The way it's been used around here lately is as a way to say "how dare you disagree with the meaning I have to claim to have gotten directly from God in order to maintain my cloak of spiritual superiority".

I can't speak for those who use the term, but I do know the word "carnal" is derived from the Latin "carnis" meaning flesh or meat.  We also get "carnival"and "chili con carne" from the same source.

I couldn't disagree more, however, that the flesh is sinful or bad.  Sometimes the flesh and pleasure or pain open us to redemption, awareness, agape, love and other good stuff.

The body is a perfect metaphor for the earth or for a society. 

My personal view is a feminist one.  In ancient times, men were jealous of the ability of a woman's body to give life.  Reminded them too much of a Creatrix.  The Goddess was much too powerful, so they had to demonize the flesh and create that false dichotomy of flesh and spirit to gain the upper hand.

I'm with ninjafaery that I don't know how they've been used lately, but to me 'carnal' tends to have more hedonistic baggage attached to it than simply saying 'sensual' or 'worldly'... or even 'sex' or 'flesh'.

There's also that naughty undertone of sin and taboo that's oh so appealing.  ;)

Man = "higher" intellect, reason, spirit

Woman = animal, flesh, lust

I think that's how it went.

I also heard an idea put forth that male circumcision had it's roots in early attempts to re-create menstuation in themselves since it was eventually understood it had something to do with pregnacy and giving life. 

Circumcision as a rite later moved onto being a covenant with God.

Yes, the Romans did like their 'virtus'... roughly translated to 'virtue'.  What it really meant was 'manliness'.  Any woman who showed fortitude or bravery was said to be acting like a man.

Women were soft, wet and crazy.  The word 'hysterical' literally comes from the school of thought that women were crazy because their uterus floated around inside them and put pressure on things occasionally.

(You can always count on me for some strange, random Roman trivia!)

Whaaaa??  That's horrible!

Anyway, for me Romans 8 speaks about the carnal mind fairly well.

"Those who are controlled by the sin-nature think about sin-things, but those who are controlled by the God-Spirit think about things that please the Spirit. So letting your sin-nature control you leads to death. But letting the God-Spirit control you leads to life and peace. For the sin-nature is always hostile to God. It never did obey the God-laws, and it never will. That’s why those who are still controlled by their sin-nature can never please God." - Romans 8: 5-8

Now, I take sin-nature to refer to the carnal mind.

Do you guys ever read your bible?

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The carnal mind is the fleshy, lustful, sinful mind that we have, for which we have to repent.  I think Tom will back me up here.

What a great topic

I have studied the carnal mind for a few yes now and observed it working in my life, and although it’s a vast subject , to make it short the carnal mind or human thinking can be associated with our egos or sometimes its also referred to as “the self” or the “ I Am “ with in me , which is a personality trait within ones soul, some are stronger some are weaker in self, but all are affect by upbringing, and life soundings .

Every time one respond to a situation whether it be physical or non physical based on my needs, my desires, my feelings , my wants , my thinking, has all to do with Self, the motive of my response is rooted in self, that is a carnal mind.

A spiritual mind , is rooted in God, response to situations are rooted in God desires, ego is suppressed , our feelings, emotions, will, self desires, are all denied and we act according to the spiritual principals and desires of God, whether it benefits us or not, the act is a God act and not a self act.

Before I was born again, I had 1 nature, my life was carnal based with acts of some spiritual ones , not knowing where the spiritual inspiration came from, I though it was an act of self. Pat myself on the back afterwards cuz im such a good guy.

Now having Christ living in me , I live 2 natures before I act on any situation I am presented with 2 possibilities with in me, I can act based on self (carnal) or I can act based on Gods principles (Spiritual) .

Choosing Gods way , usual is the more difficult path because “self” will be hurt and self wants and needs payment, to get even, but in the end, “ self or the carnal mind” is never satisfied, it always craves more, and in this craving, the heart hardens more. but choosing Gods way , and act of the Spiritual, brings joy to ones heart, and freedom from the bondage that one was about to act upon according to the self.

When I had one choice to make based on my carnal mind or self , my life was easier, I just acted according to my wants , my needs, my desires. But my heart was never in peace, always wanting more, getting even with others was never enough .

Being born again , now having 2 choices, can make life more difficult because carnality wants what it wants, , but the joys of choosing the Spiritual and the cleanliness one feels in self are at times unspeakable.

Ultimately , Christ did not come to save us from hell but from SELF

carnal mind = 1. meat head. 

                          2. dead to the reality of the divine.

Hi crazyheart,

If those using it are being true to the intent of the words.  Carnal is a translation limited to the King James and Revised translations of the Bible.  As others have pointed out it basically means fleshly whether it is employed in translation of the Greek or Hebrew text.

So what does "fleshly" mean in the context of the scriptures?

Typically it is not pointing to the physical realm.  If it were then we would be dealing with gnostic influences that are suggesting that the physical realm is evil and the spiritual realm is godly.

