-
Posts
-
I’d love to hear more from you regarding the state of dissemination …
Perhaps sometime in the future, when there is less of a focus on always being in the right.
And so it shall be……………….
When ready George (or anyone else), please select one of the 3 topics I posted links to and we’ll discuss dissemination and unity and the obstacles to either as you wish. But it is a different topic than this one Enno began.
Apologies Enno for the brief detour here.
As to the topic: I think it’s been established that intellectual crystallization is not any form of religious living but rather it is a form of stagnation and retreat…the reversal of progression….it is regressionary….no matter what text or belief set is involved.
Religion must be lived or it is not religion of any true kind…that progressive experience of God and the personal expression of that experience. Faith is a verb…it is action….the expression of our relationship to God and Spirit. Such a reality defies crystallization and prevents it in the fluid, dynamic, and decision filled life of mortals.
One might begin a religious experience by the blind acceptance of beliefs, creeds, dogmas, ceremonies, rites, etc. But it is only the response to Spirit and the expression of Spirit that delivers hope and faith and progress and growth and discernment and experiential wisdom. Crystallization does not lead to the fruits of the Spirit or quench the thirst for truth and does not motivate us to seek out and express truth, beauty, and goodness. Or so I think….so far….hahahaha!
I have often wondered why the UB, more specifically book Four, presents personality profiles about Jesus’ apostles which would apply to many individuals one might encounters over time, and there have been a few who have fit some of these definitions specifically as patterns or puzzle pieces to what makes up personality or soul identity. When looking up the word “arrogant” in the UB, I found the following segment or narrative where it was used, which in my opinion, fits exactly to some of the responses delivered by some here on this forum. It would seem that this type of action can be contributed to “intellectual crystallization” among many who preach the words found in the UB but do not follow their meaning.
(2057.1) 193:4.13 While this self-centered and ultraindividualistic apostle had many psychic, emotional, and spiritual troubles, his main difficulties were: In personality, he was isolated. In mind, he was suspicious and vengeful. In temperament, he was surly and vindictive. Emotionally, he was loveless and unforgiving. Socially, he was unconfiding and almost wholly self-contained. In spirit, he became arrogant and selfishly ambitious. In life, he ignored those who loved him, and in death, he was friendless.
Sorry Midi….don’t see it. Judas’ problems were far deeper and darker than intellectual crystallization of religious concepts – he had paranoia, entitlement, disloyalty, meanness, selfishness, and self centeredness at his core.
How do you see that being exemplified here as fitting “exactly to some of the responses delivered by some here on this forum”? Do you think some here demonstrate indifference or hostility to the welfare and progress of the spiritual realities of the heavenly kingdom?
And who’s preaching? Well okay, your post sounds pretty preachy I must admit….hahaha….just kidding!
193:4.2 (2055.5) As we look back upon this tragedy, we conceive that Judas went wrong, primarily, because he was very markedly an isolated personality, a personality shut in and away from ordinary social contacts. He persistently refused to confide in, or freely fraternize with, his fellow apostles. But his being an isolated type of personality would not, in and of itself, have wrought such mischief for Judas had it not been that he also failed to increase in love and grow in spiritual grace. And then, as if to make a bad matter worse, he persistently harbored grudges and fostered such psychologic enemies as revenge and the generalized craving to “get even” with somebody for all his disappointments.
193:4.3 (2056.1) This unfortunate combination of individual peculiarities and mental tendencies conspired to destroy a well-intentioned man who failed to subdue these evils by love, faith, and trust. That Judas need not have gone wrong is well proved by the cases of Thomas and Nathaniel, both of whom were cursed with this same sort of suspicion and overdevelopment of the individualistic tendency. Even Andrew and Matthew had many leanings in this direction; but all these men grew to love Jesus and their fellow apostles more, and not less, as time passed. They grew in grace and in a knowledge of the truth. They became increasingly more trustful of their brethren and slowly developed the ability to confide in their fellows. Judas persistently refused to confide in his brethren. When he was impelled, by the accumulation of his emotional conflicts, to seek relief in self-expression, he invariably sought the advice and received the unwise consolation of his unspiritual relatives or those chance acquaintances who were either indifferent, or actually hostile, to the welfare and progress of the spiritual realities of the heavenly kingdom, of which he was one of the twelve consecrated ambassadors on earth.
