RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Fun] >> Books



Message

bufo -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/16/2008 1:20:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrsdash

. . . .in order to see new age thought (largely eastern religious philosphy) as similar to christianity one must IGNORE the LARGEST claims and statements made by Christ, and/or must reinterpret them and say that Jesus was talking about something different. tolle does this in every chapter. espousing new age thought and then saying this was what Jesus was talking about.

the new age path is to "consciousness" and the love peace etc that is claimed as a result of this.

the christian path is to God. the person God, whom we have failed but can find redemption in Jesus and thus be reunited with the perfect holy PERSON, the God of the universe. IF....we choose to follow Jesus.


"IF . . . we choose to follow Jesus." - How does one follow Jesus? There may be profession of faith and belief and devotion or renunciation or surrender of self-concern. These might be called devotional acts or practices. Or there could be emulation of the model of Christ by following his example and following certain practices ie non-judging, loving others as one's self, practicing giving of self to others, practicing non-violence, forebearance, love and forgiveness in the face of hate.
The motivation for these might be devotion to Christ, but they also seem to have another aspect of attempting to practice selfless action in the world with others, which one might call "spiritual practices". Your initial comment appeared to single out the "LARGEST claims and statements made by Christ". It appears that you were referring to claims of divinity etc, the basis for what I referred to as "devotional acts or practices". Did Christ also urge people to do what I called "spiritual practices"? If so why? Perhaps not to store up merit as in "works". To do so for that reason would seem to be sort of a selfish practice to save one's own skin. To procure salvation? Probably not, because salvation is supposed to be through "grace", not "works"
Or was Christ urging these practices as a form of crowd control to promote social harmony? That seems a bit unlikely. Then why urge these spiritual practices? Do those sorts of practices tend to teach one anything or to produce any sort of effect? If so, what, how and why? What would Christ say of one who practiced those spiritual practices in emulation of his example, but who didn't profess devotion as divine? That may be where we are with someone like tolle.



OLEEguacamole -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/16/2008 1:46:14 AM)

yes the claim of divinity. new age thought must ignore that. it's very ego, conceptual etc. not new age at all. Jesus is NOT compatible with tolle's or any new age concept of spirituality.

one of the greatest misunderstandings about what christianity is all about, what Jesus was all about, is that He came to teach us a more noble way to live.

He came to be the perfect sin sacrifice. the only way we could be reconciled to God. God as the Creator, owner, CEO of all creation.

The gift of salvation from the wages of sin (death and separation from God) has to be accepted. accepted by confessing that we are unworthy and unable to qualify for realationship to a holy God, and accept Jesus as first, our redemption sacrifice, and then as Lord.

accepting Jesus as Lord puts us in a position of child of God, heir to a kingdom, servant etc. good isn't for good sake. it's for God's sake. to be "good after being reconciled to God means that God renders that good as spiritual fruit. why be good? because God is pure, holy, and He requires that level of morality and nobility.

a non reconciled person doing good, might do good for humanity, but it is not spiritually fruitful. and it does not get one any closer to being qualified for relationship with God almighty, because man's BEST effort to be good is devastatingly inadequate.



bufo -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/16/2008 3:43:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrsdash

yes the claim of divinity . . . .

one of the greatest misunderstandings about what christianity is all about, what Jesus was all about, is that He came to teach us a more noble way to live.

He came to be the perfect sin sacrifice. the only way we could be reconciled to God. God as the Creator, owner, CEO of all creation. ....

The gift of salvation from the wages of sin (death and separation from God) has to be accepted. accepted by confessing that we are unworthy and unable to qualify for realationship to a holy God, and accept Jesus as first, our redemption sacrifice, and then as Lord.
. . . . . why be good? because God is pure, holy, and He requires that level of morality and nobility.

Again, I accept your emphasis on the acceptance and devotional part. However, your response to "why be good?" is unsatisfying, in light of what Jesus appeared to teach. Just by the nature of the teachings, again, not judging, first shall be last, turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, generousity. These have the flavor of practices that bear fruit in their practicing possibly by removing the focus on the selfish nature, and opening one's heart. It seems that they were urged because they helped to transform people that practiced in this way. Not by the merit of works, but by following the example of selfless action and devotion to others, widening the circle of compassion etc. I don't think it is any accident that these practices are used by many traditions. They seem to be a complementary practice to devotion and acceptance not a mere by product.



