alive in the middle of the 1800s and thinking what list of books would make a complete foundation (not including science and art, you know, just what you get from literature).
There are fourteen works (22 if you break them down further). Not my usual ten or twelve list. Seven times two, perfection doubled? 22, the number of letters in the Hebrews alphabet. Anyway, I needed fourteen spots.
The interesting one for me is Austen. Instead of listing seven great novels, or whatever, I see the novel as a particularly feminine form. At best it tunes you into the intricacies of society and human interactions. Human nature and the ways of the world. Austen in limited in her canvass, but you get war and diplomacy and all that from history too. But for me I just recall I had to read Pride and Prejudice in high school and it was opaque to me. I needed to awaken and develop and be able to see human nature at work and subtleties of interaction. That is what the novel gives you. Or, maybe better put, the novel gives you something to gauge your development and ability to see such things. So I put Austen in the list to represent that.
Democracy in America is a French work, remember. To me it is one of those works that is just deeply on-the-mark regarding its subject. It has that common-sense, competent, tuned-in, expressed-completely-well, foundational elements of understanding. Works like that tend to be also prophetic. They describe a time or thing so well that it also describes the future.
One could, of course, instead of writing just Thucydides, put in Greek Historians, which traditionally refer to Herodotus and Thucydides.
I want to put in a word for Ouspensky's New Model of the Universe. Going over those essays again is profitable. I can see that I picked up a lot of the cosmological elements and understanding of the Work from that book. Remember he rewrote the book in the late '20's to incorporate his Work understanding.
A while back when I said I'd forgotten that you need Work material to go along with self-remembering effort, what I didn't see then was I wasn't missing the psychological half of the Work, but I was far away from the cosmological part of the Work. Which not only gives insight into time and such things but provides metaphor to see the psychological part more deeply and in new ways.
2.14.2009
From decadence to new new birth
I've gotten a little decadent in my thinking vis-a-vis learning and developing.
The doctrine of not wanting to go over old ground has contributed to it. It's a real thing, but it can be a stumblingblock too, because you can learn more and re-learn what you used to know; you can reinforce past learning and development; and when you come to old influences with new level of being - in a new stage - you see more.
I mean, I read Wealth of Nations once. Probably a second reading would be worthwhile. Any great influence. Fill in the blank.
I've written things like this before, but it feels different now. I've recently retrieved all my Work books. I noticed New Model of the Universe. I recall when I first encountered it how I was saying: "This guy actually comes through." I.e. Ouspensky was actually saying new things to me. I was jaded with what other literature (all levels) could deliver then I was seeing something 'new' in Ouspensky. Same with POMPE first of all.
Recurrence is the idea that has pulled me back to the sources. I keep realizing how strange it was that my dad discoursed on recurrence at his death bed talk. He was between worlds, beyond the veil half-way. And he is talking about time that validates recurrence. Knowing my dad, his interests, the fact that such things would not be naturally in him or coming out of him made it all the more striking. My dumb siblings kept changing the subject, even as I tried to engage him on the subject, as he was lying there, very animated to speak to us all. They mocked me as usual.
Yes my dad knew, and I knew.
Also there is a simplicity in going over the influences you have already identified as valuable and complete. Plutarch, Work, Homer, Bible.
Which reminds me. Along with all this line of thought: I need to go through the Bible *away* from doctrinal works to 'trim' off what is not needed. The doctrine I know is biblical, don't get me wrong, but I want to see it now in the Bible more clearly. More purely.
For instance: I want to read the Bible as if new and see just what it is communicating to me along the lines of doctrine. I know it intellectually, just as the great theologians who say what the Bible says knew it, but to know it in that higher, more complete sense you have to get it from the Bible. It will stand out now that I've read the Bible so many times complete and have learned hardcore orthodox biblical doctrine.
So I can go through my seven book list without the waste of 'going over old ground.'
If you're not picked up in a fiery chariot (something I don't discount as a possibility) you have to hold your ground and keep developing.
Work practice too will be both old and new. The same thing, though now with more understanding and being. I've been doing that since December, yet not as complete as prior to the internet. I'll do that going forward now.
This email I will remember. I'll make it prominent. Copy it, put it at the front of my journal.