I'm not convinced that a creeping gnosticism doesn't influence at some level all those who appear to be in love with translations favouring use of the word "carnal".

More than anything it appear to point to animalistic tendency or thoughtless physicality.  When employed in the Old Testament it is exclusive to the books of Leviticus and Numbers and appears in refererences to sexual relationships with married women or bond-maids.

It gets a better workout in Romans and 1st Corinthians and, while it has a broader application it still appears to target base human instinct.

Whether or not it is used here appropriately would be a matter for discussion.  I think it is more miss than hit and its usage her most recently has been more as an epithet than descriptor.

I think this is where the creeping gnosticism enters in as well as maybe some good ol tyme Victorian prudery.

When the focus is on base human lust it isn't a good thing (unless of course that is part of a consentual and covenanted relationship).  It reduces humanity to animal driven by instinct and devoid of rational thought.

The Biblical concept of shalom is not just for the human spirit.  It is a balance between all elements of the individual; body, mind and spirit.

The body is not inherently evil.  If it was the scriptural insistence on a bodily resurrection would make absolutely no sense.  It was once thought that our bodies house our irrationality--they respond better to appetites and desires than reason.

Grace and peace to you.

John

and you are a meat head LOL, Archie Bunker was a classic

by whom Witch? Tom?  I don't think so.

In all fairness to Tom I believe his motives are misunderstood by you & others.

 The expression of a desire to boast of spiritual superiority is not a sense I get from Tom but you may think it's a bias because we share a close look at scriptural principles.

Tom can fight his own battles, but I see a bias from you Witch.

Am I wrong?

Bolt

Could you go into a little more detail about the lustful and flashly parts? Actually a lot more detail please.

Wrong about me having a bias? No, I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a bias. I think anyone would be lying if they said they didn't have a bias.

I disagree with your assessment of Tom, though. I my opinion he is diplaying pride and arrogance in his religious rightness. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am alone in that regard, even among other Christians.

Is it possible that you have a bias as well? Perhaps your desire to "Come to the aid" of a fellow fundamentalist causes you to neglect to see the harmful fundie part of Tom?

It is also my uneducated opinion that we may find Tom diappears very soon. If my non-medical guess is correct, his grandiose phase may be over soon, and the depressive phase will take over. I hope I am wrong, because I wouldn't wish bipolar condition on anyone, but if I am right it does explain a lot, and it gives us cause to forgive him for some of his attitudes.

xxx

hows that?

So carnal refers to the number of times that moonshine has been through the still?

Now I'm more confused

I applaud your honesty.

I too have a bias of what witchcraft is, I may not have the same understanding of witchcraft as you, as you call it Wiccan.

My understanding of witchcraft is a pagan form of religion to where more than one god is considered a diety or even creation is a form of diety & a source of power.

But how you refer to yourself as Witch is due to your involvement in a religion called Wiccan in which I know nothing about really.applied in you case may be very different to my perception of what witchcraft is to me.

Yes Witch, I have a bias as well, but it's more than bias that divides us all really.

But is our bias alway correct?

The thing with a beleif system that is based on faith, in order for this whole new level of understanding to be established in each individual.

In order to show evidence of faith, sometimes we will go off on our own understanding of spiritual matters & stand on beleifs that are metaphorical & are meant for the parallel understanding on the principle behind what is neccisary for fulfilling Godly instruction.

Meanwhile these metphores were never meant to be taken as historical fact or actual events as described in detail, not for the litteral sense, but for the sense of the principle behind the message.

Accuracy of events is not the main intent so why put the burden of these points of a record designed to just teach us to live the way it is most abundant.

There just happens to be absolutes within the context of revelation, & with that in mind, this makes those who believe in such a way a turn off to others.

This is why when I first came here I was so convinced that I knew what I was doing as far as spreading a message of the Gospel of Christ.

Many didn't take the message very well at all, many said, how dare you speak as if what you've found is right for me!

Well I dare because I have found such joy & contentment from my experience. I just would like to share it.

Then I was led to start a message of sin to see how it would be accepted or rejected.

I simply stated that sin is the reason we are so distant from God in our relationship.

& for us to gain further understanding, sin would be our stumbling block to greater things.

This is a standard biblical principle.

Then everyone started naming perticular sins & the the whole gay issue started being the focus, but really I was referring to all sin.

It got out of hand & people started getting offended,.

I then came to the conclusion, that instead of focusing on the negative, I will just keep offereing up what was a solution for me personally, & focus on the positive.

Focus on solutions instead of the problems & challenges.

Perhaps then people will at least look at relationship with God this way, & give it a chance, because until one gives it a chance one may just never know just how wonderful it can be.

If one is a Christian yet has no joy, then I would think that perhaps this person has yet to really experience it for themselves, this revelation in relationship that is very satisfying.

Bolt

Bolt:

Thank you for your answer. There's quite a lot in there that I would like to explore with you, prehaps at another time. Right now I would like to focus in for a moment on one thing you said.