OLEEguacamole -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/16/2008 4:21:47 AM)

from the christian POV it is a growth and refining process. we are to decrease that Christ might increase, and love, support encourage fellow believers as well as take care of the poor, love our neighbor etc. it is God's design that we should love and serve humanity as well as serving God.

it's mulitfaceted.

notice ...we must decrease that HE (Christ) might increase. in us. through us. it's not just surrendering self to be less self. it's to honor God and to be a more pure vessel of God and used by God.

a person without a relationship to God might well bring all kinds of good to the world around him. but it will not earn a ticket to heaven. that can't be earned. one is BORN unworthy. EVERYONE may accept the sacrifice that reconciles.

yes many traditions have goodness, humility, service, compassion etc as part of their belief system. it usually makes for a better neighborhood etc but that practise of virtue is fleeting and if not tied to eternity, tragic even.

all virtue originated from God. He was the original example of all virture. One may imitate that virtue (imitate because man's efferot cannot compare to God's pure virtue) even without a relationship to God but it is still a virtue that God is.



4ChristisLove -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/16/2008 8:25:24 AM)

AMEN MrsDash!



stampinlady -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/16/2008 9:15:52 AM)

quote:

all virtue originated from God. He was the original example of all virture. One may imitate that virtue (imitate because man's efferot cannot compare to God's pure virtue) even without a relationship to God but it is still a virtue that God is.


I think this is what Bufo is getting at, unless I've misunderstood him/her.
MsDash, can you supposrt this with scripture because quite honestly unless we can it's just an opinion, at least to me.[8D]



jeffcalloway -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/16/2008 9:38:07 AM)

Christians: Run, Run, Run as fast as you can from this book.


Jeff Calloway
author of VisionalLife: The Pursuit of God's Passion
www.visionallife.com



ConstantReader -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/16/2008 4:53:08 PM)

Bufo, you may not realize it, but you're arguing a false point with your premise, "Why should we be good?"

Christianity isn't a matter of being "good." It's a matter of being spiritually alive. Scripture states emphatically that, "We, who were dead in trespasses (sins), have been quickened (made alive) by Christ."

Like the man said, "Jesus didn't come to make bad people good. He came to make dead men live." [8D]



OLEEguacamole -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/16/2008 6:02:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: D3kkerfan



Christianity isn't a matter of being "good." It's a matter of being spiritually alive. Scripture states emphatically that, "We, who were dead in trespasses (sins), have been quickened (made alive) by Christ."


tolle/new age would say that's another way of saying conscious vs unconscious. asleep to enlightenment.

so how would you say christian thought is different from new age thought?



bufo -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/16/2008 11:20:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrsdash

from the christian POV it is a growth and refining process. we are to decrease that Christ might increase, and love, support encourage fellow believers as well as take care of the poor, love our neighbor etc. it is God's design that we should love and serve humanity as well as serving God.

it's mulitfaceted.

notice ...we must decrease that HE (Christ) might increase. in us. through us. it's not just surrendering self to be less self. it's to honor God and to be a more pure vessel of God and used by God.

a person without a relationship to God might well bring all kinds of good to the world around him. but it will not earn a ticket to heaven. that can't be earned. one is BORN unworthy. EVERYONE may accept the sacrifice that reconciles.

yes many traditions have goodness, humility, service, compassion etc as part of their belief system. it usually makes for a better neighborhood etc but that practise of virtue is fleeting and if not tied to eternity, tragic even.

all virtue originated from God. He was the original example of all virture. One may imitate that virtue (imitate because man's efferot cannot compare to God's pure virtue) even without a relationship to God but it is still a virtue that God is.

We are not in as much disagreement as you might suppose. I understand your first point, I would just describe it more as an emptying of self and a filling up of the ground of being or the indescribable.