Here we are given the dangers of personal isolation and personal prejudice (the love of and loyalty to one’s own beliefs which prevents growth). I recall we are to experience the diverse religious lives of others. And that relationships ARE value – or should be anyway!
Midi, you devil you. We just found a way to control the weather and you call in the rain?
That’s what makes it interesting I guess.
Here we are given the dangers of personal isolation and personal prejudice (the love of and loyalty to one’s own beliefs which prevents growth). I recall we are to experience the diverse religious lives of others. And that relationships ARE value – or should be anyway!
I can agree, in part, with you Bradly where “relationships ARE value”, but value to whom? The “isolation” that you mention, can often be voluntary, because no one else can live up to one’s expectation of others, or because they have been emotionally hurt by those they love or loved. In the case of Judas, he was hurt, by his understanding that Jesus would not take up the mantel of Messiah as portrayed by the Jews, where this could be associated with loyalty, but not to the teachings as Jesus presented, but a lack of loyalty to the Jewish cause. Therefore, “prejudice” to others because they do not live up to your expectations, becomes a personal problem; where even if attempts are made to create a more social relationship, with a self-isolated person, they may not be willing to change because, unless you are with me, you are against me. In this case previous religious experience, be they positive or negative, changes the intellectual concept where it has become crystallized against future change or growth.
Here we are given the dangers of personal isolation and personal prejudice (the love of and loyalty to one’s own beliefs which prevents growth). I recall we are to experience the diverse religious lives of others. And that relationships ARE value – or should be anyway!
I can agree, in part, with you Bradly where “relationships ARE value”, but value to whom?
I believe that other than relationships, there is no value. Relationship is the only thing that can be taken beyond this life right? And it’s because of God’s relation with us that we are able to have a relationship with him.
(180:5.10) Love, unselfishness, must undergo a constant and living readaptative interpretation of relationships in accordance with the leading of the Spirit of Truth. Love must thereby grasp the ever-changing and enlarging concepts of the highest cosmic good of the individual who is loved. And then love goes on to strike this same attitude concerning all other individuals who could possibly be influenced by the growing and living relationship of one spirit-led mortal’s love for other citizens of the universe. And this entire living adaptation of love must be effected in the light of both the environment of present evil and the eternal goal of the perfection of divine destiny.
Without relationships, I can’t see how this goal can be achieved.
One might begin a religious experience by the blind acceptance of beliefs, creeds, dogmas, ceremonies, rites, etc. But it is only the response to Spirit and the expression of Spirit that delivers hope and faith and progress and growth and discernment and experiential wisdom. Crystallization does not lead to the fruits of the Spirit or quench the thirst for truth and does not motivate us to seek out and express truth, beauty, and goodness. Or so I think….so far….hahahaha!
In rereading some of your posts Bradly, the one above stands out as extremely wordy, and shows a lack of logic, so I ask, what did you actually say above?
Your first sentence, relates to what “religious experience” or religious practice, and how does it relate to the rest of the paragraph?
The second sentence puzzles me in that how does one respond to spirit, and what is “expression of Spirit”, if spirit cannot be seen, and if one where to talk to spirit, or hear spirits, in order to receive that which you have presented that remains, might be considered as having psychological issues, which is warned against in the UB?
In the third, you state “Crystallization does” or “does not”, do something, but you have not defined your meaning of “crystallization”, and what it is, yet present many ideas which it is not. If one knows what something is not, then should they not also know what it is?
There are some things which you present that is readable, but in this specific case, could you please restate the paragraph, listed above so that I might get a better idea of what you mean? Thank you in advance.
I also have wondered why both the positive and negative character traits of the apostles were pointed out. I am glad to see that every single apostle had at least one positive character trait. I assume that the negative traits were something they had to work on and change. Most did change their character with the help of Jesus because that is what Jesus does if you give him a chance. And that can only happen in a relationship. Character growth cannot happen in a vacuum.
I think everyone of us has both positive and negative character traits. But in this limited arena, I don’t think it’s possible to know for sure what they are in another person. I have to assume that everyone here has at least one positive character trait and by interacting and relating to others is working on improving their negatives. To assume otherwise seems toxic to me. Jesus did say to trust one another. He even trusted Judas.
