Christians: It's Not A Sin To Change Your Beliefs -- which raises some interesting questions that are not addressed in the article.   The author attempts to ignore the paradoxes of Christian teachings by stating: Imagine if John Piper suddenly altered his views on Calvinism and became an Arminian, or if Mark Driscoll publicly became an egalitarian? They would be publicly rejected and humiliated, and their followers would be lost, angry, and confused.  But what if John Piper's vision of the world is as valid as that of the opposite Arminian positions?   And what if the vision of Mark Driscoll is as valid as the Egalitarian perspective?   Moreover, what if there is an important reason why the Rev. John Piper perceives the teachings of the scriptures from a totally opposite perspective than that of the Arminian perspective?   And there is an important reason why the Rev. Mark Driscoll's vision and perception of the scriptures is totally opposite to that which can be portrayed as the Egalitarian perspective?   Does it matter?  Moreover -- and perhaps most important -- is the fact that if each of these paradoxical opposites present a valid truth, then isn't it imperative for the seeker/disciple to understand not only why these different and opposite perspectives exist -- but also why whole groups of sincere believers are locked into each of these divided perspectives? (see The Enigma Of The Segmented Mind).  Moreover, does embracing one perspective over the opposite fulfill the objective of the scriptures?  
The author of the article, Stephen Mattson, seems to be suggesting that both the cause of these different perspectives, as well as what is revealed in the perspectives themselves, doesn't seem to matter -- and that Christians should just accept these differences at face value without explanation or statement of understanding.   In the typical liberal -- non-thinking -- ignorant of consequences -- disconnect from all causal factors -- devoid of all reasoning mindset -- author Stephen Mattson promotes the typical non-contemplative -- accept at face-value school of thought -- or, perhaps better portrayed in the words, the liberal anti-thought mindset.   But, when rightly understood, even what can be portrayed as the liberal anti-thought mindset has a causal factor that inhibits them from even contemplating the result and consequences of their actions.        

In the opening of the article, author Stephen Mattson appears to focus on the issue of homosexuality and marriage equality -- i.e., which seems to portray the issue of same-sex marriage.   Which, to a contemplative seeker, should provoke the question as to why the scriptures reject same-sex unions?   Was the biblical authors just a group of homophobes?  Or is there a deeper meaning and purpose in the Divine Marriage of man and woman?  Jesus taught that unless you bring about the next stage of birth, that you cannot enter into Life in the Kingdom -- which should raise the question in the contemplative mind whether there is a higher purpose to sex that same-sex unions can't fulfill?   What if -- from a holographic perspective -- the sexual interaction of man and woman and the process of birth is a pattern that must be embraced on a higher level of being in order to bring about Wholeness and achieve the next stage of birth which Jesus taught was one of the primary objectives of life in this world?   And what if, in the same way that a same-sex union can't produce a physical offspring of the union, neither can a same-sex union bring about the necessary transformation that takes place in what can be portrayed as the Morphic Field where opposites merge into ONE (see Gender Blindness And The Process Of Birth).   
In the dynamics of the male/female union with the potential of opposites to merge in the creation of the necessary foundation of body, mind and spirit -- where the divided pattern of Adam and Eve are re-merged into the pattern of Adam/Eve in "one flesh" -- the potential to fulfill the requirement set forth in the Gospel of Thomas is presented in the words: Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female"   Is it cruel to recognize the fact that if male and female are divided (paired opposite) natures of man's higher soul reality -- and that the foundation of achieving the next stage of birth that manifests the soul in the body-vessel is holographically parallel to the process of physical conception and birth -- that in the same way that two men or two women can't produce offspring, that this same dynamics of opposites is the foundation of the next stage of birth that Jesus taught was necessary to enter into Life (see The Holographic Pattern Of Sex)?   

Can we expect liberals such as Stephen Mattson who appears to embrace all things at face value, to have contemplated the esoteric reality of sex and birth?   Or even that there is an esoteric reality of sex and birth that is extremely relevant in what the modern emerging science has portrayed as a holographic reality?   If the vision of the mystic which has been confirmed by the modern physicist is true with respect to the holographic reality of this world as a pattern which has the potential to reveal a higher reality that transcends the organic limitations of man and woman, then can we just throw out the pattern and expect the Laws of Creation to be suspended with respect to the higher purpose of sex and gender opposites?    Would we declare all fertility clinics and experts homophobic and out of touch with reality, if they failed to counsel same-sex couples on producing an offspring of the same-sex union?   If two men made an appointment with a fertility clinic and complained that their sexual relationship has produced no offspring, what would the conclusion be?  On a secondary note, author Stephen Mattson also lists a change of religious beliefs with respect to the infanticide of abortion -- wherein we can conclude that those people who will murder the unborn, also place no emphasis on producing the necessary third-force dynamic offspring of a Divine Marriage (see Index To The Divine Marriage) that initiates the next stage of birth?    