As for your comment about many tradition having "goodness, humility etc as part of a belief system", I am talking about going beyond a "belief system" to a realization through practice. "beliefs" are expressed in words and are thus limited by conceptual understanding which can't grasp the nature of lived experience. "beliefs" and words can be a map of reality, but not reality. I think many Christians would agress. I would also note that I am not talking about "goodness" or doing "good" , I am in some sense talking about going beyond good and evil as objects of consciousness. There is a tendency to talk of "God" as if "God" could be encompassed in a definition or in words etc. When one starts to do this, one starts to argue about which "God" , "that's not Godly" etc etc. This is to become enmeshed in words, ideas and beliefs. These are useful, but they tend to raise a barrier to experience, love, compassion etc , to separate people and peoples etc. My hypothesis is that that is why Jesus counciled love thy neighbor as thy self, judge not etc. He was showing a path to open wholeheartedness that lay in practice and experience and beyond mere words or belief. To hold fast to "belief" and to privilege it over the heart of experience is in some since to may "belief" into a false idol that blocks open wholehearted love. Thanks for you efforts.



bufo -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/16/2008 11:44:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: D3kkerfan

Bufo, you may not realize it, but you're arguing a false point with your premise, "Why should we be good?"

Christianity isn't a matter of being "good." It's a matter of being spiritually alive. Scripture states emphatically that, "We, who were dead in trespasses (sins), have been quickened (made alive) by Christ."

Like the man said, "Jesus didn't come to make bad people good. He came to make dead men live." [8D]

No offense D3kkerfan, but you may have misunderstood my point. I am not advocating being "good" in the sense you appear to understand it. Mrs. Dash appears to have asked "why be good?" in response to my comment as follows:

"Or was Christ urging these practices as a form of crowd control to promote social harmony? That seems a bit unlikely. Then why urge these spiritual practices? Do those sorts of practices tend to teach one anything or to produce any sort of effect? If so, what, how and why? What would Christ say of one who practiced those spiritual practices in emulation of his example, but who didn't profess devotion as divine? That may be where we are with someone like tolle."

My point was that Christ may not have simply been urging people to do "good", a crossguard can do that . I was posing the idea that there appear to be two types Christ's teachings as "devotional" practices on the one hand and as "spiritual practices" (such as loving neighbor, non-judgment, non-viol, giving, etc) on the other. I am talking about a practice of going deeper into one's life to understand and see honestly the nature of one's actions. I am pretty much talking about the process of being "spiritually alive" as you suggest, not merely doing "good". What I am further suggesting is that devotional practice is useful and works , but can get hung up on words, ie making an idol of words and concepts as in "No you don't understand, you have the wrong 'idea' about God , you are a heretic, Catholics are not true Christians etcetc". One the other hand spiritual practices work more with the whole person and his experience, not just intellect and can train or help a person to notice and put aside or see through his selfish nature (sinful nature) if you will. I am further making a heretical statement that these practices (Teachings of Jesus) can transform a person even if there is not a conceptual understanding or belief that "Jesus is God" wherever that verbal conceptual formulation means in when heard and considered by millions of humans in their various varieties and capacities. I don't expect you to agree. I am just putting this out there. Thanks



bufo -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/16/2008 11:49:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrsdash

quote:

ORIGINAL: D3kkerfan



Christianity isn't a matter of being "good." It's a matter of being spiritually alive. Scripture states emphatically that, "We, who were dead in trespasses (sins), have been quickened (made alive) by Christ."


tolle/new age would say that's another way of saying conscious vs unconscious. asleep to enlightenment.

so how would you say christian thought is different from new age thought?

mrs dash. I agree. tolle (or many buddhists and some Christians) might well say something akin that that.

I await D3kkerfan's response.



OLEEguacamole -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/16/2008 11:51:51 PM)

some people absolutely idolize belief but that is a character flaw not a belief flaw (in the case of truth).

i understand the concept of goodness above thought and concept etc, but Bible POV doesn't not devalue thought, word, concept, belief, or defining God. While God is beyond the limits of our present ability to describe or comprehend, we are expeted by God, to take Him at His Word for what He has told us about Himself.

new age demotes, neuters, redefines God, reducing a Person, THE ultimate Supreme Person down to a divine energy. God gave us Words and definiton for himself, that is not something humanity can improve on. not even by letting go of concept thought etc.