IMHO that type of "witnessing" is the only type that really has a chance of being successful. Nobody is going to be insulted into becoming a Christian. Your expressed method of sharing, rather than condemning; of focussing on the good Christianity can bring, rather than the bad of not being a Christian, is simply the only way likely to work.

If that is the direction Christianity is moving, then there is great hope left.

There will always be those who think that telling people how wrong they are, and insulting the beliefs they already hold, will make people want to become Christians. I cannot help but think that those who do it that way are more interested in getting their "Go ye into all the world" ticket punched than in really doing what they consider God's work.

If you were hired  to sell a product, and you choose to do it in the least productive, and even the most counter-productive way possible, you would not long have a job.

I can't help but wonder if there's a few Christians (or Jews, Muslims, or Wiccans for that matter) that God wishes He could fire.

Ha Witch, I would hate to even think who God would fire, I do believe lucifer got fired.LOL. I don't know if that counts.

I don't know if this point entered your mind but, while it's fresh in my mind I would just like to say.

This method of faith is not really easy & it's really probably, not meant to be.

I don't mean to sound like a baby'n all.

The irony is, to hold onto scriptual referance as truthful biblical principle, & yet if we admit to another form of thoughton Godly principle which is not align with our own beleifs, it isn't considered acceptable to waver if our faith is considered strong.

So it is a bit of a double jepardy.

It's like being a middle manager, & trying to please those who are good laborers & are making you look good to your boss, & also pleasing the boss by maintaining a level of service to this boss, so that this Boss will look good to His Boss.

A chain of good will that flows up the channels of authority right to the very top.

When we see spiritual matters with the flesh, we take this guilt from the enemy & give it power.

Then we are decieved into trying to pay God back for His grace & mercy by accepting a works driven salvation on one side, or fear of  judgement on the other.

All the while we are missing the whole point of the Gospel of Christ.

Well if we don't search for salvation or run from hell does this make us enlightened?

The whole of the ball of wax is the realization of from where & by Whom this enlightenment comes from.

Until this is recognized, as this recognition is from revelation so it is more works based by an action of God, than a "works" based action of man.

Revelation extends beyond the realm of salvation & moves forward to the next step in Spiritual evolution.

We have a more extensive purpose, & we are learnig as each learns & develops in their own time & level of understanding.

The thing with understanding, it requiers great responsibility & trust.

Because what God has done was extend an even deeper understanding of Himself to mankind, than He did with lucifer, who was once held in such high regard in the Kingdom before us.

The difference is, now God has offered a deeper understanding of who we are, How we are more related to Him, than the wee one who crawls on his belly.

At least, this is how I see it.

Bolt

Most of the time when the word carnal is used I think it's used to mean sexual. I have heard the term "carnal Christian" which is used to mean someone who was born again, but has had no spiritual growth since then, in other words a baby Christian lacking maturity. I don't know if that's a commonly used term or just something that people I grew up with used.

Smiles at Witch.

May I recommend for you God Inc. on YouTube - totally irreverent, sometimes very funny, quite possibly the workings of a carnal mind (no quick link provided to protect the innocent and easily offended plus, imho, one should have to put some effort into the carnal).

LB - some like it hot

Episode 1:  In the beginning there was paperwork.....

Sin's an injury ... to the surroundings that are our environment if you will! Now when we do an injury to the surroundings ... would we rather deny ID ... not be aware? It is the lie ... the sin we stand upon as we are parasites on everything that is around us. You are forgiven because the whole thing in sum ... integral ... will feed on you someday. Isn't that just devilish satyr .. a satire that chews at our insides ... like Lucifer!

Now if God (the infinite) is a dark mystery; is Lucifer the power that stokes the fires of God's enlightenment? It is probably what every bi-polar (divined, Eli Zha) personality would like to know ... but you couldn't tell them because none likes to be told what's on their wee piece of the sole entity ... infinite stretch of imagination ... genteel realm ... what Judah (power) called Gentile Nation ... a quiet chewing over of words ... Rheum in ante?

God (emotions) has a bite if not taken with a wee cool drink of common sense (Joseph in ancient tongues, Joan, Jean, John etc) ... the reason water has been given the symbol of the medium of mind for a gross long time. Picture the flood and Light baptism in your genteel spaces. Id'll come to yah in time! Such humours (plasma) will bring tiers to your eyes ... quantum Light is metaphysical ... crossing over from ethers in space. You could never suggest this to fixed Gods ... institutionalized sorts that won't change or learn revolutions of the spirit ... witch is certainly in a spin ... evolving at this present time?

Soft humours phoqahs ... you don't wish understanding entities to die laughting over a bit on light in the temple, residing place of the spirit of the brae'n ... that hole in space of sculling location. Hard tap ... the Egyptians called it Tre-Pan 'n ... tapping into the head ... sort of like sear comes-'es-ion ... for something was lost, or escaped in the process. Unscene pyre?