* * * * * * *
>"For instance: I want to read the Bible as if new and see just what it is communicating to me along the lines of doctrine. I know it intellectually, just as the great theologians who say what the Bible says knew it, but to know it in that higher, more complete sense you have to get it from the Bible. It will stand out now that I've read the Bible so many times complete and have learn hardcore orthodox biblical doctrine."
The above paragraph from my previous email made me think of something. I've probably grasped practically the faith most in the arena and events of spiritual warfare. Really, I can't think of other areas. Maybe I should also include the fact of regeneration and how that changes you. You can see it in hindsight. (I should also add the experience of increasingly understanding the Bible and biblical doctrine. That is real and practical experience.) But all other ways Christians tend to experience their faith is not experience I tend to share. I can start to 'see' the spiritual world when in direct conflict with it in spiritual warfare. I can then see practically how connection to Jesus Christ means something. The Mediator, or High Priest, between God and man. How the Bible as language gives you something practical. How covenants and kingdoms and sacrifice and so on is real. How original sin and evil is real. Etc. I once noted (when challenged by atheists) that I know the faith is true because I can tangibly see the Kingdom of Satan all around me. I mean, that is at least something you can witness. Something the Bible talks of that you can see. Also your own fallen nature.
I'm listening to Scarlatti right now. I've been drowned in lower influences without realizing it. Talk radio, pop music radio, television, websites. It's striking when you put a Scarlatti on and begin listening when you havn't been near classical music for months (or years now in my case).
I've also remembered the necessity to do a full, or complete body, workout when you do a workout. Even if it's very light it makes all the difference in the world.
The doctrine of not wanting to go over old ground has contributed to it. It's a real thing, but it can be a stumblingblock too, because you can learn more and re-learn what you used to know; you can reinforce past learning and development; and when you come to old influences with new level of being - in a new stage - you see more.
I mean, I read Wealth of Nations once. Probably a second reading would be worthwhile. Any great influence. Fill in the blank.
I've written things like this before, but it feels different now. I've recently retrieved all my Work books. I noticed New Model of the Universe. I recall when I first encountered it how I was saying: "This guy actually comes through." I.e. Ouspensky was actually saying new things to me. I was jaded with what other literature (all levels) could deliver then I was seeing something 'new' in Ouspensky. Same with POMPE first of all.
Recurrence is the idea that has pulled me back to the sources. I keep realizing how strange it was that my dad discoursed on recurrence at his death bed talk. He was between worlds, beyond the veil half-way. And he is talking about time that validates recurrence. Knowing my dad, his interests, the fact that such things would not be naturally in him or coming out of him made it all the more striking. My dumb siblings kept changing the subject, even as I tried to engage him on the subject, as he was lying there, very animated to speak to us all. They mocked me as usual.
Yes my dad knew, and I knew.
Also there is a simplicity in going over the influences you have already identified as valuable and complete. Plutarch, Work, Homer, Bible.
Which reminds me. Along with all this line of thought: I need to go through the Bible *away* from doctrinal works to 'trim' off what is not needed. The doctrine I know is biblical, don't get me wrong, but I want to see it now in the Bible more clearly. More purely.
For instance: I want to read the Bible as if new and see just what it is communicating to me along the lines of doctrine. I know it intellectually, just as the great theologians who say what the Bible says knew it, but to know it in that higher, more complete sense you have to get it from the Bible. It will stand out now that I've read the Bible so many times complete and have learned hardcore orthodox biblical doctrine.
So I can go through my seven book list without the waste of 'going over old ground.'
If you're not picked up in a fiery chariot (something I don't discount as a possibility) you have to hold your ground and keep developing.
Work practice too will be both old and new. The same thing, though now with more understanding and being. I've been doing that since December, yet not as complete as prior to the internet. I'll do that going forward now.
This email I will remember. I'll make it prominent. Copy it, put it at the front of my journal.
* * * * * * *
>"For instance: I want to read the Bible as if new and see just what it is communicating to me along the lines of doctrine. I know it intellectually, just as the great theologians who say what the Bible says knew it, but to know it in that higher, more complete sense you have to get it from the Bible. It will stand out now that I've read the Bible so many times complete and have learn hardcore orthodox biblical doctrine."