In the third, you state “Crystallization does” or “does not”, do something, but you have not defined your meaning of “crystallization”, and what it is, yet present many ideas which it is not. If one knows what something is not, then should they not also know what it is? There are some things which you present that is readable, but in this specific case, could you please restate the paragraph, listed above so that I might get a better idea of what you mean? Thank you in advance.
Not to speak for Bradley, but he does state his definition of “intellectual crystallization” right there in the same post that you quoted – 2 paragraphs above the paragraph you referred to, where Bradley wrote, “I think it’s been established that intellectual crystallization is not any form of religious living but rather it is a form of stagnation and retreat…the reversal of progression….it is regressionary….no matter what text or belief set is involved.”
.”
One might begin a religious experience by the blind acceptance of beliefs, creeds, dogmas, ceremonies, rites, etc. But it is only the response to Spirit and the expression of Spirit that delivers hope and faith and progress and growth and discernment and experiential wisdom. Crystallization does not lead to the fruits of the Spirit or quench the thirst for truth and does not motivate us to seek out and express truth, beauty, and goodness. Or so I think….so far….hahahaha!
In rereading some of your posts Bradly, the one above stands out as extremely wordy, and shows a lack of logic, so I ask, what did you actually say above? Your first sentence, relates to what “religious experience” or religious practice, and how does it relate to the rest of the paragraph? The second sentence puzzles me in that how does one respond to spirit, and what is “expression of Spirit”, if spirit cannot be seen, and if one where to talk to spirit, or hear spirits, in order to receive that which you have presented that remains, might be considered as having psychological issues, which is warned against in the UB? In the third, you state “Crystallization does” or “does not”, do something, but you have not defined your meaning of “crystallization”, and what it is, yet present many ideas which it is not. If one knows what something is not, then should they not also know what it is? There are some things which you present that is readable, but in this specific case, could you please restate the paragraph, listed above so that I might get a better idea of what you mean? Thank you in advance.
Thank you Keryn!
I’ll do what I can Midi….Let me assure you and others I am not hearing spirit voices nor do I give voice for spirits….hahahahaha – good one! The “expression of Spirit” does need clarification, my bad. The term expression to me means more than verbalizations. Kindness is an expression as is patience as is music and art. Perhaps personal expressions of the Spirit indwelled and centered life would be better? If one is responsive to Spirit then we express the religious, inner life and light, by our choices, motives, intentions, priorities, and responses at every intersection of decision, circumstance, and situation. The only proof of such growth and experience is the fruit of the Spirit. Such growth, we are told is unconscious but not its results in mind and upon the daily path.
True attachment of the branch to the vine bears fruit…it cannot be crystalized…it is fluid and dynamic as experiential growth is a continuous effect of the cause of the vine by our expressions of that attachment. One cannot be or remain attached to the vine and not express that reality….the blossoming of soul.
But there can be many circumstances which delivers the branch TO the vine….including…”One might begin a religious experience by the blind acceptance of beliefs, creeds, dogmas, ceremonies, rites, etc. But it is only the response to Spirit and the expression of Spirit that delivers hope and faith and progress and growth and discernment and experiential wisdom.”
Crystallization of concepts means, to me, that there is no growth and no attachment to the living vine.
Hope that helps some.
If I’m reading this quote right, some forms of crystallized religion are used as an escape from living the religious life. The idea that someone can escape from life is self-delusional. Which is one reason I rebel against the secret sauce approach to religious living – it’s mystical and therefore a form of escapism. Incidentally, so is running home with your ball . . . just sayin’ Sentimentality is living according to your emotions, and they’re not always reliable.
102:2.8 Again, there are other types of unstable and poorly disciplined souls who would use the sentimental ideas of religion as an avenue of escape from the irritating demands of living. When certain vacillating and timid mortals attempt to escape from the incessant pressure of evolutionary life, religion, as they conceive it, seems to present the nearest refuge, the best avenue of escape. But it is the mission of religion to prepare man for bravely, even heroically, facing the vicissitudes of life. Religion is evolutionary man’s supreme endowment, the one thing which enables him to carry on and “endure as seeing Him who is invisible.” Mysticism, however, is often something of a retreat from life which is embraced by those humans who do not relish the more robust activities of living a religious life in the open arenas of human society and commerce. True religion must act. Conduct will be the result of religion when man actually has it, or rather when religion is permitted truly to possess the man. Never will religion be content with mere thinking or unacting feeling.