If we could only see our behaviour from outside self ... would we die laughing ... or be too embarassed to move on? Out-of-bod'in solipsism? That's a spiritual experience, like dreaming at night ... hors of another name ... time machinations ... stepping out into weird behaviour that you don't wish to talk about. Sacred social order in a realm that hates socialism. God if we could only connect with Lucifer perhaps we could see! Says so in the Book of Chaos: "Love the alien!" Such a strange commandment in a world where everything seems inverted ... very green to the eye of the cos moe-logical sort. I heard that in a whisper ... am I nonsense like God ... that's Love you know, in that state you don't have a clue and have to dig your way out of that pit! IT a'moes's the powers (Judah) above ... sets them in awe of what Maas they've created! They haven't been able to stand up in principle (ET'cs) for millenium. They're still laughing at us out there ... in the abstract portion of our think in space! One has to get over it: like an awkward Bo-vine, jumping over d' moaning space. We all come through it as flighty, emotional power that was once called fey malle' (ham mere) ... the mind is still capable of much shaping as a formless void ... w'isle come through Ur!

Keep chipping at it folks ... IT's a difficult space to get into ... or out of ... we never really know where we are in time. Relax, ID's just a story, like mind ID'll change slowly in syntax ... like creative word crossing space ... everyone looks at IT differently and thinks they have ID. Not a chance, IT goes on and on just like the dark Ness ... a poe-L in the soulais that plays part of the psyche ... a bit psychic if we would let it work what IT has to chew! Everyone thinks they have to stop ID ... like arresting light ... and the sun was haulted in the taxing of everything IT had, but we didn't understand a bit of the story in T'Rut'h (the 'eh' is often silent as the night in penetrating your resting sole piece). We'd never admit it as transgenre beans ... two halve knots? IT's all in the diction ... phonetics battle with th' inqueue'n space. ID's awe Eire'd hors ... d' mere in emotional state w'o reason ... a sign of Gods metaphysical existence? A powerfully rich physical person would never admit to IT as IC ID! So the genre moves on ... piscine's Tory?

On the contrary, I think it should be stated as such;

"Is our bias ever correct?"

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

Awesome!!!!! That is awesome!!!!

Bolt

Our problem is dualims - the mind/body spilt and that gets carried over to language and how we view the interaction of mind and body - does the mind control the body or the opposite.  Now that is the dualism that most work out of, and that dualism is not metaphysically true.   The mind organizes the body out of an interrelatedness of body and mind - our body effect us but we organize it, just as we are in relationship to the earthiness of life - we can split them apart as if each had independence from the other.  However, we organize our experience as consciousness organizes relationships, but we are not disconnected from the body nor the body from the mind.

Hi Panentheism

Our dualism is a result of the flesh the way I see it.

Well at least in the carnal realm, our flesh is what seperates us from siprit.

There is a way for the flesh & the spirit to be one on this earth, but only through the rightiousness of Christ can this be established, the way I see it of course.

Once this rightiousness that Christ cloths us in, introduces the relationship lost with the fall in Eden, "Pardise"on earth, as it was in heaven "Paradice" in heaven, with the fall of another.

The realm of relationship is what is the transforming factor within the mind of carnal man to the mind of Christ.

What separates the mind from ones soul?

This revelation through relationship, or relationship through revelation has indeed dual meaning of the same does it not?

This revelation through relationship is far greater in conviction that all the signs & wonders combined!

Paradise lost is a term designed for the one who seals one's fate already.

When "Paradise" is threatened, what is it one would expect God to do?

Expel the threat, perhaps?

Bolt

Hi boltupright,

That might very well work for you.  Friend Panentheism is looking at dualism as an ideological paradigm.

At its simplest it is a worldview that says, "spiritual is good and physical is bad."

It is a worldview that was popular among the gnostics in the early days of the Church and it is a worldview which many (though not all) in the early church repudiated.

It is evidenced in the trend towards spiritualism, which rejects as evil, anything resembling institution.

Grace and peace to you.

John 

I believe that is far too broad of a way to see it John to be honest.

I do speak of what has worked for me, & in no way say that Panentheism is wrong about how he see things.

These principles are where the writings of the Spirit of God through revelation to Paul of the perfecting of the saints as it was referred these points & referance of the intent of the letters to the early church.

This is the difference of a message that pertains to judgement than that of a message that pertains to our designed potential.

I feel the complexities of judgement on such matters rests on the shoulders of One who is qualified & tested true.

He in fact is One who walked in our human condition as well,  would you agree?

Then why is it so unfathomable that we can recive this revelation through this rightiousness that cloths us, as well as revelation within this relationship through Christ.

For if we receive revelation of His rightiousness that cloths us, is there not a convincing nature to such relationship? Unless we hold fast to our pride.

Doesn't the original sin stem from pride?

Bolt

.

Hi boltupright,

I think this is a language issue.  Did you mean to say too broad?  Because neither dualism or the characterization of it I shared is a broad perspective.  It is, as a matter of fact, a very narrow way to view the universe.