The above paragraph from my previous email made me think of something. I've probably grasped practically the faith most in the arena and events of spiritual warfare. Really, I can't think of other areas. Maybe I should also include the fact of regeneration and how that changes you. You can see it in hindsight. (I should also add the experience of increasingly understanding the Bible and biblical doctrine. That is real and practical experience.) But all other ways Christians tend to experience their faith is not experience I tend to share. I can start to 'see' the spiritual world when in direct conflict with it in spiritual warfare. I can then see practically how connection to Jesus Christ means something. The Mediator, or High Priest, between God and man. How the Bible as language gives you something practical. How covenants and kingdoms and sacrifice and so on is real. How original sin and evil is real. Etc. I once noted (when challenged by atheists) that I know the faith is true because I can tangibly see the Kingdom of Satan all around me. I mean, that is at least something you can witness. Something the Bible talks of that you can see. Also your own fallen nature.
I'm listening to Scarlatti right now. I've been drowned in lower influences without realizing it. Talk radio, pop music radio, television, websites. It's striking when you put a Scarlatti on and begin listening when you havn't been near classical music for months (or years now in my case).
I've also remembered the necessity to do a full, or complete body, workout when you do a workout. Even if it's very light it makes all the difference in the world.
2.09.2009
Necessarily, freely, or contingently (not boring!)
Look at this, how is Calvinism (God being sovereign in all that comes about) not fatalism like Islamic belief? Well, because God is the *first cause* and all that He decrees comes about immutably and infallibly. Yet, he so orders their coming about to be by *secondary causes.*
From the Westminster Confession of Faith:
"Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; so that there is not anything befalls any by chance, or without his providence; yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."
Secondary causes are either *necessary*, *free*, or *contingent.*
Following? (It's like Theory of Relativity, just a little less confusing.)
"The three terms "necessarily, freely, or contingently" are describing how events relate to one another. As relates to God, all events are exhaustively determined.
If some act *necessarily* follows, then the second-causation is defined by a strict deterministic relation--it MUST come. (I.e. if God sends the Holy Spirit into your heart you WILL be regenerated.)
If some act *freely* follows, then the second-causation is defined by a not-necessary relation, entirely relying on the WILL. (I.e. *somebody* will cause it to come about. That is why effort means something in God's plan.)
If some act *contingently* follows, then the second-causation is defined according to a dependent relation, but not without other independent variables affecting the result." (I.e. prayer is effective.)
I stole that from the PuritanBoard (except for the parts in parenthesis, which are from me). From someone who thinks about it much more than me. But I understand it.
Fatalism - what Muslims believe about God and providence and such - makes people say: "Why do anything? God's will will be done no matter what we do. Just sit in the sand and smoke hashish or whatever."
Obviously time is a wild card here too. What God decrees will get done, as He intends it to from the beginning, but because He acts through secondary causes, particularly 'free' and 'contingent' causes, it may take more time than it would otherwise have taken if everybody was on the ball and making real efforts. *Sometimes God has to step in and shake things up.* Or, the fulness of time takes it's course (and God has a time appointed for fulfillment no matter what), but God's elect are called on to do the moving and shaking basically.
So God's sovereignty in creation, *providence*, and grace makes our individual efforts MORE meaningful in the carrying out of His Plan.
From the Westminster Confession of Faith:
"Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; so that there is not anything befalls any by chance, or without his providence; yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."
Secondary causes are either *necessary*, *free*, or *contingent.*
Following? (It's like Theory of Relativity, just a little less confusing.)
"The three terms "necessarily, freely, or contingently" are describing how events relate to one another. As relates to God, all events are exhaustively determined.
If some act *necessarily* follows, then the second-causation is defined by a strict deterministic relation--it MUST come. (I.e. if God sends the Holy Spirit into your heart you WILL be regenerated.)
If some act *freely* follows, then the second-causation is defined by a not-necessary relation, entirely relying on the WILL. (I.e. *somebody* will cause it to come about. That is why effort means something in God's plan.)
If some act *contingently* follows, then the second-causation is defined according to a dependent relation, but not without other independent variables affecting the result." (I.e. prayer is effective.)
I stole that from the PuritanBoard (except for the parts in parenthesis, which are from me). From someone who thinks about it much more than me. But I understand it.
Fatalism - what Muslims believe about God and providence and such - makes people say: "Why do anything? God's will will be done no matter what we do. Just sit in the sand and smoke hashish or whatever."
