Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: "Grail Message" (was Re: Creation) Message-ID: Date: 23 Nov 90 07:11:15 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 142 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu scott@clmqt.marquette.mi.us (Scott Reynolds) writes: >Mark, why do you think even for a moment that any human being can be >objective? Scientists claim to be objective, also -- yet the best we >can say is that scientists are _more_objective_ than most other people. >They aren't truly objective, though; as human beings, we all have >limited knowledge and individual experience that influence our >perspective. I'm not saying objectivity is a bad idea, but in order to >be truly unbiased we would have to be God Himself. I know from experience that a person can only learn to separate truth from falsehood through *trying* to be objective. I would be the first to agree with you that it is an ideal to become *perfectly* objective, but I also think it would be wrong not to be always striving in that direction. We can learn to recognize and overcome our biases and pre- judices, step-by-step. I also agree the scientific method is based on the necessity for *intellectual* objectivity, but this is hardly the same thing as objectivity concerning spiritual matters. In my many years of having worked closely with "men of science" I have in fact found many of them to be quite hostile concerning spiritual notions, and typically reject out-of-hand the possibility of anything that goes beyond the boundary of this physical world. It is difficult to imagine anyone being more *closed* to spiritual matters than just such people! Therefore, I would not describe such people as objective *in the spiritual meaning* of the word! On the other hand, it may be just as difficult for someone who has chosen to adhere to a particular "Christian" teaching to examine the new knowledge of the Grail Message objectively. I find that many are quite strongly attached to their interpretation of the Mission and Message of Jesus, and in that case, I would not recommend that they bother to examine the Grail Message, since there is no possibility for them to be objective about it. >To reject the validity of the original recording of the manuscripts is >to cast a shadow on Christianity as a whole. Attempting to find the >right translation is a good thing, but saying the original text is >in error is to open the door to the rewriting of God's Word. And I say that GOD's WORD was that spoken by Jesus, Himself! If people choose to believe that the WORD of Jesus was recorded by men exactly and in its entirety, then that is an assertation with which I myself cannot agree whatsoever. Therefore, I think that to reject new knowledge out-of-hand is presumptuous on our part. Especially when we do have the words of Jesus, that there is much He would still say to us, but that we would not understand. I know that people will say that later on the "Holy Spirit" came upon them, and made everything alright, but I myself cannot accept this view as correct. Certainly it would not be possible to "cast a shadow" upon the WORD of GOD as taught by Jesus, but this is something different than the human interpretations of it. In any case, I would not term it as "casting a showdow" upon it, but rather "casting a LIGHT" upon it! >>And this idea is at the core of the Grail Message: the absolute Perfection >>of the Creator and of His Creation. >Can you explain why a Perfect Creator would allow his very Word to be >recorded with significant error? I cannot seen reconcile these two >ideas. Remember 2 Timothy 3:16, which says: > All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, > rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Yes. For the same reason that He would allow us to ever stray from His Will in the first place; for the same reason He would allow His Son to put sent to His death on the cross: FREE WILL! We must each voluntarily learn to recognize and live in accordance with the Will of God -- He does not force us. This does require that we make the necessary effort to understand His Will in all things, for which purpose we have been given the ability to think and to reason and to find the truth about God and His perfect Creation! There is no need for the Creator to arbitrarily intervene in all the great and small woes of mankind, for His *perfect* Laws have been woven into His Creation from the very beginning. These perfect Laws *guarantee* justice in the working out of all happenings in Creation. To believe otherwise is to doubt the Perfection of the Almighty. This means that the responsibility for the existence of evil and error in the world has to be placed squarely at the feet of mankind. When we chose the wrong course, which lead *away* from the Will of God, He still offered us help in the WORD of Jesus, which showed us how we should live. What mankind did with this help, was then our own responsibility. The help was sent, and for the most misunderstood and rejected. It was truly said that "the Light shone in the darkness, and the darkness knew it not!" Should we blame God for this, or should we put our own house in order? The words "Seek and ye shall find!" place the responsibility upon us, for the implication is if we don't seek then we shan't find! >Your arguments on Spiritual sphere and karma have some merit; I >certainly won't use these phrases, though, because as Charles said they >have the "ring" of Eastern mysticism. However, the passage you cite in >support of reincarnation (John 9:2) doesn't support your argument at >all! The literal meaning of the word "parents" becomes quite evident >later in the same chapter, when the man's parents are called before the >Pharisees. I am talking about "Sowing and Reaping", and not only does this idea satisfy our natural need to find justice in Creation, but we also do have the clear simple words of Jesus regarding this Law of Creation. I fail to see what the problem might be, except that one might *wish* that it weren't true! But then doesn't this go back to the need for objectivity in seeking the truth? Insofar as one can use words like "karma" or "fate" in the sense of this simple Law of Sowing and Reaping, then those expressions are fine by me. Even if one rejects any basis in Scripture for the validity of the concept of reincarnation, the fact still remains that Jesus could not say everything to the people at that time, and we do have His words to that effect. And if one deeply seeks for justice in the world, one time and again comes back to the necessity for reincarnation to provide the missing piece to the puzzle. Sometimes we "sow" in one life, and "reap" in a subsequent life. >>So how does one arrive at the truth? By objectively weighing and examining, >>and not otherwise! By thinking freely and independently, as we are meant to. >I beg to differ; one arrives at the truth by freely choosing Jesus as >Lord and Savior and by studying God's own Word with the help of His >Spirit. All truth originates in and from God, without whose help we >have no hope of finding. Are you saying that God does not want us to think "freely and independently"? That He does not want us to "objectively weigh and examine" everything? I think the fact that we are able to do these things is the clearest sign that we are indeed intended to do so by God! We have this responsibility. Yes, and we also must strive to be such that we are capable of recognizing and receiving God's help when it does come our way! One might want to recall that "When the need is greatest, God's help shall be nearest to you!" Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801