Is this Divinely Inspired / or Divinely Retarded?

[DivineNames]

Why only quote part of what William Law wrote?

Why not quote this as well?.... It is from the same chapter!

But you will say, Do not all Christians desire to have Christ to be their Saviour? Yes. But here is the Deceit; all would have Christ to be their Saviour in the next World, and to help them into Heaven when they die, by his Power, and Merits with God. But this is not willing Christ to be thy Saviour; for his Salvation, if it is had, must be had in this World; if He saves Thee, it must be done in this Life, by changing and altering all that is within Thee, by helping thee to a new Heart, as He helped the Blind to see, the Lame to walk, and the Dumb to speak. For to have Salvation from Christ, is nothing else but to be made like unto Him; it is to have his Humility and Meekness, his Mortification and Self-denial, his Renunciation of the Spirit, Wisdom, and Honours of this World, his Love of God, his Desire of doing God's Will, and seeking only his Honour. To have these Tempers formed and begotten in thy Heart, is to have Salvation from Christ. But if thou willest not to have these Tempers brought forth in thee, if thy Faith and Desire does not seek, and cry to Christ for them in the same Reality, as the Lame asked to walk, and the Blind to see, then thou must be said to be unwilling to have Christ to be thy Saviour.

Are you unwilling to have Christ as your Saviour?


-source-

I did think about quoting that part actually, as it expresses nicely the nature of salvation as William Law believed in it.

What I did quote, was chosen because it talks of salvation where people have never heard of Jesus.

"Why only quote part of what William Law wrote?"

When you "quote", you generally only quote part!

 

[bibleberean]

The important thing to remember is that it doesn't really matter what C. S. Lewis believed or didn't believe.

What saith the scriptures?

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

In my opinion C.S. Lewis wrote and believed many things some true and some false. Just like the rest of us his beliefs must stand or fall in the light of scripture.

 

[DivineNames]

I found this on the subject of what C.S. Lewis believed about the Bible:


"Attracted by Lewis’s clear presentation of Christianity, readers often are surprised when they discover Lewis’s assessment of the Bible. He discussed questions such as: What does it mean for Scripture to be “inspired by God†(2 Tim. 3:16)? Is it true and trustworthy? At first glance, readers may assume that Lewis had a high view of Scripture. He had said that the Gospels were not myths.5 He had been critical of those who reject supernatural elements of Scripture and had observed that modern theologians often base their conclusions on naturalistic assumptions instead of the biblical text.6 Further reading, however, calls his own view into question:

I have been suspected of being what is called a Fundamentalist. That is because I never regard any narrative as unhistorical simply on the ground that it includes the miraculous. Some people find the miraculous so hard to believe that they cannot imagine any reason for my acceptance of it other than a prior belief that every sentence of the Old Testament has historical or scientific truth. But this I do not hold, any more than St. Jerome did when he said that Moses described Creation “after the manner of a popular poet†(as we should say, mythically) or than Calvin did when he doubted whether the story of Job were history or fiction.7

Lewis believed that “all Holy Scripture is in some sense  though not all parts of it in the same sense  the word of God.â€Â8 The book of Job, for instance, lacking historical details and context, appeared to Lewis to be unhistorical. The idea that the creation account in Genesis was derived from earlier mythical and pagan accounts did not trouble Lewis. These earlier stories were retold and modified (whether consciously or unconsciously) until they became an account of “true Creation and of a transcendent Creator.†When this happens in Genesis, Lewis concluded, there is no reason to “believe that some of the re-tellers, or some one of them, has not been guided by God.â€Â9 In Lewis’s thought, Genesis conveys divine truth but not necessarily scientific or historical truth; still, God reaches us through its message.

