As you have noticed (and we agree), this website is pretty awesome. Why you would choose to not be a member or logged in is baffling to both of us. The process is simple and costs you nothing, unless you really feel the urge to pay then we will not deny you that request. Back on point, once you become a member you will wonder why you put up with this notice all this time and ask yourself, "What was I thinking?" Being a tWebber is too awesome to pass up.
So stop playing ninja trying to act all stealth and lurking about (we see you), do you really want to be seen as a "lurker". Its like you are peeking in people's windows while they undress. How naughty of you. Does your mom know what you are doing right now? She agrees you should just register or login already. Good job.
The following comment was made by urbanmonk. As most of his terminology seems to be a merger of Christianity and Psychology etc ???, I think that this would not be a bridge too far for those of you who are familiar with the psychological language. ie. ego, self, super-ego, id etc.
I have endeavoured for nearly about a year to understand his thinking and have often advised him to come here to discuss his thoughts, but it seems that I will have to do what I did not want to do and that it to bring Muhammed to the Mountain
An excellent passage, with one exception. To sin is to partake in the illusion, yes, but to claim we bear no guilt in the act of participating in this illusion, is false.
Once steps are taken to remove oneself from the illusion by seeking to halt the growth of one's sins, only then does one begin to remove onesef from the illusion. This is a troubling path, many end up in hospitals, jails or endure material death while pursuing the ends of this path.
To stumble and fall while striving towards the ends of this path is not necessarily a bad thing, for it can eventually become a valued asset, enabling the "self" to learn from it and avoid future 'sins' of this particular kind.
It seems to me this "monk" is beginning to uncover the illusion of duality, which is to say that he is aligning his soul with the Essence of the Father. Once certain obstacles are hurdled, perhaps I will more fully comprehend the precise meaning of his statement, but for now, a rudimentary understanding will suffice. :)
This is most definitely not content free gibberish, in my opinion. Furthermore, it is incoherent to suggest that there is such a thing as "content free" gibberish, for gibberish cannot lack content in the strict sense, but only in the sense that it is perceived as such by the perceiver. Usually, the "accused gibber-er" feels there is much content to what he/she is saying, even if it is perceived as gibberish by the perceiver, which makes it gibberish subjectively, not objectively.
I confess…I’m an intellectual. I like to discuss Christian theology. I appreciate that the Christianity we live today was shaped by first the writers of the New Testament and lots of faithful people...
TheologyWeb was founded in January 2003 as the personal hobby of dizzle, yxboom and their cohort $cirisme. The site is maintained and owned by dizzle, and yxboom. It continues to function by an entirely volunteer Administrative and Moderating team. TheologyWeb does not exist to make a profit or promote a particular denomination or secondary view witihin Christianity, nor is it under the purview of any denomination or church. Our leadership team, consisting of laypersons and leaders within various churches, holds each other in mutual accountability for the decisions of the site, whose decisions are final. With that said, please bring back Invader Zim!