Our beliefs really are different. the spiritual goal for christians is relationship to the person God. new age says that is a primitive concept. that is an opposite belief. that "God" is in all but not a thinking ruling supreme Being that we must answer to. a God that must conform to, albeit the redeemed embrace that prospect. new age sees spirit as formless, above thought, word etc.

i too understand the new age spin on what Jesus spoke about. but it is not congruent with the entirety of what Jesus said. i think often this is an honest mistake coming from not being familiar with the entire record of Jesus.



bufo -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/17/2008 2:55:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrsdash

some people absolutely idolize belief but that is a character flaw not a belief flaw (in the case of truth).

i understand the concept of goodness above thought and concept etc, but Bible POV doesn't not devalue thought, word, concept, belief, or defining God. While God is beyond the limits of our present ability to describe or comprehend, we are expeted by God, to take Him at His Word for what He has told us about Himself.

new age demotes, neuters, redefines God, reducing a Person, THE ultimate Supreme Person down to a divine energy. God gave us Words and definiton for himself, that is not something humanity can improve on. not even by letting go of concept thought etc.

Our beliefs really are different. the spiritual goal for christians is relationship to the person God. new age says that is a primitive concept. that is an opposite belief. that "God" is in all but not a thinking ruling supreme Being that we must answer to. a God that must conform to, albeit the redeemed embrace that prospect. new age sees spirit as formless, above thought, word etc.

i too understand the new age spin on what Jesus spoke about. but it is not congruent with the entirety of what Jesus said. i think often this is an honest mistake coming from not being familiar with the entire record of Jesus.

I know very very little about 'new age' thought. i have only read tolle's book. I appreciate your reflecting back your understanding. I agree with much of what you state. I don't think of idolizing 'belief' as a character flaw. I see it more of a common human practice of being attached to views. i also agree with you that there is nothing inherently wrong with 'belief' per say. I also agree that belief, thought and reason etc are not to be devalued, they are not devalued in buddhism as far as I can tell. The point is that they are not privileged in their ability to help us experience our lives. We should know them well, their strengths and limits. The problem is that thought by its nature tends to seduce one into believing that one can fully grasp experience, or the world or God by thought alone. I also agree that the nature of reality (or God etc ) is essentially ungraspable by words and concepts. Christian beliefs are indeed different than some beliefs, but they are also relatively similar to other religions and beliefs. Don't expect a perfect analogy, but for instance hindism (i believe) pioneered the concept of God made flesh and sent to earth to establish relationship with humans long ago in the concept of the "avatar". So from such a perspective Jesus is an avatar of God to establish relationship with humans. It would be interesting if hindu's pioneered this concept but were in error until the real deal just happened to manifest in an exclusive way that others had imagined. What really tends to be different to an outsider of Christianity is primarily the claims of exclusivity, which I don't put down and which other faiths have as well. I tend to be less interested in exclusive claims and more interested in the common threads of practice and experience cross traditions and transcend "belief" or views and work in life as lived. As an outsider, I tend to see a commonality in some practices which you as an insider see has radically different given your faith. I respect that. It is just not my way of operating or seeing the world. I work on not being attached to my views, while still using them and holding them and also watching them change. Thanks again.



OLEEguacamole -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/17/2008 3:16:55 AM)

actually i do see similarities and commonality however since the christian POV says that God the Person, made everything, started humanity and established a very personal relationship with the first two humans, including giving them specific instructions...it's rather hard to believe that someone else thought of God incarnate first.

secondly, if God established who He was with the first two humans then commonality results from varying degrees of immitating or borrowing from truth.

i'm sure there are plenty of humans that think they comprehend more truth than they do, but christians don't think they completely understand God and all spiritual truth. We see ourselves as having a faith beyond our understanding. our understanding will grow as we mature, sometimes quite insignificantly while on earth, but there is heaven to look forward to when we shall learn without the fleshly limits of our present mental/spiritual capacity. we will not outgrow thought, belief, and understand "being" more, rather we will increase our understanding of the Person, Holy God.