In this same way, all Scripture, written in many literary styles, and for different purposes, may all be “taken into the service of God’s word.â€Â10 Whether it was produced by poets, by the Jewish community, by early Christians, whether modified by redactors (revisors) and editors, Lewis concluded, “On all of these I suppose a Divine pressure; of which not by any means all need have been conscious.â€Â11

In a personal letter, Lewis raised other issues that he thought were difficulties in the doctrine of inspiration, including inconsistencies in the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, inconsistencies in the account of the death of Judas, the admitted unhistorical nature of parables (which he believed may extend also to the stories of Job and Jonah), and Luke’s admission that he conducted research on his Gospel.12 Lewis concluded that because of this:

The total result is not “the Word of God†in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God and we (under grace, with attention to tradition and to interpreters wiser than ourselves and with the use of such intelligence and learning as we may have) receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone and temper and so learning its overall message.13

Similarly, he wrote, “That the over-all operation of Scripture is to convey God’s Word to the reader (he also needs inspiration) who reads in the right spirit, I fully believe. That it also gives true answers to all the questions (often religiously irrelevant) which he might ask, I don’t. The very kind of truth we are often demanding was, in my opinion, not even envisaged by the ancients.â€Â14 Indeed, Lewis considered this challenge of Scripture to be an asset: understanding God’s Word requires not only the intellect but also the entire person.

Lewis clearly believed Scripture has authority and communicates God’s word, but his grounding of that authority is confusing to many. On this point, Lewis, who was ordinarily objective in his theological understanding, added a layer of subjectivity. If Scripture only in some sense is the word of God, then in some sense it is not. Parts of it are trustworthy; others must be less so. The problem such a view creates is, how is the Christian to decide which part to trust? If all Scripture can be the word of God but not communicate truth, then inspiration is of little practical consequence.

Lewis’s statements may frustrate Christians who hold that Scripture is inerrant. One wishes that Lewis had taken more time to examine other apologetic responses to his objections against inerrancy, but the message of his writings remains clear. Lewis did not believe in an inerrant Bible, though he did believe that Scripture was in some sense inspired. Some have tried to harmonize Lewis’s words with biblical inerrancy and infallibility; unfortunately, this attempt is futile."

http://www.equip.org/free/JAL400.htm

 

[bibleberean]

I am going to try to get this thread back on topic. If we can't get back on track then I am going to close this thread.

Thanks,

Robert

Soma, wrote this in his first post.

I am ever present to those who have realized me in every creature. Seeing all life as my manisestation, they are never separate from me. The worship me in the hearts of all, and all their actions proceed from me. Whereever they live, they abide in me.

When a person responds to the joys and sorrows of others as if they were his own, he has attained the highest state of spiritual union.

That one I love who is incapable of ill will, who is friendly and compassionate... who looks upon friend and foe with equal regard....

He alone sees truly who sees the Lord the same in every creature, who sees the deathless in the hearts of all that die. Seeing the same Lord everywhere, he does no harm to himself or others. Thus he attains the supreme goal.

Is the above statement divinely inspired?

 

[DivineNames]

In my opinion C.S. Lewis wrote and believed many things some true and some false. Just like the rest of us his beliefs must stand or fall in the light of scripture.

How strange! You are normally very willing to denounce people or churches as heretical in strong terms...

 

[bibleberean]

In my opinion C.S. Lewis wrote and believed many things some true and some false. Just like the rest of us his beliefs must stand or fall in the light of scripture.

How strange! You are normally very willing to denounce people or churches as heretical in strong terms...

I think CS is a heretick... I just want to keep this thread on point...

Do you think you can do that now? :roll:

 

[DivineNames]

In my opinion C.S. Lewis wrote and believed many things some true and some false. Just like the rest of us his beliefs must stand or fall in the light of scripture.

How strange! You are normally very willing to denounce people or churches as heretical in strong terms...

I think CS is a heretick... I just want to keep this thread on point...

Do you think you can do that now? :roll:

Much of the time, I doubt anyone really cares if it goes a bit off topic...

 

[Gary]

Back to the topic... sure. I think we have dealt with OC's and DivineNames little diversions.

Who is a yogi?