Obviously time is a wild card here too. What God decrees will get done, as He intends it to from the beginning, but because He acts through secondary causes, particularly 'free' and 'contingent' causes, it may take more time than it would otherwise have taken if everybody was on the ball and making real efforts. *Sometimes God has to step in and shake things up.* Or, the fulness of time takes it's course (and God has a time appointed for fulfillment no matter what), but God's elect are called on to do the moving and shaking basically.
So God's sovereignty in creation, *providence*, and grace makes our individual efforts MORE meaningful in the carrying out of His Plan.
2.08.2009
The Book of Job
Behemoth in the Book of Job is obviously a reference to what science calls dinosaurs. Dinosaurs and man lived together at one time. Wherefore where else would our words "Run like hell!" come from? Etymologically alone the proof is there.
I find Job to be a penetrating book. There is alot in the words of God alone at the end that you can draw things from.
But regarding Arnold Murray refusing to teach from this book because he thought it was all nonsense up to the last chapters where God finally appears and speaks, I can see his problem. It's not a book you want to draw truth from verse by verse like other inspired books of the Bible. You have to see each part of Job in the context of the bookended situation. Why God has afflicted Job (Satan's meeting with God at the beginning and all that). I.e. the meaning and cause of Job's affliction is something he can't know. It's above him. His is to suffer and not question God. Then you can comment on each part from this higher perspective and you don't have to take every utterance of Bildad as Scriptural truth, which is what Murray seems to think his bind is when he teaches that book on the air.
Really what you get overall that is Scriptural truth from the Book of Job is doctrine. It really does teach Calvinist doctrine, which is to say it teaches things like the sovereignty of God, man's inability to save himself, etc., etc. The hard truths that make one God centered rather than man centered.
I find Job to be a penetrating book. There is alot in the words of God alone at the end that you can draw things from.
But regarding Arnold Murray refusing to teach from this book because he thought it was all nonsense up to the last chapters where God finally appears and speaks, I can see his problem. It's not a book you want to draw truth from verse by verse like other inspired books of the Bible. You have to see each part of Job in the context of the bookended situation. Why God has afflicted Job (Satan's meeting with God at the beginning and all that). I.e. the meaning and cause of Job's affliction is something he can't know. It's above him. His is to suffer and not question God. Then you can comment on each part from this higher perspective and you don't have to take every utterance of Bildad as Scriptural truth, which is what Murray seems to think his bind is when he teaches that book on the air.
Really what you get overall that is Scriptural truth from the Book of Job is doctrine. It really does teach Calvinist doctrine, which is to say it teaches things like the sovereignty of God, man's inability to save himself, etc., etc. The hard truths that make one God centered rather than man centered.
2.07.2009
Physical labor and moving center and imagination/thoughts/words
The physical labor aspect of Work described by G. and O. had a practical effect of slowing down the negative work of moving center regarding imagination and thoughts. By tiring out moving center you get the benefit of stalling out the unique work of moving center involving uncontrolled imagination and thoughts and talking.
The physical labor stuff (shovel work, etc.) is usually taken as a method to make people snippy with each other, or to bring them down to their real limits for what they can put up with in the behavior of other human beings. Provoke limits.
But from a practical angle regarding self-remembering tiring out the moving center enables one to enter a state of presence unmolested by a hyper influx of thoughts and imagination.
(And come to think of it O. described the same method in a context of a simple marathon walk in difficult conditions. So working a shovel, walking a long distance, whatever. The practical tactic and result is the same.)
Ideally one wants to be in control of moving center without having to tire it out physically, but on the other hand getting into a true state of self-remembering requires we do it by getting control of all centers, and what it takes to get control is what it takes.
The physical labor stuff (shovel work, etc.) is usually taken as a method to make people snippy with each other, or to bring them down to their real limits for what they can put up with in the behavior of other human beings. Provoke limits.
But from a practical angle regarding self-remembering tiring out the moving center enables one to enter a state of presence unmolested by a hyper influx of thoughts and imagination.
(And come to think of it O. described the same method in a context of a simple marathon walk in difficult conditions. So working a shovel, walking a long distance, whatever. The practical tactic and result is the same.)
Ideally one wants to be in control of moving center without having to tire it out physically, but on the other hand getting into a true state of self-remembering requires we do it by getting control of all centers, and what it takes to get control is what it takes.