Stephen Mattson and the uber-liberal left would have us believe that the Laws of Nature as manifest in a holographic reality of mankind is irrelevant -- and that by virtue of the Tinkerbell Effect, that wishful thinking can suspend man's higher reality.   Which provokes the question which is of paramount importance to the contemplative inquiring mind: Can man's higher reality be understood ONLY by those who recognize the conflicting opposites of the Forbidden Fruit of the Tree of Duality -- and in the equation of the dynamic merger of opposites that must be nourished by the Fruit of the Tree of Life, can the understanding of man's higher spiritual reality and being ONLY be realized by the seeker of Truth and Life in the Kingdom?    What is clear is that the biblical authors continually warned the entry-level faith-based Christians that the higher reality of the soul was impossible and inconceivable for man in his "natural" organic condition of mind to comprehend (see Mystery Of The Gospel) -- warning the very congregation of believers that Paul himself indoctrinated into the Gospel, that if he was to speak to them plainly about the  True Spiritual Meaning Of The Gospel, that they would reject his witness as utter "foolishness"!

When author Stephen Mattson states that its OK for Christians to change their religious beliefs -- and embrace the anti-thinking liberal mindset -- what is clear is that Stephen Mattson does not at all understand the very purpose and nature of religion itself!!!   If we pose the question: What is a Spiritual Religion?   We would quickly find that one of the problems that modern man has in comprehending the validity of religion is seen in the fact that he cannot differentiate and understand the marked differences between philosophy as a theory that is ascribed to, quasi-religious-philosophy which is a faith-based belief system, and genuine religion which is a mindset and lifestyle necessary to prove one's philosophy.    And from this perspective, the vast differences between faith-based religious-philosophy and genuine religion which was embraced by the core visionaries of the Age of Reason, opens the Pandora's Box of the foundation of man's thinking.   The whole concept of religion as a means to prove the Truth -- in contradistinction to blind-faith and speculative belief -- has virtually no place in modern man's understanding.   In many instances, those who are looked upon as esteemed clergy and religious experts and scholars, are merely parroting the dogmatic opium of Roman Emperors who oversaw the corruption of the Bible (see BibleCorruption.com), and ruled over the doctrines of the Church (see Religion Of Roman Emperors).  Therefore, what we erroneously define as religion today, is in reality little more than speculative religious philosophy that is counterfeit from a genuine religious perspective -- and this fact is simply inconceivable to the modern believer who is of the position that he is required to exercise blind acceptance as a test of his faith.   And perhaps even more important is the fact that many of the core visionaries of the Age of Enlightenment -- men and women of evolved Intellect and Reason -- some of whom were the very Deists and Masons who formed the foundational bedrock of the American Constitution -- understood the counterfeit nature of the Church -- because they had personal access to the Pure Source of Truth that should have been the purpose and objective of Christianity to act as guides in TheWay.

To understand the essence of a Spiritual Religion vs quasi-religious-philosophy, you must first understand why Jesus condemned and rejected the Jewish teachers and those portrayed as"...experts in religious law" as being spiritually counterfeit.   The allegation of Jesus' words is seen in the fact that there exists what he called a Key of Knowledge -- and when this Key of Knowledge is properly applied, then the person possesses the ability to enter the Inner Kingdom -- the portal of which is within the seekers own mind and being.   And this fact is presented in the words that Jesus said to the Jewish authorities: "...For you hide the key to knowledge from the people. You don't enter the Kingdom yourselves, and you prevent others from entering."    Thus, the objective of a Spiritual Religion is to reveal and properly apply the Key of Knowledge in such a way, that the person gains access to the Kingdom -- which Kingdom Jesus said was equally within each of us (see Luke 17:20-21 @ http://GateOfEden.com ).   And the fact that the carnal Jews who, in their very limited and carnal understanding of the scriptures, was teaching the people to look for the Kingdom of God to come outwardly upon the earth -- in the same way that Christians today look for the Second Coming -- it is seen that the leaders of both the Jews and the Christians had in fact hidden and thrown away the Key of Knowledge.   Failing to fulfill the requirement of entering the Inner Kingdom themselves -- which by definition made them blind guides who "...prevent others from entering."  And because the Church followed in the footsteps of the Pharisees, and itself threw away the Key of Knowledge under Roman rule, these same words apply to modern Christians as much as the Jews who Jesus rejected and condemned. 

The process of birth in the Kingdom which Jesus portrayed as entering into Life, is dependent upon the merger of the pattern of opposites as allegorically portrayed in the symbolism of Adam and Eve -- the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Life -- the return to Spiritual Eden (see  http://GateOfEden.com ) through the application of what Jesus portrayed as the  Key of Knowledge to open the "narrow strait gate" within the seeker/disciples own mind and being.   And, in the words of Jesus: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and join to his wife; And they two shall be one flesh: so then they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no one separate" (Mark 10:6-9).   But it is not until we begin to understand that man and woman are dynamic halves of a single unit that has the potential to bring forth life -- both on a physical, mental and spiritual level of being -- that we can begin to understand the dynamic application of the scriptures within our own mind and being within the merger and union of opposites and the process of birth in the Kingdom that is the fulfillment of the Gospel Objectives.

A most important teaching on the coming of the Kingdom which was removed from the Gospels by the Church Of Roman Emperors, is preserved in the Second Epistle of Clement where Jesus teaches on the coming of the Kingdom in the words: “Let us expect, therefore, hour by hour, the kingdom of God in love and righteousness, since we know not the day of the appearing of God. For the Lord Himself, being asked by one when His kingdom would come, replied, 'When two shall be one, that which is without as that which is within, and the male with the female, neither male nor female’”.    How can  "...the male with the female [be] neither male nor female’”?    The answer: When the two truly become "one flesh" within a the dynamics of a Spiritual Divine Marriage  (see Index To The Divine Marriage) -- which holographically has the potential to merge the husband/wife into a spiritual embryo in the pattern of the physical embryo that becomes a fetus.   Can such a husband and wife achieve the next stage of birth that is made reference to in the Gospel?   Only when they live the necessary Consecrated Life in TheWay -- making their body and mind into the Final Temple -- properly applying the Key of Knowledge to open the "narrow strait gate" by entering within the Holy of Holies within their own mind and being.
" />
Home // Headlines // Reply To: Christians, It’s Not A Sin To Change Your Beliefs!
 

Reply To: Christians, It’s Not A Sin To Change Your Beliefs!

A member of the Nazirene Disciple Forum sent me the link to an article entitled Christians: It's Not A Sin To Change Your Beliefs -- which raises some interesting questions that are not addressed in the article.   The author attempts to ignore the paradoxes of Christian teachings by stating: Imagine if John Piper suddenly altered his views on Calvinism and became an Arminian, or if Mark Driscoll publicly became an egalitarian? They would be publicly rejected and humiliated, and their followers would be lost, angry, and confused.  But what if John Piper's vision of the world is as valid as that of the opposite Arminian positions?   And what if the vision of Mark Driscoll is as valid as the Egalitarian perspective?   Moreover, what if there is an important reason why the Rev. John Piper perceives the teachings of the scriptures from a totally opposite perspective than that of the Arminian perspective?   And there is an important reason why the Rev. Mark Driscoll's vision and perception of the scriptures is totally opposite to that which can be portrayed as the Egalitarian perspective?   Does it matter?  Moreover -- and perhaps most important -- is the fact that if each of these paradoxical opposites present a valid truth, then isn't it imperative for the seeker/disciple to understand not only why these different and opposite perspectives exist -- but also why whole groups of sincere believers are locked into each of these divided perspectives? (see The Enigma Of The Segmented Mind).  Moreover, does embracing one perspective over the opposite fulfill the objective of the scriptures?  
The author of the article, Stephen Mattson, seems to be suggesting that both the cause of these different perspectives, as well as what is revealed in the perspectives themselves, doesn't seem to matter -- and that Christians should just accept these differences at face value without explanation or statement of understanding.   In the typical liberal -- non-thinking -- ignorant of consequences -- disconnect from all causal factors -- devoid of all reasoning mindset -- author Stephen Mattson promotes the typical non-contemplative -- accept at face-value school of thought -- or, perhaps better portrayed in the words, the liberal anti-thought mindset.   But, when rightly understood, even what can be portrayed as the liberal anti-thought mindset has a causal factor that inhibits them from even contemplating the result and consequences of their actions.        

In the opening of the article, author Stephen Mattson appears to focus on the issue of homosexuality and marriage equality -- i.e., which seems to portray the issue of same-sex marriage.   Which, to a contemplative seeker, should provoke the question as to why the scriptures reject same-sex unions?   Was the biblical authors just a group of homophobes?  Or is there a deeper meaning and purpose in the Divine Marriage of man and woman?  Jesus taught that unless you bring about the next stage of birth, that you cannot enter into Life in the Kingdom -- which should raise the question in the contemplative mind whether there is a higher purpose to sex that same-sex unions can't fulfill?   What if -- from a holographic perspective -- the sexual interaction of man and woman and the process of birth is a pattern that must be embraced on a higher level of being in order to bring about Wholeness and achieve the next stage of birth which Jesus taught was one of the primary objectives of life in this world?   And what if, in the same way that a same-sex union can't produce a physical offspring of the union, neither can a same-sex union bring about the necessary transformation that takes place in what can be portrayed as the Morphic Field where opposites merge into ONE (see Gender Blindness And The Process Of Birth).   
In the dynamics of the male/female union with the potential of opposites to merge in the creation of the necessary foundation of body, mind and spirit -- where the divided pattern of Adam and Eve are re-merged into the pattern of Adam/Eve in "one flesh" -- the potential to fulfill the requirement set forth in the Gospel of Thomas is presented in the words: Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female"   Is it cruel to recognize the fact that if male and female are divided (paired opposite) natures of man's higher soul reality -- and that the foundation of achieving the next stage of birth that manifests the soul in the body-vessel is holographically parallel to the process of physical conception and birth -- that in the same way that two men or two women can't produce offspring, that this same dynamics of opposites is the foundation of the next stage of birth that Jesus taught was necessary to enter into Life (see The Holographic Pattern Of Sex)?   

Can we expect liberals such as Stephen Mattson who appears to embrace all things at face value, to have contemplated the esoteric reality of sex and birth?   Or even that there is an esoteric reality of sex and birth that is extremely relevant in what the modern emerging science has portrayed as a holographic reality?   If the vision of the mystic which has been confirmed by the modern physicist is true with respect to the holographic reality of this world as a pattern which has the potential to reveal a higher reality that transcends the organic limitations of man and woman, then can we just throw out the pattern and expect the Laws of Creation to be suspended with respect to the higher purpose of sex and gender opposites?    Would we declare all fertility clinics and experts homophobic and out of touch with reality, if they failed to counsel same-sex couples on producing an offspring of the same-sex union?   If two men made an appointment with a fertility clinic and complained that their sexual relationship has produced no offspring, what would the conclusion be?  On a secondary note, author Stephen Mattson also lists a change of religious beliefs with respect to the infanticide of abortion -- wherein we can conclude that those people who will murder the unborn, also place no emphasis on producing the necessary third-force dynamic offspring of a Divine Marriage (see Index To The Divine Marriage) that initiates the next stage of birth?    

Stephen Mattson and the uber-liberal left would have us believe that the Laws of Nature as manifest in a holographic reality of mankind is irrelevant -- and that by virtue of the Tinkerbell Effect, that wishful thinking can suspend man's higher reality.   Which provokes the question which is of paramount importance to the contemplative inquiring mind: Can man's higher reality be understood ONLY by those who recognize the conflicting opposites of the Forbidden Fruit of the Tree of Duality -- and in the equation of the dynamic merger of opposites that must be nourished by the Fruit of the Tree of Life, can the understanding of man's higher spiritual reality and being ONLY be realized by the seeker of Truth and Life in the Kingdom?    What is clear is that the biblical authors continually warned the entry-level faith-based Christians that the higher reality of the soul was impossible and inconceivable for man in his "natural" organic condition of mind to comprehend (see Mystery Of The Gospel) -- warning the very congregation of believers that Paul himself indoctrinated into the Gospel, that if he was to speak to them plainly about the  True Spiritual Meaning Of The Gospel, that they would reject his witness as utter "foolishness"!

When author Stephen Mattson states that its OK for Christians to change their religious beliefs -- and embrace the anti-thinking liberal mindset -- what is clear is that Stephen Mattson does not at all understand the very purpose and nature of religion itself!!!   If we pose the question: What is a Spiritual Religion?   We would quickly find that one of the problems that modern man has in comprehending the validity of religion is seen in the fact that he cannot differentiate and understand the marked differences between philosophy as a theory that is ascribed to, quasi-religious-philosophy which is a faith-based belief system, and genuine religion which is a mindset and lifestyle necessary to prove one's philosophy.    And from this perspective, the vast differences between faith-based religious-philosophy and genuine religion which was embraced by the core visionaries of the Age of Reason, opens the Pandora's Box of the foundation of man's thinking.   The whole concept of religion as a means to prove the Truth -- in contradistinction to blind-faith and speculative belief -- has virtually no place in modern man's understanding.   In many instances, those who are looked upon as esteemed clergy and religious experts and scholars, are merely parroting the dogmatic opium of Roman Emperors who oversaw the corruption of the Bible (see BibleCorruption.com), and ruled over the doctrines of the Church (see Religion Of Roman Emperors).  Therefore, what we erroneously define as religion today, is in reality little more than speculative religious philosophy that is counterfeit from a genuine religious perspective -- and this fact is simply inconceivable to the modern believer who is of the position that he is required to exercise blind acceptance as a test of his faith.   And perhaps even more important is the fact that many of the core visionaries of the Age of Enlightenment -- men and women of evolved Intellect and Reason -- some of whom were the very Deists and Masons who formed the foundational bedrock of the American Constitution -- understood the counterfeit nature of the Church -- because they had personal access to the Pure Source of Truth that should have been the purpose and objective of Christianity to act as guides in TheWay.

To understand the essence of a Spiritual Religion vs quasi-religious-philosophy, you must first understand why Jesus condemned and rejected the Jewish teachers and those portrayed as"...experts in religious law" as being spiritually counterfeit.   The allegation of Jesus' words is seen in the fact that there exists what he called a Key of Knowledge -- and when this Key of Knowledge is properly applied, then the person possesses the ability to enter the Inner Kingdom -- the portal of which is within the seekers own mind and being.   And this fact is presented in the words that Jesus said to the Jewish authorities: "...For you hide the key to knowledge from the people. You don't enter the Kingdom yourselves, and you prevent others from entering."    Thus, the objective of a Spiritual Religion is to reveal and properly apply the Key of Knowledge in such a way, that the person gains access to the Kingdom -- which Kingdom Jesus said was equally within each of us (see Luke 17:20-21 @ http://GateOfEden.com ).   And the fact that the carnal Jews who, in their very limited and carnal understanding of the scriptures, was teaching the people to look for the Kingdom of God to come outwardly upon the earth -- in the same way that Christians today look for the Second Coming -- it is seen that the leaders of both the Jews and the Christians had in fact hidden and thrown away the Key of Knowledge.   Failing to fulfill the requirement of entering the Inner Kingdom themselves -- which by definition made them blind guides who "...prevent others from entering."  And because the Church followed in the footsteps of the Pharisees, and itself threw away the Key of Knowledge under Roman rule, these same words apply to modern Christians as much as the Jews who Jesus rejected and condemned. 

The process of birth in the Kingdom which Jesus portrayed as entering into Life, is dependent upon the merger of the pattern of opposites as allegorically portrayed in the symbolism of Adam and Eve -- the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Life -- the return to Spiritual Eden (see  http://GateOfEden.com ) through the application of what Jesus portrayed as the  Key of Knowledge to open the "narrow strait gate" within the seeker/disciples own mind and being.   And, in the words of Jesus: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and join to his wife; And they two shall be one flesh: so then they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no one separate" (Mark 10:6-9).   But it is not until we begin to understand that man and woman are dynamic halves of a single unit that has the potential to bring forth life -- both on a physical, mental and spiritual level of being -- that we can begin to understand the dynamic application of the scriptures within our own mind and being within the merger and union of opposites and the process of birth in the Kingdom that is the fulfillment of the Gospel Objectives.

A most important teaching on the coming of the Kingdom which was removed from the Gospels by the Church Of Roman Emperors, is preserved in the Second Epistle of Clement where Jesus teaches on the coming of the Kingdom in the words: “Let us expect, therefore, hour by hour, the kingdom of God in love and righteousness, since we know not the day of the appearing of God. For the Lord Himself, being asked by one when His kingdom would come, replied, 'When two shall be one, that which is without as that which is within, and the male with the female, neither male nor female’”.    How can  "...the male with the female [be] neither male nor female’”?    The answer: When the two truly become "one flesh" within a the dynamics of a Spiritual Divine Marriage  (see Index To The Divine Marriage) -- which holographically has the potential to merge the husband/wife into a spiritual embryo in the pattern of the physical embryo that becomes a fetus.   Can such a husband and wife achieve the next stage of birth that is made reference to in the Gospel?   Only when they live the necessary Consecrated Life in TheWay -- making their body and mind into the Final Temple -- properly applying the Key of Knowledge to open the "narrow strait gate" by entering within the Holy of Holies within their own mind and being.

 

0

Posted by on Jul 1, 2014 in the Headlines category • Trackback


Share your thoughts with us.