Which is why so many take issue with it.

It attempts to paint the world in black and white which I think is a fool's errand to begin with.

Once it feels it has succeeded in painting the world in black and white terms it typically feels it gets to define what is black and what is white with no higher authority than itself.

I think this is where most difficulty is had with Tomlane.

Tom appears to paint the world in black and white and only Tom appears to understand which is which.  Tom, of course, denies that he is the only one to understand which is which and claims that all who are informed by the spirit, as he is, would understand, as he does, which is which.

Instead of using the black and white dichotomy Tom uses the carnal/spiritual dichotomy.

Different continuum same spectrum.

And I was speaking to what I perceived was a misunderstanding of Panentheism on your part.

I am not saying that your belief is wrong.  I'm saying that I don't believe that you have understood his point.

Yes and no.

These principles claim to come from the writings of the Spirit of God through revelation of Paul and the translation of all that from Greek to English.

Sometimes things get lost in translation.

I raised that point when Tom was defending dispensationalism based on what he claims Paul wrote.

The truth is that dispensationalism is based on a translation of what Paul wrote not what Paul wrote and, further, it appears that dispensationalism is built on a poor understanding of a dubious translation of what Paul wrote.

I submit that the use of the word "carnal" is more of the same loss of translation and that the loss of translation allows for the narrowness of dualism to shape discussion.

I respect that is the intent.  I am not confident that it is always the practice.  Particularly as Tom seeks to apply it.  To date those who take a position contrary to his have been "carnal" to his "spiritual."  We may use scripture now but our interpretation is fleshly.  That is his defence to any interpretation of scripture that is different from his own and it is the only defence that allows him to consistently be infallible in whatever topic is being discussed.

I would not hesitate to agree.  I have never failed to confess that Jesus is fully divine and fully human all at the same time.  I have also never failed to confess that I don't understand how that works.

Dispensationalism (you and I have discussed this coincidentally before) would argue that the incarnation of God in human flesh was a necessity for the wider community at the time and that Jesus only borrowed human flesh.  Now that he is raised up the flesh has no purpose and only the pure Spirit remains.

We belong to a different dispensation where the spirit is of primary importance and the physical holds us back.

The confession is that Jesus came in human flesh not that Jesus maintained human flesh.

Dualism promotes the split between the body and the spirit.

Everything Jesus taught us emphasizes the integration of body, mind and spirit into a perfect whole being not a perfectly fractured one.

I think that we are pointing at roughly the same phenomenon.  I think that the different languages (theological languages) that we have been raised with makes understanding slower and more of an effort than we are used to.

In essence we end up arguing about what one colour a two-tone object is.  Is the Zebra white with black-stripes or black with white-stripes?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Bolt

[/quote]

I understand John, painting absolutes is always going to causes strife.

The thing is that how do we as indeviduals deal with these absolutes is personal yet as a statement of faith one feels the desire to express it according to how it's revieled.

For us to say that this absolute is what it is, seems to take on the expression of bias & shuts dowm all form of reasoning amungst the ranks.

So how is one to express it to be more acceptable this message of our potential?

Absolutes should be revieled within relationship personally with Christ for that is where revelation abounds.

For me to just write down scripture has very little effect without the heart behind it.

OK, I beg your pardon & I am ready for clarification.

Yes & no? isn't that a form of duality? LOL

How do these principles make a claim to come from somewhere, John?

The principles have merit within the understanding of the principles & the Spirit behind them.

The Spirit behind understanding reveals the intent of the principles & confims that which is written as intent by God.

This is personal, & is designed as tranforming of the mind not from a motive of control but a convincing of truth for our benifit. To benifit the collective.

Well John you are entitled to see scripture however you choose.

I express exactly what I recieve expotentially within the realm of relationship through Chist.

Well not to delve on Tom's intent either, & I whole heartedly agree that motive is alwys a factor when faith is put into practice within any collective beleif system.

But it's very hard to see intent clearly in the realm of absolutes.

This is all I'm saying.

Yeah we see things differently, but the way I see it & like you stated to me in another post that impressed me is that we will indeed learn something from this dialogue. whether or not we agree on absolutes but I would hope to agree we agree with the sacred thing called free will. & the sovereignty of God.

If I'm not mistaken,  the sovereignty of God is a non issue with you, however free will is something I don't quite understand as an issue. Is it?

This is part of the road to enlightenment as far as I'm concerned.

Bolt

Hi boltupright,

It is.  Particularly since God created far more colour to paint creation with than all or nothing.

And that would not be a problem if the one doing the sharing recognized that what they were sharing was something they believed in not something everyone else must believe in or be dismissed.

Any one of us could embrace an absolute.  We could swear by it as much as we wanted.  That would be okay.  The minute though, that we start to believe that we who hold to this absolute know more than others and have the duty to correct others without discussion, then we have blown it.