now, if there is a God... a thinking, vastly intelligent Being...unique Personality, the not knowing or acknowledging who He says He is and how He says we must live, and what the prescribed path to relationship with Him is...A BIG PROBLEM. if God decided that there are consequences for not giving Him due respect, there is no way to avoid the penalty.



jmjphe -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/29/2008 2:06:33 AM)

I'd like to start by saying this is my first post here.
Second I have read some of The Power of Now, the first 3 chapters, a little on Tolle's personal background, and various portions of the book, or "sections" where Tollle discusses a topic and ends it with a small symbol for the reader to reflect. I have been a born again christian since my mid-teens, and I was refered to read the book by a therapist I have been seeing in regards to anxiety and panic attacks.

My Thoughts on it thus far.
Well I think the gist of the book from what i read is brilliant. I think the author is extremely intelligent and is very good at explaning the workings of the human mind. As human beings we all are born as spritual beings(we have a soul), not just a physical body with a brain, which tends to be a complex system of electrical pulses, Tolle explains this much better than i do. In short he went on a sort of journey of knowledge to conquor that which is the human mind. Spiritual Masters as they are reffered to, have concluded for many many years that there is this "invisible" aspect of life that transends beyond logical thinking of the brain which tolle refers to as "I am", "being" "essence" etc. The whole point is to place an inividual into this state where the mind is quiet, and they simply are just "being" in a place where there is no time, or thinking, or "drawing our very indentity, from the contents of our mind", and that the mind is fully alert. In short its a state where you control your mind and your mind doesnt control you.

I could go on and on. I think the concept is brilliant, but I can tell you this now, everything Tolle talks about in regards to mental quietude, and spiritual living, can all be found in the Bible, regardless of version, edition, etc. Here are some exmaples: Tolle explains how we are not just a physical organism, but we have a spirit, or "being", or the "I am" as he calls it beyond the mind, this entire concept is all over the bible in both testaments starting with Genesis 2:7, even more direct verses can be found all throughout the bible.
Tolle also talks about how the mind often delivers compulsive, random, and usually harmful thoughts that distract, harm, and make us feel fear, worry, guilt, anger etc. This too, can be found in the bible, and a direct exmaple is Romans 7:14-25 and practically all of Romans chapter 8, which even paralels with the idea of spritual living, where the Holy spirit, works through the mind for mental renewal leading to cleaner, calmer, healthier thoughts, or just peace in general of the mind. Again more exmaples of this are all about in the bible...and the list goes on.

Where i think The book goes awry, is where Tolle tries to explain God, which seemed to be a very vague and "safe" way of explaning God, and what Jesus Christ was "really about" as opposed to the son of God sent to die for the sins of humanity, past, present, and future. He takes various quotes and parables from Christ (and from Buddah) and sort of retrofits them into the principles of the book to further empower the teachings within the book.

Overall I think the book is well writen, i think its very interesting in regards to Humanities struggle for peace and joy. But to anyone seeking this book, I will tell you that there is a better solution, the ultimate solution, and that is a Reltionship with Jesus Christ and the word of the living God.

Yes from a Christian/Bibical perspective, The power of Now is a more new age book of spritual teaching.
I'd Highly reccomend to someone who was struggling with there thoughts and seeking a book to help lead them to not only check out the bible (of course) but to also check out wirtten works by christan authors. There is a Great book by Joyce Meyer called "Battlefield of the Mind" which probably rivals or beats Tolles wisdom on the matter, but it would draw the wisdom from God seeing as how its Christian/Biblically based.

Well thats my first (and longest) post I hope this can be a blessinng to someone =)



OLEEguacamole -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/29/2008 2:19:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmjphe


Where i think The book goes awry, is where Tolle tries to explain God, which seemed to be a very vague and "safe" way of explaning God, and what Jesus Christ was "really about" as opposed to the son of God sent to die for the sins of humanity, past, present, and future. He takes various quotes and parables from Christ (and from Buddah) and sort of retrofits them into the principles of the book to further empower the teachings within the book.