Supreme bliss comes to a Self-realized yogi whose mind is tranquil, whose desires are under control, and who is free from sin (or faults). (6.27) Such a sinless yogi, who constantly engages his or her mind and intellect with the Eternal Being (Brahm), easily enjoys the infinite bliss of contact with Brahm. (6.28) Because of perceiving the omnipresent Eternal Being (Brahm) abiding in all beings, and all beings abiding in the Eternal Being; a yogi, who is in union with the Eternal Being, sees every being with an equal eye. (See also 4.35, 5.18) (6.29) Those who perceive Me in everything and behold everything in Me, are not separated from Me, and I am not separated from them. (6.30) The non-dualists, who adore Me as abiding in all beings, abide in Me irrespective of their mode of living. (6.31) One is considered the best yogi who regards every being like oneself, and who can feel the pain and pleasures of others as one’s own, O Arjun. (6.32)

:silly:

Do these verses raise any questions for you?

I was wondering..... does a Self-realized, sinless yogi also consider himself like Hitler or Stalin? Jack-the-Ripper? Remember, the Gita claims that the "best yogi" regards everyone like oneself... feeling the pain and pleasure of others like his own!

Was Gandhi "sinless" when he slept naked with two young girls? Was he feeling the pains of a young molested child and the pleasures of a pedophile?

:o

 

[DivineNames]

Back to the topic... sure. I think we have dealt with OC's and DivineNames little diversions.

You didn't answer my question Gary.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=16971

Do these verses raise any questions for you?

I was wondering..... does a Self-realized, sinless yogi also consider himself like Hitler or Stalin? Jack-the-Ripper? Remember, the Gita claims that the "best yogi" regards everyone like oneself... feeling the pain and pleasure of others like his own!

What point are you trying to make?

Do you think it means the yogi considers himself to have the same kind of character as a Hitler or Stalin?

Do think it means the yogi literally feels the pain and pleasure of others?

Do you think that means the yogi regards every person as absolutely identical with himself?


Matthew 22:39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (NIV)

 

[Gary]

"Love your neighbour as yourself" is totally different to the Self-realized, sinless yogi who, the Gita claims, regards everyone like oneself... feeling the pain and pleasure of others like his own!

Can you not understand the difference?

Try again.....

Was Gandhi feeling the pains of a young molested child and the pleasures of a pedophile?

:o

 

[DivineNames]

"Love your neighbour as yourself" is totally different to the Self-realized, sinless yogi who, the Gita claims, regards everyone like oneself... feeling the pain and pleasure of others like his own!

Can you not understand the difference?

Try again.....

So you think it means the yogi literally feels the pain and pleasure of others?

Why didn't you answer my questions? Do you just want to mess about?

 

[DivineNames]

Was Gandhi feeling the pains of a young molested child and the pleasures of a pedophile?

:o

Is your mind a little warped to be thinking about such things?

:D

 

[Gary]

"Love your neighbour as yourself" is totally different to the Self-realized, sinless yogi who, the Gita claims, regards everyone like oneself... feeling the pain and pleasure of others like his own!

Can you not understand the difference?

Try again.....

Was Gandhi feeling the pains of a young molested child and the pleasures of a pedophile when he slept naked with two young girls?

:o

So you think it means the yogi literally feels the pain and pleasure of others?

Why don't you tell me what the "inspired" Gita means: "One is considered the best yogi who regards every being like oneself, and who can feel the pain and pleasures of others as one’s own, O Arjun. (6.32)"

What do you think that means?

Is your mind a little warped to be thinking about such things?

I think the "warped mind" was Gandhi.... or would you like to explain his actions?

:o

 

[DivineNames]

Why don't you tell me what the "inspired" Gita means: "One is considered the best yogi who regards every being like oneself, and who can feel the pain and pleasures of others as one’s own, O Arjun. (6.32)"

What do you think that means?

"who regards every being like oneself"


Juan Mascaro's translation of the Gita (13:28) "And when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is...".

A distinction is made in Hinduism between the "empirical ego" and the "Atman" or real "Self"-

"What then is man? Not the phenomenal, transient ego, the bundle of ever-changing memories, sensations, and physical transformations of which he is mainly conscious. His real self is the Atman, the Greater Self, unborn, changeless, and immortal..."

F.C. Happold, Mysticism: A Study and an Anthology


"This tremendous equation - "the Self is Brahman" - is the central discovery of the Upanishads. Its most famous formulation is one of the mahavakyas or "great formulae": "Tat tvam asi, "You are That." "That" is the characteristic way the Upanishads point to a Reality that cannot be described; and "you," of course, is not the petty, finite personality... [but]... the Self."