And for good reason.  When we say that this absolute is what it is we have shown that we are closing the door to any and all other reasons that might exist.  In an all or nothing worldview if I already have everything the only thing anyone else can offer is nothing.

If we believe something to be an absolute and we want to express it as an absolute we should still remain open to conversation, particularly from others who will disagree about the absolute.

All that conversation may accomplish is disagreement.

Respectful disagreement is far more conducive to kingdom building than disrespectul dismissal.

Even if we accept that we need to realize that the relationship that each of us has with Christ is different in some way from the relationship that the other has with Christ.  Forgetting that difference and presuming that all must be the same rarely ends with the person presuming that they must be more like the other instead of the other becoming more like them.

That is pride at work.

Agreed.  I think many here would agree as well.  It is good to hear the words and read them.  What is important is to understand what those words are doing different things in the hearts of of all who hear them.  For me to dismiss someone because they do not resonate precisely as I do is more pride.

Already provided.  Dualism is a worldview that divides the world into good and evil.  Physicality is part of what is evil.  Spirituality is part of what is good.

No it is an attempt to avoid it by embracing both the yes and the no.

The Yes side at its simplest would say, its in the Bible that must be the way it was intended to be interpreted.

The No side at its simplest would say, the Bible is 2000 years old and out of date.

Neither offers any real nuance.

I confess that Paul wrote something.  I know that what Tom believes Paul said is not what Paul said but rather an interpretation of what Paul said.  When Paul uses a word like "oikonomia" and there are three translation possibilities getting the right word is an automatic 33% success rate.  It is also an automatic 66% fail rate.

That is twice as many chances to be wrong than it is to be right.

I believe that the writers of the scriptures were inspired.  I have not heard a compelling argument that Biblical inspiration means all translations of Biblical text are without error.

Principles rarely make the claim for themselves.  It is others who make the claims for them.  Those who make the claims may be correct, they might be wrong or they might have a bit of both.

More often than not we make claims based on what we believe and as sinners we would be well served if we didn't insist on being infallible.

Not only is that despairingly circular it contributes to the problem.  Because now those who disagree with the principle have nothing that they can challenge without being dismissed as antagonistic to the truth.

Tom quotes scripture and someone responds.  Is there then a debate about interpretation?  Not from Tom because Tom doesn't interpret.  The Holy Spirit does it for him and anyone who admits to interpreting does so with a carnal mind.

Problem solved as far as Tom is concerned.  He's correct and the other is wrong.

Eventually it does.  That still requires some discernment and not everyone excels in that gift.

Thank you for allowing that.  The quarrel is not with you.  It is with Tom who does not allow others the option of interpreting scripture however they choose.  They can do it with a spiritual mind and come to the same conclusion that he has or, they can use their carnal minds and be wrong.

I haven't been keeping score but I don't think Tom has acknowledged that any one other than him has even gotten a hit.  For a while he thought Chansen had game.  Since it was revealed to him that Chansen is an atheist he is suddenly not seeing Chansen as ally or brother.

You do and after a rough start here you have learned lessons in conversation that serve you well and do you credit.  You have attempted to share those with Tom and that is most gracious of you.  Tom may listen eventually.  He is not listening at present.

I hear that and I affirm that.  I'm not the one needing to be convinced that such is so though.

That is the hope I bring into every conversation.  Sometimes seeds need to be planted before fruit is sprouted.

I think we can safely say that we agree on the sovereignty of God.  I do not think that we are agreed on the subject of free will.  I have asked a couple of times if humanity only fell partially and the will was protected from falling.  Nobody has felt it worth responding to.

God's sovereignty is not an issue.  Humanity having free-will prior to the fall is not an issue for me.  Humanity having free-will after the fall is an issue for me.  Humanity fell or it didn't.  If it didn't then the will is free and there is no need at all for a saviour/redeemer.  If it did then the will has never been free since.

I believe that is a very healthy way to look at all conversation.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hermeunetics and Exegenesis are black and white arts ... what you take from the infinite field (poe-L) and what you put into it ... a split process! Arewe the light of creation ... un-cultivated in the bottomlands? Is that divine, or divined in a sect-ant manna? Sometimes we need a dunqan in the waters of thought to stiffle the negative emotions.

Do isolated beings (m'n) take life too seriously as we allow it to pass without feeding the soul ("feed my Lambs, sheep, goats")?

Then some people don't believe in emotions (gods, Furies) or mind (awareness) as ESS-ential things. We were told not to separate what creation put together ... but alas the powers of the earth would sooner see the common folk (Pagans) "not" think. Then we wonder why we only seen to use less than 90% of our mental capacity as a body. Mental control by remnant of gods?

Some out of bode' action required. But again we believe in monotheism ... Love alone without a thought. Is God lonely in this realm that seems contrived mostly of hate and conquest? Such has to make the superiour powers giggle ... devilish power of Light over the mystery ... enigma?