2.05.2009
Insight on idol worship
I saw an insight on idol worship on a blog just now. It is this: you become like the idol that you worship. This is seen in Psalm 115:4-8 -
Psa 115:4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.
Psa 115:5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:
Psa 115:6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:
Psa 115:7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.
Psa 115:8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.
Then read Isaiah 6 and the language is more understandable:
Isa 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
Read the short blog post: http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/worshiping-idols/
Excerpt: "If we worship idols, then our spiritual perception becomes just as useless as the idol’s eyes and ears, which cannot see or hear. If we worship God in Spirit and in truth, we become more and more like Him."
Excerpt: "However, we are treated to a trip through the Bible, showing where this theme pops out at us. It is quite surprising, really, how many places in the Bible where this theme comes out."
Psa 115:4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.
Psa 115:5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:
Psa 115:6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:
Psa 115:7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.
Psa 115:8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.
Then read Isaiah 6 and the language is more understandable:
Isa 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
Read the short blog post: http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/worshiping-idols/
Excerpt: "If we worship idols, then our spiritual perception becomes just as useless as the idol’s eyes and ears, which cannot see or hear. If we worship God in Spirit and in truth, we become more and more like Him."
Excerpt: "However, we are treated to a trip through the Bible, showing where this theme pops out at us. It is quite surprising, really, how many places in the Bible where this theme comes out."
2.03.2009
Theological works
One thing too about theological works (that occurs to me, as an afterthought on the previous emails) is, as C. S. Lewis observed, they are very devotional type influences, unintentionally. Even the most technical of them are devotional because of their very subject matter. And it's not a negative thing to say about devotional writings that they can be overdosed on easily. It is just their nature. Theological works pack a lot of knowledge (knowledge about ultimate things) in each chapter and paragraph. We can take in so much. I think this is part of why it is difficult to engage theological works in anything but a reference book type way.
Still we have to get the whole to see the parts in relation to the whole.
This is also why I like so much the concise works like Berkhof's Manual of Christian Doctrine and Packer's Concise Theology. Berkhof's give a true whole, including knowledge on the three covenants and so on. - C.
ps- I guess I *have* read a theological book complete: Berkhof's Manual of Christian Doctrine... I also saw it as complete, and worthy of unique status. In other words, if it was all you had, along with the Bible, you could draw everything - the 'whole' - from both. Then if you had the Work sources you'd have enough to get the real complete whole...
pps- This brings up another thing I was thinking about recently: we need to not get too 'outside our school.' Once we discern our school influences (and have found the list that represents the whole) we need to zero in on them and not continually flirt with influences from perhaps other schools, as worthy as they may be in their own world and context. It's a cosmos issue. School is a cosmos and needs to have perimeters and boundaries.
Still we have to get the whole to see the parts in relation to the whole.
This is also why I like so much the concise works like Berkhof's Manual of Christian Doctrine and Packer's Concise Theology. Berkhof's give a true whole, including knowledge on the three covenants and so on. - C.
ps- I guess I *have* read a theological book complete: Berkhof's Manual of Christian Doctrine... I also saw it as complete, and worthy of unique status. In other words, if it was all you had, along with the Bible, you could draw everything - the 'whole' - from both. Then if you had the Work sources you'd have enough to get the real complete whole...
pps- This brings up another thing I was thinking about recently: we need to not get too 'outside our school.' Once we discern our school influences (and have found the list that represents the whole) we need to zero in on them and not continually flirt with influences from perhaps other schools, as worthy as they may be in their own world and context. It's a cosmos issue. School is a cosmos and needs to have perimeters and boundaries.
The power of biblical doctrine
Having said what I said [in an email, talking about how whole works of theology are not necessarily the best way to get biblical doctrine, i.e. you get it from a thousand different sources], there is real power in apostolic biblical doctrine, and in theologians who express it in an on-the-mark way.
Take sola Scriptura. That is the biblical teaching to fear God and not man. Fear/revere God alone, not the word or opinions or authority of man. That is foundational and powerful.
Sola fide. Justification by faith alone. That means don't rely on your own works to save yourself. That is vain. Don't self-justify yourself. In the big sense as well as in the all the little acts we engage in self-justification.
