I would add that a true prophet would never call himself or herself one.

Originally posted by Toltec
I would add that a true prophet would never call himself or herself one. [/quote/]

I agree.

Tyriffic a way of looking at it is that a person (say for instance is a car mechanic) is always honest to his customers, respects his wife and is always there for his children, is adhering to a path.

While a person who is intent upon developing hisself spiritually, becoming aware of all that is knowable and helping all along the way is also adhering to a path.

My impression is that to say one is better than the other is incorrect both are seen as valid in respect to developing awareness.

[Edited on 5-7-2003 by Toltec]

Originally posted by Toltec
Tyriffic a way of looking at it is that a person (say for instance is a car mechanic) is always honest to his customers, respects his wife and is always there for his children, is adhering to a path.

While a person who is intent upon developing hisself spiritually, becoming aware of all that is knowable and helping all along the way is also adhering to a path.

My impression is that to say one is better than the other is incorrect both are seen as valid in respect to developing awareness.

[Edited on 5-7-2003 by Toltec]

I will not tell an individual he/she must be something- if asked what I think, I will share my beliefs. That is my path. Some christians are less tactful than others, some are not so good, some are very good- My faith keeps me grounded I think ( unless we start arguing politics!!).
I am learning new things every day (especially on ATS!) The bible says to preach the gospel, not give it at the tip of a sword. I would think Helen shows that respect very well as an example.
I will defend my faith though.

I think one must first define what exactly is preaching the gospel.

You see, to me, G-d is more than the 'gospel'. When G-d is 'seen' or defined by religion or by the gospel or by Man's interpretation; G-d is being defined within a defined parameter(s) or so called: the Box.

G-d is beyond definition. He is beyond set parameters. He is beyond interpretations. G-d is beyond being confined to the Box.

But besides that, preaching the gospel can be done just as easily by just sowing the Seed.

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 5-7-2003 by Seekerof]

I see your view. I may presume you are speaking of , or as a Mystic-no flame- I was once adept in some arts....

Seekerof,

I agree with your thoughts concerning the myriad ways the gospel can be spread.

Concerning your thoughts on how the gospel tends to define God:

You state that God is beyond definition. I believe this to be ABSOLUTELY true. However, could the entire set of events reported in the Gospel be for the very benefit of providing our anemic little minds (which they really are relative to what we try so desparately to understand - "The All Knowing" - "The Creator of All" - "The Endless Mercy") with something that COULD be defined?

If you accept the Genesis recording (well, you'll need to make that assumption for the rest of this paragraph!) then in those first days, God (some portion of His being) would walk in the garden with Adam. He would send His presence and have communion with Adam. When the choices were made by Adam and Eve, and the presence removed, men were left to spit in the wind by trying an impossible task of "defining God", as they had no physical manifestation of Him.

I see the manifestation presented in the Gospel as a revisiting of the time when some portion of God's presence would commune with man...that's all. There is nothing in the Gospel that fully defines God to me, but it does reveal many of His best qualities!

Originally posted by Valhall
Seekerof,

I agree with your thoughts concerning the myriad ways the gospel can be spread.

Concerning your thoughts on how the gospel tends to define God:

You state that God is beyond definition. I believe this to be ABSOLUTELY true. However, could the entire set of events reported in the Gospel be for the very benefit of providing our anemic little minds (which they really are relative to what we try so desparately to understand - "The All Knowing" - "The Creator of All" - "The Endless Mercy") with something that COULD be defined?

If you accept the Genesis recording (well, you'll need to make that assumption for the rest of this paragraph!) then in those first days, God (some portion of His being) would walk in the garden with Adam. He would send His presence and have communion with Adam. When the choices were made by Adam and Eve, and the presence removed, men were left to spit in the wind by trying an impossible task of "defining God", as they had no physical manifestation of Him.

I see the manifestation presented in the Gospel as a revisiting of the time when some portion of God's presence would commune with man...that's all. There is nothing in the Gospel that fully defines God to me, but it does reveal many of His best qualities!

Valhall and Tyriffic,
Thanks for replying, because I know that the way I am seeing things is probably raising alot of 'eye brows', but I do contend, that this is my view, opinion, interpretation, and my belief. I am not trying to change anyone's belief's, etc. And since that is off my chest, I feel better.

Valhall, is the Gospel's the only sacred texts we have that give expression's on G-d and His character? Are we attributing or defining G-d by only what the Bible says? Has not G-d inspired others to write of Him and His character, other than the writers that wrote the Bible? Is not G-d manifesting Himself to us today and has so always? Does not G-d still walk with us today? We interpret the Book of Genesis to say that G-d literally walked with Adam; He physically manifested Himself to Adam and with Adam. I say this: The writer of the Book of Genesis is interpreting. How are we to be sure exactly what G-d's manifestation truly was? We also interpret that when G-d said He created 'us'/Man in His image that we are defining and confining this to mean His physical nature and emotional, feelings, etc. Are we not again, defining G-d and thus confining Him?

I am not going to dispute, verse for verse, what G-d is, etc. I am merely saying this: G-d is more than what we have become accustomed to thinking and defining Him as. Every religion has their respective 'holy texts' which define G-d or a Higher Being or a HIgher Thought, etc. I am saying that 'we' are defining G-d in our own 'image'; we are confining G-d to mere Words and writings. We are defining G-d just the same way as the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, etc. defined thier g-ds. We are assigning set abilities, powers, origins, parameters, 'holy text' writings, etc. We are confining G-d to 'deity' and G-d is far more than this! Surely.

We must learn to think 'out of the box' because G-d is not confined to a 'box'. And, daily, we are continuing to apply the character, concept, and belief, etc. of G-d to within this 'box'. G-d is more than the Bible; He is more than the Koran............ALL things are One Thing. There is only One Thing, and all things are part of the One Thing That Is.......G-d. My vision is to lok beyond the 'box'; to experience G-d as G-d truly is....the unavoidable.

regards
seekerof