In between the black and white ... a gre isle .. de void of Mann? Raise your spirits of thought and cares folks, they can be resurrected as a dualism ... perhaps even Pan Theistic ... contrary to Roman Roue ... and some theologians say there is no devil ... is the soul dead ... or just not yet awake in its seventh dais ... an iche in time in some traditions ... Ba Th' Zhi Ba ... awarening plunge .. .takes time to hit the water at the bottom. is life a hard place in which we should consider the (w)hole fabrication? Like's Tars in the night sky much devoid as a sign of the Darkness of the Soul--- Joseph Conrad, but you couldn't tell amen a truth as the living end! Heh's only have a Wahl nuit ... some oil hidden as symbol Toby consumed!

Its all in WORD of Torah, Qu'ran, Kabbal, Sufi ... story in short ... diversive until A'M'N learns about Sophei ... balance ... equitable existence ... all cultivated! In this pace the powerful will say go wah wit' yah ... and God retreated as reflection on the doings of mankind! Is that flighty, fey, Ephraim'like activity ... confined "beyond" ... myth? Perhaps just captive th'ought (Th'O) in another dimension isolated from common-phoqah.

Is Super Ego one step above, or one step behind awareness? "Get behind me satan!" Did the Light of awareness need some support from understanding sous-los ... peons, Pi-Lars of the dirt? Peor in some tonges as presented in a fabraction of truth that real people wouldn't understand.

We as humans must look around us and ask this question, are we like the rest of the world , now you will say this about this statement, but it was Christ who said it not I . We must be different there,there must be a change within us , we must ask are we kind and gentle are we forgiving of other's as we wish to be do we think of other's or do we only live for ourselves ? We must see the family who is hurting and not condem them but help them in what way that we can as Christ would . A carnal mind care's not about other's but only their own life , as Christ said were not of this world , am I self righteous no , I'm a born again believer a sinner a Soul that has been covered by the blood of Christ I will alway's be a sinner I am humble and know my place in life and that's a very simple place a very small old wooden home that is all I need , lot's of time I think of those who would give anything to have this old 52 year old home with some rotton wood on the outside , I thank God that I have this .  "Just my own thinking "   God bless.

Good grief, where to start.

I guess I can say that I agree with Panenthism.  There are many points that John has made that I agree with as well though not being into a lengthy post I will deal with only one.  Translation is not an easy or certain task.  There are several words in both the Greek and the Hebrew whose meaning is uncertain and whose interpretation is uncertain.  Here I must agree with the Jewish scholars that there are be multiple interpretations of scripture and each can have its own validity.  There is no one correct interpretation.  Jesus did say "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right."

With that in mind I have to agree with those in the past and the present who speak of "The Cloud of Unknowing" or the unknown God.  This accepts the idea that our human language is in no way even close to being able to grasp the Divine.  For example we cannot say that God exists or that God does not exist.  The very concept of existence is a very human concept and the Divine is beyond that.

As to the use of the word carnal.  I have to agree with M. Fox when he speaks of "Original Blessing".  I do not for one moment see the dualism of physicality being evil and spiritual being the good.  Nor do I accept the idea of original sin.  I do accept that "all have fallen short . . ."  That is part of the human condition.  Personally I find the use of the word "carnal" basically meaningless.  The flesh is not evil nor for that matter is the mind.  What we use them for is a different matter.

The modern hangup on sex and sexuality can be traced back to Augustine who in fact had his own problems with his sexuality.  His problem has been assumed by far too many churches.

Personally I do not think the Divine cares one whit whether one is heterosexual or homosexual or lesbian or transsexual.  This overblown concern with genitalia can be laid at the feet of Augustine.

If the Bible is not interpreted in light not only of past context but present context it leads to a dead faith based on idolatry (bibliolatry) and ancient superstition.  We know that epilepsy is not caused by demon possession.  We know that illness is not the result of sin.  We know that alternative sexual orientations are in part genetically based (Francis Collins, head of the world genome project)  If we want a dynamic and living faith we do take the Bible seriously but we do not take it literally.  We know that revelation did not cease with the last period in Revelation.  There have been many sacred writings since the Bible was put to print.  Jesus himself was  clear on that one in John 16 when he said that at that time man was not ready for the whole truth but that it would be revealed as time went on.

Our trust "faith" is not based on right belief but on a relationship with the Divine.

Shalom

Mate

And I wasn't into a long post!!!

Shalom

Mate

What a fascinating thread! Thanks to everyone who's contributing...the level of respect is commendable and it allows me to think about the topic more thoroughly than in other situations where that hasn't been the case so much.

Beautiful post Mate, just one quibble

Poor Augstine gets misinterpreted as much as the bible.  Augustine's arguments were very similar to the ones above; man (as in humans) should not allow personal desires to overwhelm the good of others because doing so will ultimately overwhelm themsleves. 

LB - an Augustine apologist

Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.

Augustine of Hippo

The word carnal as I see Paul is useing it to describe a fleshly behavior that is constantly motivated to indulge in desires of the flesh, being all sorts of behaviors, not just sexual in nature.