Christ alone. One Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. This keeps us out of the bondage to the General Law, the system of the Beast.
Grace alone. Sola gratia. This has to do with seeing God's will vs. self-will. Real will vs. self-will. When we realize we have nothing and could not have awakened to truth except via God's grace alone we start to see our own so-called 'freedom' for what it is: bondage to the Kingdom of Death. Vanity, worldly pride, rebellious self-will. False personality. Imaginary 'I'.
To the glory of God alone. This is a deep realization. We're created in the image of God, but everything in the plan of God is to glorify God. Since God is infinitely good (and everything else) and infinitely higher than us (I'm rambling on this one I admit) it means when we use the glory of God as our goal and our focus it draws everything upward in a way that makes everything to be in harmony and to be right.
Those are the five solas, and they are the heart of the biblical message.
The five points of Calvinism are called the doctrines of grace, and I describe those as the sort of 'chains' of redemption that when accepted it reorientates us internally from being man-centered to being God-centered.
Then classical Covenant - Federal - Theology is the overall arching Plan of Redemption from eternity to eternity.
All this is powerful and when in understanding is the armor of God itself.
You get it all from classic sources, when you do get it. And it is necessary. Along with the complete reading of the Bible itself. Over and over. With aim.
Take sola Scriptura. That is the biblical teaching to fear God and not man. Fear/revere God alone, not the word or opinions or authority of man. That is foundational and powerful.
Sola fide. Justification by faith alone. That means don't rely on your own works to save yourself. That is vain. Don't self-justify yourself. In the big sense as well as in the all the little acts we engage in self-justification.
Christ alone. One Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. This keeps us out of the bondage to the General Law, the system of the Beast.
Grace alone. Sola gratia. This has to do with seeing God's will vs. self-will. Real will vs. self-will. When we realize we have nothing and could not have awakened to truth except via God's grace alone we start to see our own so-called 'freedom' for what it is: bondage to the Kingdom of Death. Vanity, worldly pride, rebellious self-will. False personality. Imaginary 'I'.
To the glory of God alone. This is a deep realization. We're created in the image of God, but everything in the plan of God is to glorify God. Since God is infinitely good (and everything else) and infinitely higher than us (I'm rambling on this one I admit) it means when we use the glory of God as our goal and our focus it draws everything upward in a way that makes everything to be in harmony and to be right.
Those are the five solas, and they are the heart of the biblical message.
The five points of Calvinism are called the doctrines of grace, and I describe those as the sort of 'chains' of redemption that when accepted it reorientates us internally from being man-centered to being God-centered.
Then classical Covenant - Federal - Theology is the overall arching Plan of Redemption from eternity to eternity.
All this is powerful and when in understanding is the armor of God itself.
You get it all from classic sources, when you do get it. And it is necessary. Along with the complete reading of the Bible itself. Over and over. With aim.
2.01.2009
On making your book reading public
I've been discussing in email some of the problems that can come up when you make public records and vows to read certain books. Then I remembered something...
I used to have a saying: 'You should read books, but you should never admit it.'
Where has the old me gone?!?
But that saying involved part of this subject: when you keep your cards close to your vest you are free to engage any and all influences and take what is worthwhile from each and leave what is not worthwhile, and you don't have to deal with all the opinions and misapprehensions of the world about what you are involved in.
ps- I should distinguish what lately I've been doing is not really in the above category. Saying I will read the Bible seven times is a different thing. Also, knowing certain influences that you should engage (Work books, Homer, certain works of theology) is different, because they are the ones you just have to gear up and read complete no matter what. But you don't want to constrain yourself by not having space to follow some new thread that may appear and all that...
I used to have a saying: 'You should read books, but you should never admit it.'
Where has the old me gone?!?
But that saying involved part of this subject: when you keep your cards close to your vest you are free to engage any and all influences and take what is worthwhile from each and leave what is not worthwhile, and you don't have to deal with all the opinions and misapprehensions of the world about what you are involved in.
ps- I should distinguish what lately I've been doing is not really in the above category. Saying I will read the Bible seven times is a different thing. Also, knowing certain influences that you should engage (Work books, Homer, certain works of theology) is different, because they are the ones you just have to gear up and read complete no matter what. But you don't want to constrain yourself by not having space to follow some new thread that may appear and all that...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