Overall I think the book is well writen, i think its very interesting in regards to Humanities struggle for peace and joy. But to anyone seeking this book, I will tell you that there is a better solution, the ultimate solution, and that is a Reltionship with Jesus Christ and the word of the living God.



that right there is a whole herd of elephants. strangely, many people are just not seeing that error in tolle's book.



bufo -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/29/2008 9:56:36 PM)

Jmjphe: Excellent post. What I liked (as a non-christian) was your ability to see value in the book and ideas and to relate it to your own tradition and to use it to enrich your own practice. That seems like a open way to follow your faith and yet communicate with others. I think both are important. Thanks.



stampinlady -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (4/30/2008 9:28:59 AM)

quote:

Spiritual Masters as they are reffered to, have concluded for many many years that there is this "invisible" aspect of life that transends beyond logical thinking of the brain which tolle refers to as "I am", "being" "essence" etc. The whole point is to place an inividual into this state where the mind is quiet, and they simply are just "being" in a place where there is no time, or thinking, or "drawing our very indentity, from the contents of our mind", and that the mind is fully alert. In short its a state where you control your mind and your mind doesnt control you.



I would suggest doing a study on the Holy Spirit and then come back and share with us if you still believe this stuff. God is the "I AM."



bufo -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (5/2/2008 11:03:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stampinlady

quote:

Spiritual Masters as they are reffered to, have concluded for many many years that there is this "invisible" aspect of life that transends beyond logical thinking of the brain which tolle refers to as "I am", "being" "essence" etc. The whole point is to place an inividual into this state where the mind is quiet, and they simply are just "being" in a place where there is no time, or thinking, or "drawing our very indentity, from the contents of our mind", and that the mind is fully alert. In short its a state where you control your mind and your mind doesnt control you.



I would suggest doing a study on the Holy Spirit and then come back and share with us if you still believe this stuff. God is the "I AM."
[/quote

Stampinlady. I thought the post by jmjphe was intelligent, fairminded and offered in good faith and gave ample evidence of his/her Christian faith. Furthermore it was his/her first post. You however quoted only a small portion of jmjphe's post which seemed to distort the context and uttered a brief condescending sentence that sounded very dismissive. Is this what you intended? Did I read it incorrectly?



OLEEguacamole -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (5/3/2008 2:17:27 PM)

perhaps her answer was terse, but the point is a very significant one. in the bible "I AM" is a sacred term. it is God's alone. so tolle redefining it to mean a general spiritual term, and something that all beings are is blasphemous. strong word, but that is what it is.

the One and Only Holy God deserves His due honor.



bufo -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (5/3/2008 7:32:03 PM)

Mrs. Dash and Stampin Lady, Here is what jmjphe said in pertinent part after praising tolle for elucidating the patterns of thought and ego in a non-christian articulable layman's fashion:

" Where i think The book goes awry, is where Tolle tries to explain God, which seemed to be a very vague and "safe" way of explaning God, and what Jesus Christ was "really about" as opposed to the son of God sent to die for the sins of humanity, past, present, and future. He takes various quotes and parables from Christ (and from Buddah) and sort of retrofits them into the principles of the book to further empower the teachings within the book.

Overall I think the book is well writen, i think its very interesting in regards to Humanities struggle for peace and joy. But to anyone seeking this book, I will tell you that there is a better solution, the ultimate solution, and that is a Reltionship with Jesus Christ and the word of the living God.

Yes from a Christian/Bibical perspective, The power of Now is a more new age book of spritual teaching.
I'd Highly reccomend to someone who was struggling with there thoughts and seeking a book to help lead them to not only check out the bible (of course) but to also check out wirtten works by christan authors. There is a Great book by Joyce Meyer called "Battlefield of the Mind" which probably rivals or beats Tolles wisdom on the matter, but it would draw the wisdom from God seeing as how its Christian/Biblically based.

Well thats my first (and longest) post I hope this can be a blessinng to someone =)

Stampinlady said to Jmjphe: I would suggest doing a study on the Holy Spirit and then come back and share with us if you still believe this stuff. God is the "I AM."