The word carnal is decribing a state in which we as mankind are in a constand yearning for these fleshly carnal desires in our human condition. The carnal is describing a nature that is in oposition to the ways of Christs teaching.

The law did more to show what carnal nature was than to show what Love is.

Jesus showed the Love that exposes the carnal mind for what it is,,,,mortal.

Whether or not we allow ourselves to be slaves of such behaviours that inhibit the spiritual growth & further enlightenment, is completely up to us.

Does this mean we are stifled by God of our sexual behaviors? Well that is always up for debate.

I guess it depends on what one sees as sexual behaviors, or what one sees as carnal behaviors.

One interpretation is good enough for me, as is your interpretations are good enough for you.

Bolt

In other words, everything in moderation.  Got it.

Of course we have sexual urges.  They've worked pretty well as a means of passing along our genes.  But there's nothing to be ashamed of here.  What's with the fascination with this topic?

And so long as your interpretations don't have anything to do with me and my life, we're cool.

As is your interpretation I guess.

It seems through interpretaition of Pauls letters to the early church, mainly I'm referring to my interpretation that with the developing of the carnal mind, this will hamper spiritual awareness.

This is taught in many spiritual teachings.

I just personally choose Christ as my teacher, because, He first showed me how to have this personal relationship, because He was the fullfilment of the relationship with God & mankind again.

You may see things differently which in fact would constitute me saying you have a different interpretation of things.

Am I wrong?

Why in heaven would my interpretation have anything to do with your spiritual awareness?

BTW, you don't think I'm flirting with you again do you?

Bolt

Not my spiritual awareness - my life.  Just pointing out that as long as biblical interpretations stay out of the government and the laws stay out of the bedroom, those who interpret the bible can be as sexually repressed as they want to be, as far as I'm concerned. 

Only you know that....

Sexually repressed?  well you are entitled to see it that way if you do.

Biblical interpretation has been pinicle in the development of  law, so it's kind of late don't you think?

I don't care what one does in their bedroom between two or more concenting adults chansen. That is between them & God as far as I'm concerned.

If I did, I wouldn't be asking you, now would I?

Bolt

Chansen

Just to put this rest once & for all.

Although I may have at times found myself physically attracted to the same sex, I've never been sexually attracted,

I like many other on this earth have been conditioned to be attracted to beauty in all forms, as what is found in this world to be beautiful in image.

Some men happen to be beautiful & attractive to the eye.

I'm all grown up now & have no problem admitting this, & I've been around people who do have a sexual attraction to the same sex all my life.

I don't understand the sexual attraction to a man but I have somewhat an understanding of a woman having an attraction to another woman because I'm attracted to women.

But isn't that a double standard?

Most guys I know who are the stereotypical testosteroni are infactuated with the notion of sleeping with two women who are also enjoying each other as well.

Yet the thought of two males together is intolerable to them.

Isn't that curious?

One has to wonder why it is this way?

Why is it even pleasurable for some men to watch as two women enjoy each other?

Yet if it were males doing this they would be repulsed, for the most part.

I'm talking the typical man. Like myself.

The difference with me is, that I am repulsed by both. Not that there is not something to it, but because there is something to it, & it is shown itself to me as an form of opposition to God & His rightiousness & holyness.

But so is many other forms of lifestyle & behaviors that exist in this world.

If you wish to see it as being sexually repressed, well that is up to you.

The thing about that is, not everyone sees this, the same way & many see this as natural, & true to form as an intent by God for us to live in this way.

I am just a voice in the wilderness that speaks the same message that has been told before.

This world as it is, is so far from the Kingdom of God, that it's a crying shame.

The Kingdom is at hand within ones heart, first.

The Kingdom will be established here, & will involve the full measure of God's authority that backs it up.. Where one fit's in, is the question one should ask themselves.

Bolt

The problem with the concept of divine as mankind doesn't recognize that they are not perfect but a blend hybred of many things and non things ... like spirits upon the brae'n!

LBM:

Also recall that St Augustine was the Master of satyr ... the very shadow upon the mind of doubt concerning hard cast laws of the gods of Rome that he satirized while complaining of people making fun of the Roman powers. Go figure about the Romans sacking Carthage and burning the huge collection of literature there. It would leave a pall on the human story ... like an elephant in the Rheum! Memories are big and hard to change ... like a perception set in the mind of mankind ... without any question about truth whatsoever!

Then Pantheism is a much more expansive view ... like spiritual extension ... a stretch of mind into beyond what we know. Is myth a part of the imaginary mind of creation ... approaching a description of God (singular, plural, multiple, infinite or extended to nothing but a huge 'ollo de-X? Sounds like the space buried in a head ... I could go on but won't such is "IC-Ki" territory of illumination where IC is an old symbol for Christ Light, awareness, or Ego, and Ki is an old symbol for reflection ... space to think in d'void! Is there a medium between ID, the primal desire and pure enlightenment without a care? Imperfect peoples eh ... medium on a yellow bricked rhode?