Eknath Easwaran, from his translation of The Upanishads


Regarding "every being like oneself" is not to do with "personality" or "character" or whatever, not of the yogi, not of anyone else including Hitler etc.

Rather, the real Self is Brahman, which is the real Self of everyone else.

"does a Self-realized, sinless yogi also consider himself like Hitler or Stalin? Jack-the-Ripper?"

Yes, in a way, but in a way that has nothing to do with the personality or character of Hitler, Stalin, Jack-the-Ripper etc.


Please note: as I have previously mentioned, the precise relationship that is supposed to exist between the Self and God is understood in different ways by different schools of Vedanta.

 

[DivineNames]

Why don't you tell me what the "inspired" Gita means: "One is considered the best yogi who regards every being like oneself, and who can feel the pain and pleasures of others as one’s own, O Arjun. (6.32)"

"who can feel the pain and pleasures of others as one’s own"


I did ask about it on a Hindu forum. A reply-

"For the striving yogi, aham brahmasmi is also an attitude to hold, in cultivating self realisation. So this is both a truth, as well as an attitude to hold. Eventually holding this attitude leads to a realisation that this attitude is the deepest truth.

The realised person can feel the pleasure and pain of all souls in a totality, 'if he wants to'. That is he can get into the mind of Hitler, Jack or anyone. But getting into the mind of another person, or getting to the core of the soul are two different things..."


So it is possibly meant to involve supernatural ability, (as one aspect of it). I am not certain about this however.

 

[Gary]

The realised person can feel the pleasure and pain of all souls in a totality, 'if he wants to'. That is he can get into the mind of Hitler, Jack or anyone. But getting into the mind of another person, or getting to the core of the soul are two different things...

Really? The passage talks about "feeling" the pleasure and pain of others. How would the "realised" person feel the pain of all 6.0 million murdered Jews and how would this "realised" person feel the pleasure of Hitler?

You say "getting into" the mind and or the soul are two different things. Obviously! But this passage is about "feeling" this pain and pleasure. How does a person "get" into his soul?

Who would want to feel the "pleasure" of Hitler? :o

Do you?

:-?

 

[DivineNames]

You say "getting into" the mind and or the soul are two different things. Obviously! But this passage is about "feeling" this pain and pleasure. How does a person "get" into his soul?

As far as getting into someone's mind, I don't know how you would do that, and I don't know if its possible. I can't even be certain this is what the verse is supposed to mean, it is outside of my knowledge.

How did Jesus feed five thousand with just five loaves and two fishes?

"How does a person "get" into his soul?"

I don't think you would "get into" another persons soul. Rather, you would realize your own "Self", and see that Brahman is also the "Self" of everyone else.

 

[DivineNames]

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=16971


Are you going to answer the question Gary?

 

[bibleberean]

Either neither the bible and the Gita are not inspired or one is and the other isn't.

The bible stands so far above any other book ever written that only a deaf, dumb and blind fool could miss it.

The Bible

This book reveals the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy.

It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.
It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christian's charter.

Here, too, heaven is opened and the gates of hell disclosed.

Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end.

It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet.
Read it slowly, frequently, prayerfully.

It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.
It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever.

It involves the highest responsibility, will regard the greatest labor, and condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.

Owned in riches; studied in wisdom; trusted in salvation; loved it is character; and obeyed it is power.

Author Unknown

 

[Soma-Sight]

Either neither the bible and the Gita are not inspired or one is and the other isn't.

This is very strange to me?

You are going to tell me that there is NO TRUTH in any other religion Berean?

Are you sure that is what you are saying here?

It is a generally excepted fact that people of the Fundamentalist, literalist genre are confused by ambiguity and complex areas of thought such as what we are discussing here.

It is too bad people think this way as it is merely masked insecurity of ones own faith superimposed with fear and doubt about anothers faith based assertions.

Love is love berean, no matter how it is packaged.....

Helping ones neighbor and loving God is what the Gospel is all about. It requires no admittance fee or membership program!