I said to stampinlady: Stampinlady. I thought the post by jmjphe was intelligent, fairminded and offered in good faith and gave ample evidence of his/her Christian faith. Furthermore it was his/her first post. You however quoted only a small portion of jmjphe's post which seemed to distort the context and uttered a brief condescending sentence that sounded very dismissive. Is this what you intended? Did I read it incorrectly?

Mrs. Dash said to me: perhaps her answer was terse, but the point is a very significant one. in the bible "I AM" is a sacred term. it is God's alone. so tolle redefining it to mean a general spiritual term, and something that all beings are is blasphemous. strong word, but that is what it is.

the One and Only Holy God deserves His due honor.

I say to Mrs. Dash and Stampinlady: Mrs. Dash, Was Standinlady's comment just "terse" or was it distortive of jmjphe overall tone and point, was it condescending and dismissive of jmjphe on the occasion of first post. You called tolle (a non-believer) a blasphemer, which I suggest seems out of line. Now I ask you, are you by implication calling jmjphe (a self-professed Christian) a blasphemer as well since he praised the Tolle book, even though jmjphe expressied the same reservations about tolle that you have made? Did you intend to acknowledge that Stampinladys comments took Jmjphe out of contest and were conscending and dismissive and thus, disrespectful. or were they merely "terse"? I may be overly sensitive and misconstrue the coments. However, Stampinlady's comment appeared unskillful and unnecessarily combative and I said so. Mrs. Dash, came back with what appears to be a rationalization, excusing disrepect and upped the anty to "blasphemy". I find this interesting. As a non-Christian, this does not bother me so much because I essentially have no personal stake in this in whether one Christian rebukes another dismissively. As I state again, perhaps I am mistaken in this. If so, I apologise. In some sense, I apologize for explicating this matter in such detail. However, one of the problems with on line forums is that quick, dismissive comments tend to poison dialogue. I must confess that I am probably more guilty of this than either of you. From where I sit Stampinlady owes Jpjmhe an apology and perhaps you do too. Thank you



OLEEguacamole -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (5/3/2008 10:15:24 PM)

i made my own comments to jpj.

i did not call jpjmhe a blasphemer. my comment was about tolle's take on "I AM" and why it's such a bid deal.
blaspheme sounds like a pretty harsh term, but if tolle says that God is not the exclusive, sacred "I AM" that i am-ness is what we all are, that's by deffinition blaspheme. dictionary definition. it's not name calling. it's descriptive of his POV. and it tells someone why it's taken so seriously.

i did not see stampinlady as dismissive but i'm not really trying to figure her heart out.

the way i see it, this thread is primarily a place for christians to discuss the book so the christian POV would prevail. someone who is not a christian is certainly welcome and it's not unusal to share discussion with someone who is not a christian, still, you must understand that this forum is meant to have the christian POV.

in these forums, it's not unusual for christians to have to be careful, cool down etc. humans discussing things here and christians are not immune from crossing a polite line sometimes. (heavens, sometimes banned even) i personally don't think that is what happened here, but i'm not reading anyone's mind.



bufo -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (5/3/2008 11:05:12 PM)

mrs. dash. Fine. My point (again) was that jmjphe appeared to have been expressing a Christian Pov, but appeared to be treated shabbily ie smacked down by "the Christian POV". . There is more than one Christian Pov. When you say that the Christian Pov is intended to prevail in the forum, that sounds a bit problematic. It sounds like someone, ie perhaps someone "terse" is assumed to be representing the Christian pov. I acknowledge that it certainly won't be me.



OLEEguacamole -> RE: A New Earth -- Oprah and Eckart Tolle (5/3/2008 11:29:52 PM)

i can't call it as to how the poster was treated. but many discussions are quite a tug of war because the christian POV is not uniform on many things.

there are rules about how we treat one another here because things get out of hand or cross the line at times and it's needed. sometimes it's sad, but not shocking.

healthy discussion includes debate, and it's challenging to remain polite in debate mode. (granted polite is hoped for and worked toward)

terse can be simply concise, or dismissively concise, and sometimes just the result of posting in a hurry.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI