People believe in conspiracy theories, not because they are not smart, but because their brains are able to discern additional patterns.
Is there a methodology that can teach us spiritual discernment? Is that possible?
Other than spiritual insight, how can we discern which patterns are valid?
There is significant evidence that Jesus was not a carpenter as commonly believed, but a stone mason. Let us make that case.
It is commonly accepted that He would have worked in the same trade as his father. But his father's trade mentioned in the bible is tekton in the Greek which just means "builder" or "artisan". In many ancient Greek places, that would mean "carpenter", except Nazareth didn't have a wood industry.
The story of the Fisher King (Wolfram version) is really old but still hauntingly relevant. It draws out themes of innocence, duty, and failed redemption. Also the different roles of the people in the story are clear archetypes of roles used in our lives today.
Does Evangelicalism still represent The Bible, The Gospel, and Jesus, or does it represent closed-minded, divisive regressive attitudes?
Those are harsh words for an individual but I'm talking about the whole movement, or sect, or whatever it is. It seems to have less relevance in the world today.
What is the common factor? Should we distinguish them?
Everybody believes, even if they don't have a theology. If we are to become wise, we need to sharpen our beliefs and the beliefs of the people we influence. To do that, we need to understand why and how people believe.
The Nelson Mandela effect is an experience where people are clearly wrong about facts that they strongly believe. It is a good case-study to understand how reluctantly people are willing to give up clearly false notions.
The concept of cognitive dissonance is a psychological process that describes how people hold on to false beliefs and how they can give them up. It can explain why an abused spouse stays, why some marriages fail badly, and we are the last to know what people think about us.
If we want to change the world, we may need to understand people better than they understand themselves.
"Small minds are concerned with the extraordinary, great minds with the ordinary." -- Blaise Pascal
"Nothing is as approved as mediocrity, the majority has established it and it fixes its fangs on whatever gets beyond it either way" -- Blaise Pascal
Have you met people who are deluded by something that is clear to everyone else? (For example, the wrong romantic partner?)
One of these biases tries to make the world simpler than it is and the other tries to make it more complicated. Why would people do either?
Do you have a minority opinion? What can you use to help decide if you are right?
Do you have a Christian responsibility to question your beliefs?
T. S Eliot: "Liberalism is something which tends to release energy rather than accumulate it, to relax, rather than to fortify. It is a movement not so much defined by its end, as by its starting point; away from, rather than towards, something definite."
|
Hypostasis |
Description | Element | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| חֹשֶׁךְ kho-shek’ | darkness, obscurity | |||
|
תְּהוֹם tehom |
deep, sea, abyss | |||
|
רוּחַ |
breath, wind, spirit of Elohim | |||
|
mayim (מַיִם, 4325), “water; flood.”
|
References
W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1996)
How can we see these elements in
Scientism is not just being very Scientific; it is the mis-application of Science. It's pretty much the tendency to use Science-like thinking for everything. This can be a problem. For example, there's really no reason to believe that methods that work for matter also work for intangible, transcendent, or spiritual things.
The problem for the Scientism-ist (sorry about the word) is dismissively convincing themselves that most of the civilised people that ever lived, and most they meet, are either morons or insane.
Scientism is the opposite of Over-Spiritualizing, in that it overly dismisses or overly simplifies things that can't be explained.
Especially at Easter Jesus is referred to the Paschal (or Passover) Lamb as in "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world".
Wait.
The Passover lamb is not atoning, it is providential. Atoning comes from the Yom Kippur goat.
Sin offerings in the OT are usually (always?) bulls (Lev4).
John the Baptist was referring to Isaiah chapter 53 describing the suffering servant.
Before Jesus, that servant was not understood as the Messiah. The Messiah will conquer and resolve all things to peace.
Just like the Suffering Servant was merged with the Messiah, so is the Passover Lamb merged with the Scapegoat.
Meeting notes are here
In what ways is the sacrifice of Jesus like the Passover Lamb?
In what ways is the sacrifice of Jesus like the scapegoat?
How is being given to Azazel like being given to Pilate?
"He decended into Hell" like being in the wilderness, outside God's city?
Is it significant that Jesus is crucified outside the city wall?
For a long time, Realism as a worldview (things are what they seem to be), was in conflict with Idealism (what seems to be points to a deeper reality). Science has been on the side of Realism for most of its history, but that has changed.
Quantum Physics, String Theory, and Information Theory convincingly teaches us that things are definitely not what they seem to be. On the more mundane level of our existence, colour as we perceive it does not exist in the real world. Psychological studies show that not only memory is fallible, but the way we perceive right now is shaped by our past experiences.
The only thing I know is that I don't know anything... what I do not know I do not think I know either.
Socrates