|
|
 | | From: | Norman Barry Cope | | Subject: | Christian or New Age? | | Date: | Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:21:45 GMT |
|
|
 | Dear all,
"Serenity."
"I do not want the peace which passeth understanding,
I want the understanding which bringeth peace." (anon? - no acknowledgement
given).
Along with a picture of a quiet garden seat, this sentence appears on a wall
ornament given to us. Recently we have removed it from the wall as we are in
doubt as to its Christian sentiments. To begin with, we thought the first
part of it was a reference to Old Testament theology, and the second part to
the New Testament through the teachings of Jesus. However, referring to the
Bible, we have not found support for this; rather the reverse (e.g.
Philippians 4,7). We are wondering, in fact, if the sentiment is promoting
New Age rather than Christian theology? However, Ellen G. White (SDA Church)
writes: "Paul saw that the character of Christ must be understood before men
could love Him or view the cross with the eye of faith." (Acts of the
Apostles, p.273). This appears to be in agreement with our first thoughts
above. But then a simple distinction between Protestants and Catholics
suggests that for Protestants, "We must first believe in God before we can
know Him", and for Catholics, "We must first know God if we are to believe
in Him". (Hans Kung, intro. to ch. FII, p. 509 - Does God Exist? - 1978).
This appears to place E. G. White's commentary on Paul in line with the
Catholic position, with the Protestant position, whether fundamentalist or
mainstream, still in line with the Scriptures. The apparently quite explicit
denial of Phillipians 4,7 by our wall plaque, and its apparent alignment
with secular scientific truth, has resulted in its removal from our wall! We
would be interested to hear your views. God bless you all, Barry
and Malvina AC.
PS. We have replaced it on our wall, having amended the wording to:
"Serenity"
"Give me the peace which passeth understanding"
"then through Jesus the understanding which bringeth peace." (!)
|
|
| | From: | Norman Barry Cope | | Subject: | Re: Christian or New Age? | | Date: | Wed, 4 Jan 2005 21:11:49 GMT |
|
|
| when it used to justify the feminine in us, the emotions and
feelings. Woman's thought is intuitive and unstructured. Man's thought
is lateral and connected. That is, he is capable of both the intuitive
and the rational. We must not deny him his reason.
I am told that rationality makes one uncaring and cold. Then I must be
truly hateful and icy cold, for there are few more rational than I. Yet
I bring the end of the ice-age!
How a man can become a woman
Spiritual pregnancy produces something like a feminine character in a
man. And just like a pregnant woman he becomes kinder, more patient, and
quite beautiful.
His birthchild is enlightenment.
Solitude
Of what use is independence to a woman, if she is - all alone?
The psychology of men and women
Good things invariably take time. Man hardly reaches the maturity of his
reason and intellectual powers before his twenty-eighth year, woman with
her eighteenth. Thus woman's reason is very circumscribed and usually
remains in a largely juvenile condition. She sees only what is nearest
to her, takes appearances for reality, and prefers trivialities to the
important subjects.
Why is this so? We have to look to where men and women come from. Man is
reared by his mother as an infant, and becomes lovingly attached to his
mother. It is acceptable for him to remain in love with this mother
figure throughout life, and his development is thus relatively
straightforward. He can be masculine all his life, and has no changes
forced upon him. The woman, however, must undergo a redirection of
loving feelings from the mother towards the
|
|
| | From: | Steve Goltra | | Subject: | Re: Christian or New Age? | | Date: | Wed, 4 Jan 2005 18:33:19 GMT |
|
|
| pleasantry which makes
one forget all one's sorrow; soothing as being the end of desire, and
satisfying in herself being the stimulus of desire. And the gods had
calculated that man, when first beholding her, would be amazed, as one
who sees himself, though familiar with that sight - would stand in amaze
as one who sees himself in the splendor of perfection - would stand in
amaze as one beholds what he did never dream he would, yet beholds what,
it would seem, ought to have occurred to him before - sees what is
essential to life and yet gazes on it as being the very mystery of
existence. It is precisely this contradiction in his admiration which
nurses desire to life, while this same admiration urges him ever nearer,
so that he cannot desist from believing himself familiar with the sight,
without really daring to approach, even though he cannot desist from
desiring.
When the gods had thus planned her form, they were seized with fear lest
they might not have the wherewithal to give it ex
|
|
| | From: | Steve Goltra | | Subject: | Re: Christian or New Age? | | Date: | Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:21:22 GMT |
|
|
| Dear Norman: I agree with you, I do want the peace that passeth all
understanding, the peace of God!
KJV " 7. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep
your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."
The new ager is focused on himself and his own works, and has no use for
God, as he thinks that he will be one in the future. I will never forget the
T.V. special where Shirley MacClane standing in the sand, at the beach, with
the waves roaring, saying over and over "I am god". What a sad joke that
really is.
The Christian is focused on Christ Jesus and His Works, as the bridge to
eternal life. The New ager is focused on self and his own works as his/her
bridge to eternal damnation.
God bless,
Steve
"Norman Barry Cope" wrote in message
news:dNJBd.15104$RH4.2940@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Dear all,
> "Serenity."
> "I do not want the peace which passeth understanding,
> I want the understanding which bringeth peace." (anon? - no
> acknowledgement
> given).
>
> Along with a picture of a quiet garden seat, this sentence appears on a
> wall
> ornament given to us. Recently we have removed it from the wall as we are
> in
> doubt as to its Christian sentiments. To begin with, we thought the first
> part of it was a reference to Old Testament theology, and the second part
> to
> the New Testament through the teachings of Jesus. However, referring to
> the
> Bible, we have not found support for this; rather the reverse (e.g.