MidiChlorian wrote: In the third, you state “Crystallization does” or “does not”, do something, but you have not defined your meaning of “crystallization”, and what it is, yet present many ideas which it is not. If one knows what something is not, then should they not also know what it is? There are some things which you present that is readable, but in this specific case, could you please restate the paragraph, listed above so that I might get a better idea of what you mean? Thank you in advance.
Not to speak for Bradley, but he does state his definition of “intellectual crystallization” right there in the same post that you quoted – 2 paragraphs above the paragraph you referred to, where Bradley wrote, “I think it’s been established that intellectual crystallization is not any form of religious living but rather it is a form of stagnation and retreat…the reversal of progression….it is regressionary….no matter what text or belief set is involved.”
I also, read this and as I mentioned, to indicate what something is not, does not define the meaning of a phrase or word used; in this case by an authors intended use. In his use of “it is a form of stagnation and retreat” would indicate a negative action, or “reversal of progression” where in the original UB text used, it it associated with “ideas”:
“But true religion is alive. Intellectual crystallization of religious concepts is the equivalent of spiritual death. You cannot conceive of religion without ideas, but when religion once becomes reduced only to an idea, it is no longer religion; it has become merely a species of human philosophy.”
By attempting to assess the meaning of “crystallization” as used in the OP, it would appear to refer to making more clear, or “to give a definite form or expression to (an idea, argument, etc) or (of an idea, argument, etc) to assume a recognizable or definite form.” Where in the following UB narrations, would indicate to, make crystal clear, and as in the above, “concepts” or “ideas”, which then may be translated from “intellectual crystallization of religious concepts” to ‘make clear the religious idea(s)’, where it becomes a personal philosophy, which may not be definable, only from the viewpoint of the person thinking.
(365.2) 32:5.6 Frankly, eternity is incomprehensible to the finite mind of time. You simply cannot grasp it; you cannot comprehend it. I do not completely visualize it, and even if I did, it would be impossible for me to convey my concept to the human mind. Nevertheless, I have done my best to portray something of our viewpoint, to tell you somewhat of our understanding of things eternal. I am endeavoring to aid you in the crystallization of your thoughts about these values which are of infinite nature and eternal import.
(798.2) 70:12.3 The king was the executor of the mores, the original or unwritten law. Later he enforced the legislative enactments, the crystallization of public opinion. A popular assembly as an expression of public opinion, though slow in appearing, marked a great social advance.
(966.5) 87:7.10 But a cult — a symbolism of rituals, slogans, or goals — will not function if it is too complex. And there must be the demand for devotion, the response of loyalty. Every effective religion unerringly develops a worthy symbolism, and its devotees would do well to prevent the crystallization of such a ritual into cramping, deforming, and stifling stereotyped ceremonials which can only handicap and retard all social, moral, and spiritual progress. No cult can survive if it retards moral growth and fails to foster spiritual progress. The cult is the skeletal structure around which grows the living and dynamic body of personal spiritual experience — true religion.
Where in the last narrative above, the word “crystallization” may be associated to what Bradly indicated as “stagnation and retreat”, but in its use here, would indicate, not to clarify the meaning of ritualistic symbolism, meant only as dogmatic devotion.
Therefore, I did not take Bradly’s definition, as indicated, as such because there was no definition of his definition, because they where all negative, and there was no positive to compare too. Similar to comparing good without using evil as an opposite.
MidiChlorian wrote: . . . extremely wordy, and shows a lack of logic, . . .. . . seems to me that you suffer from the same malady you accuse Bradly of. . . . there was no definition of his definition . . . Really?
MidiChlorian wrote: . . . extremely wordy, and shows a lack of logic, . . .
. . . seems to me that you suffer from the same malady you accuse Bradly of. . . . there was no definition of his definition . . . Really?
How so? His definition(s), do not indicate what the authors, meaning is or was, only what they were not. If he explained what he thought the authors intent was for their use of these words, and then applied that to his definition, it would be more understandable. As it was, it would seem that his definition of “crystallization” was to make into a material form, unchangeable form.
I am attempting to show that the authors were using this phraseology as to clarify, to make crystal clear. However, in attempting to do so, would require something which would be too complex, for the average person, therefore dead.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.