> Philippians 4,7). We are wondering, in fact, if the sentiment is promoting
> New Age rather than Christian theology? However, Ellen G. White (SDA
> Church)
> writes: "Paul saw that the character of Christ must be understood before
> men
> could love Him or view the cross with the eye of faith." (Acts of the
> Apostles, p.273). This appears to be in agreement with our first thoughts
> above. But then a simple distinction between Protestants and Catholics
> suggests that for Protestants, "We must first believe in God before we can
> know Him", and for Catholics, "We must first know God if we are to believe
> in Him". (Hans Kung, intro. to ch. FII, p. 509 - Does God Exist? - 1978).
> This appears to place E. G. White's commentary on Paul in line with the
> Catholic position, with the Protestant position, whether fundamentalist or
> mainstream, still in line with the Scriptures. The apparently quite
> explicit
> denial of Phillipians 4,7 by our wall plaque, and its apparent alignment
> with secular scientific truth, has resulted in its removal from our wall!
> We
> would be interested to hear your views. God bless you all,
> Barry
> and Malvina AC.
>
> PS. We have replaced it on our wall, having amended the wording to:
>
> "Serenity"
> "Give me the peace which passeth understanding"
> "then through Jesus the understanding which bringeth peace." (!)
>
>
>
|
|
| | From: | Steve Goltra | | Subject: | Re: Christian or New Age? | | Date: | Wed, 4 Jan 2005 19:53:49 GMT |
|
|
| - When widows exclaim loudly against second marriages, I would always
lay a wager that the man, if not the wedding day, is absolutely fixed
on.
- There are few virtuous women who do not tire of their role.
- Virtue in women is often merely love of their reputation and their
peace of mind.
- Are there still virgins? One is tempted to answer no. There are only
girls who have not yet crossed the line, because they want to preserve
their market value . . . Call them virgins if you wish, these travellers
in transit.
- She is chaste whom nobody has asked.
- In the absence of men all women are chaste.
- "Remember, men, we're fighting for this woman's honour; which is
probably more than she ever did."
- The sad lesson of life is that you treat a girl with respect, and the
next guy comes along and he's banging the hell out of her.
- A woman without a man is like a garden without a fence.
- Woman's virtue is man's greatest invention.
- Lady: one who never shows her underwear unintentionally.
- Women! There isn't anything so bad that they don't soon start to enjoy
it. Even if they lived in a barrel of shit they'd start making a home
out of it, with everything nice and cozy.
- I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and
unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks
out of the race, where the immortal garland is to be run for, not
without dust and heat. Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world,
we bring impurity much rather: that which purifies us is trial, and
trial is by what is contrary. That virtue therefore which is but a
youngling in the contemplation of evil, and knows not the utmost that
vice promises to her followers, and rejects it,
|
|
| | From: | Steve Goltra | | Subject: | Re: Christian or New Age? | | Date: | Tue, 04 Jan 2005 15:31:52 GMT |
|
|
| I would also like to add, that without Christ there will never be peace.
Peace on earth will only happen when Christ returns after the Tribulation,
to set up His 1,000 year reign on this earth, when He rules with a rod of
iron, when the lion lies down with the lamb.
Understanding has nothing to do with peace. Christ has everything to do with
peace. To me the below quote refers to the new age. I have looked up your
reference and have found it on page 274 in the book that I looked in (Acts
of the Apostles). I really question the statement that Ms. White made,
specifically: "Paul saw that the character of Christ must be understood
before men could love Him or view the cross with the eye of faith."
The Holy Spirit is the one who changes the believer, from the inside out.
There is no 12 step program for the believer. He is immediately changed, by
the power of the Holy Ghost. I realize that Christ has chosen believers to
witness to the lost, and to preach His message, but it is the Holy Ghost
that does all of the work, all of the transformation.
I hope I am not being to literal here, and only responding in Christian
love, as well as my own understanding of God's word.
God bless,
Steve
"Norman Barry Cope" wrote in message
news:dNJBd.15104$RH4.2940@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Dear all,
> "Serenity."
> "I do not want the peace which passeth understanding,
> I want the understanding which bringeth peace." (anon? - no
> acknowledgement
> given).
>
> Along with a picture of a quiet garden seat, this sentence appears on a
> wall
> ornament given to us. Recently we have removed it from the wall as we are
> in
> doubt as to its Christian sentiments. To begin with, we thought the first
> part of it was a reference to Old Testament theology, and the second part
> to
> the New Testament through the teachings of Jesus. However, referring to
> the
> Bible, we have not found support for this; rather the reverse (e.g.
> Philippians 4,7). We are wondering, in fact, if the sentiment is promoting
> New Age rather than Christian theology? However, Ellen G. White (SDA
> Church)
> writes: "Paul saw that the character of Christ must be understood before
> men
> could love Him or view the cross with the eye of faith." (Acts of the
> Apostles, p.273). This appears to be in agreement with our first thoughts
> above. But then a simple distinction between Protestants and Catholics
> suggests that for Protestants, "We must first believe in God before we can
> know Him", and for Catholics, "We must first know God if we are to believe
> in Him". (Hans Kung, intro. to ch. FII, p. 509 - Does God Exist? - 1978).
> This appears to place E. G. White's commentary on Paul in line with the
> Catholic position, with the Protestant position, whether fundamentalist or
> mainstream, still in line with the Scriptures. The apparently quite
> explicit
> denial of Phillipians 4,7 by our wall plaque, and its apparent alignment
> with secular scientific truth, has resulted in its removal from our wall!
> We
> would be interested to hear your views. God bless you all,
> Barry
> and Malvina AC.
>
> PS. We have replaced it on our wall, having amended the wording to:
>
> "Serenity"
> "Give me the peace which passeth understanding"
> "then through Jesus the understanding which bringeth peace." (!)
>
>
>
|
|
|
