True change requires spiritual transformation

[Morgain]

I think religion or any spirituality gives us a sense of purpose. It pulls us out of ourselves. Not in the "you need to be selfless" kind of way but it helps us realize that the world is bigger than our little person alone. That the problems we have right now doesn't mean the end of the world. The world keeps on spinning. Also the idea of purpose helps us overcome the hopelessness of our situation. It helps is see that even though our life can be miserable today, maybe all this serves a higher goal. It may not be so but just believing in the higher goal makes us get out of our misery, look into the future and make something of it.

and finely most spiritual paths encourage us to work on the relationships with ourselves. I think the major reason for addictions is the feeling of incompleteness and loss. Something is missing, there is a hole and we seek outside ourselves to fill it. Spirituality shows us the way inside, teaches us that all we need is already with us and helps us to go into the confrontation with ourselves instead of running away from it into an addiction. Building that relationship with yourself to me is THE BASIS of a balanced satisfied life. And with a balance satisfied life there is no need for addictions.

 

[just me]

I believe things are not always what they appear to be, nor are things always the way they seem. I also do not believe in limitations, regarding spiritual things, at all times. If we limit ourselves to what we comprehend in our minds, are we submitting our selves to the physical world and closing our "ears" to anything we might "hear" otherwise? What part of the human mind is our "hearts"? Do we really know what reality is, or do we just see part of it?

I feel humankind to be vain thinking they understand "the way it is". We know in part. Maybe spiritual transformation requires true change? Maybe.

 

[randomsomeone]

people interpret their spirituality as something supernatural or mystical when it appears to simply be sociological.

Perhaps yes, this is so in one way of looking at it...relationship ultimately is an essential part of the picture, more on a macro scale, although one may begin with quite a blank canvas or in total confusion.

I might also add that our references to God, or the Universe, or Christ, or the Divine are mere descriptors of something larger and far harder (if not impossible) to press into words. It is a "Divine Other" that is benevolent, caring, creative-by-nature, knowing, yet non-judgemental. And this Person is dynamic, ever-changing, unpredictable, impossible to cognate totally, completely non-linear yet, yes, does relate to us personally, and this with respect. The whole relationship winds up being so filled with paradox that it is hard to perceive it originating from our known experiences, ideas, or imprints. The Divine Other is about as "other" as you can get. Lots of words could (and have) been applied to this idea/experience....these provide valuable hints, but none come close to capturing the entirety.

When such a Reality interfaces with us, it can be transformative. We do place limits, though...lots of them. Our minds cannot control this...it is beyond us....and we may perceive risk/danger from which barriers arise. Generally, we simply do not understand the true nature of what we encounter. Moving from illusion to Reality is a process. In this case, a kind of surrender (perhaps the origin of faith) transpires, and a degree of humility is called for on our part.

 

[yndsu]

Jn.3:3b Except a man be born again, he cannot see Kingdom
Mat.18:3 Be converted and become as little children
Jn.1:13 Born, not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God
Rom.12:2a Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind
2Cor.5:17 If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature
1Pet.1:23 Born again, not of corruptible seed, but...by the Word of God

Some scriptures on the matter of spiritual transformation.

 

[yndsu]

When such a Reality interfaces with us, it can be transformative. We do place limits, though...lots of them. Our minds cannot control this...it is beyond us....and we may perceive risk/danger from which barriers arise. Generally, we simply do not understand the true nature of what we encounter. Moving from illusion to Reality is a process. In this case, a kind of surrender (perhaps the origin of faith) transpires, and a degree of humility is called for on our part.

Hehe, i have a friend who is a minister back home. And he told me once, that
because people can not comprehend the Holy Trinity (The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost),
that is what makes Christianity real. Christianity is the only faith in where God is one, but has 3 different parts,
yet still remaining as on. No other religion/faith has it. And because we cant comprehend the idea of someone
being One being, but with 3 seperate parts, that also shows how a man could not have been able to
make it up just for the fun.

 

[bickelz]

I've been told much the same by my own mother so I can relate. However, I'm not seeing how having such a relationship with Jesus equates to narcissism or is inherently destructive to other relationships. I've also never heard of a "socio-narcissist" which I think is an oxymoron. I'm one of the most critical people when it comes to religion, but if somebody chooses to put their God above all their other relationships, then I'm not sure how exactly that is destructive. An old marriage counselor I knew used to say for a marriage to survive an individual must put their relationship with their spouse ahead of even their relationship with their own children and yet I don't think most people would argue that is inherently destructive. Prioritizing relationships is simply part of life.

[MENTION=20]Satya[/MENTION] I wasn't saying that having a relationship with Jesus equates to narcissism. What I was saying was that his relationship with Jesus has destroyed relationships but his narcissism is just as mush of a cause of it. I wasn't relating them.

Socio-narcissist is something I'm not sure even exists but I heard a friend mention it one time. He said a socio-narcissist is one who literally thinks people revolve around them. For example, everything you and everybody else does on this forum is because of me and for me. I think there's another word for it where you don't believe anyone else is actually real but with a narcissistic spin to it.

It seems to me that you reject the notion of God which seems evident by calling it a "delusion" and therefore resent your father's relationship with it. The fact that your father puts that relationship ahead of even his relationship with you adds more salt to the wound.

Oh yeah, this is totally correct. As for what you said about putting marriage in front of kids, there is something inherently different about these two relationships. Jesus is dead and God's existence is debatable while spouses are both very alive and have a relationship that is closer in distance. They can see each other. My dad puts a relationship with someone he's never seen and may not exist in front of his very real son.

 

[bickelz]

Hehe, i have a friend who is a minister back home. And he told me once, that
because people can not comprehend the Holy Trinity (The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost),
that is what makes Christianity real. Christianity is the only faith in where God is one, but has 3 different parts,
yet still remaining as on. No other religion/faith has it. And because we cant comprehend the idea of someone
being One being, but with 3 seperate parts, that also shows how a man could not have been able to
make it up just for the fun.

I probably shouldn't start a religious debate here but how does having one being made of three separate parts show that humans couldn't have made it up? We've made up far more bizarre concepts yet they're no more real just because someone thinks it's out of our imagination. Unicorns are still fake, the lord of the rings and harry potter were made up.

And again, just because no other religion has it, doesn't make it right. What, is having one, one-part god too mainstream?

 

[randomsomeone]

a man could not have been able to make it up just for the fun.

So true. The trinitarian nature of God is a doctrine based on something that was revealed because of God's initiative to reveal it....we simply observed this revelation, took it to heart, and gave it a name. We speculate about it, yet grasp it only to a degree. God's cosmic and eternal nature is revealed in the Son, who remains dynamically with us through his Spirit. God incarnated (to come close to us and create a way for us) is something we have become tragically blaze about....really it is such an insanely wondrous thing.

 

[randomsomeone]

Perhaps that is the notion of "spiritual transformation". The addict's mind must be broken down psychologically before it can be rebuilt so that it is functional and free of addiction and thus a "complete transformation" takes place. I'm not really sure how we differentiate between what is "spiritual" and what is "psychological".

You are probably on to something here...would this be like someone hitting "rock bottom" where all the internal resources and mechanism are expended or give out, allowing for a re-creation?

As far as the difference between "spiritual" and "psychological", perhaps in the spiritual realm a person enters into a new world where there is some immediate solidity, acceptance, love, dignity that is related to a person by God's very Being, the Higher Power. It would be a kind of nurturing. Would there be a similar sense in a purely psychological approach? Could that be communicated through some other means? I would imagine a helping hand of that magnitude would be most welcome.

Still, spiritual conversion and spiritual transformation can be two very different things. As was stated previously by yndsu, transformation is a bit of a process. Long term, things generally tend to not "get all fixed up" for us, but rather the Spirit enters into life with us and journeys with us each step. Again...a bit of a relationship.

 

[randomsomeone]

One final thought from me.....I run into extremely experienced pastoral people (many with gobs of professional and/or psychological training) who work between the spiritual and psychological all the time, back and forth as if there were no real division. In light of this, might some sort of integration be a good way of approaching it?

btw, I am all for whichever approach best meets the person where they are at and moves them to a more whole life. Kudos to all who work towards such ends. "Lord, when did we see you....."

 

[just me]

One final thought from me.....I run into extremely experienced pastoral people (many with gobs of professional and/or psychological training) who work between the spiritual and psychological all the time, back and forth as if there were no real division. In light of this, might some sort of integration be a good way of approaching it?

btw, I am all for whichever approach best meets the person where they are at and moves them to a more whole life. Kudos to all who work towards such ends. "Lord, when did we see you....."

yes, versus "Lord, when did we not...."

 

[Satya]

Socio-narcissist is something I'm not sure even exists but I heard a friend mention it one time. He said a socio-narcissist is one who literally thinks people revolve around them. For example, everything you and everybody else does on this forum is because of me and for me.

Sounds like plain old narcissism to me. Perhaps ego centrism.

Oh yeah, this is totally correct. As for what you said about putting marriage in front of kids, there is something inherently different about these two relationships. Jesus is dead and God's existence is debatable while spouses are both very alive and have a relationship that is closer in distance. They can see each other. My dad puts a relationship with someone he's never seen and may not exist in front of his very real son.

You think you have it bad. In the Bible a man named Abraham bound his son, Issac, to a rock and was preparing to sacrifice him for God. Christianity demands that a person's relationship with God takes absolute priority over all other relationships. I don't let it get to me. I'm sure a lot of children put their relationship with Santa Claus ahead of their relationship with their parents. It's kind of the same thing in my mind.

 

[Satya]

Jn.3:3b Except a man be born again, he cannot see Kingdom
Mat.18:3 Be converted and become as little children
Jn.1:13 Born, not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God
Rom.12:2a Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind
2Cor.5:17 If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature
1Pet.1:23 Born again, not of corruptible seed, but...by the Word of God

Some scriptures on the matter of spiritual transformation.

I've gotten to the point where I don't read spiritual scriptures when I see them posted online. You may not intend it to be but I find it very disrespectful, particularly since not everyone holds to the same faith as you. It would be similar if someone came into a discussion you were having and just started quoting from the Quran.

 

[Satya]

Hehe, i have a friend who is a minister back home. And he told me once, that
because people can not comprehend the Holy Trinity (The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost),
that is what makes Christianity real. Christianity is the only faith in where God is one, but has 3 different parts,
yet still remaining as on. No other religion/faith has it. And because we cant comprehend the idea of someone
being One being, but with 3 seperate parts, that also shows how a man could not have been able to
make it up just for the fun.

All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon have adopted in one form or another a Trinity doctrine or a triad or trinity of gods. In Babylon it was Nimrod, Semiramas, and Tammuz. In Egypt it was Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Within Israel paganism it was Kether, Hokhmah, and Binah. In Plato's philosophy it was the Unknown Father, Nous/Logos, and the world soul.

 

[yndsu]

All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon have adopted in one form or another a Trinity doctrine or a triad or trinity of gods. In Babylon it was Nimrod, Semiramas, and Tammuz. In Egypt it was Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Within Israel paganism it was Kether, Hokhmah, and Binah. In Plato's philosophy it was the Unknown Father, Nous/Logos, and the world soul.

Nah, it is not Trinity. It is the triad of gods. Those pagan gods are all independantly functioning. People did offerings to them individually and prayed to the individual gods calling to their names.

Holy Trinity means they are one. That is why in my prayer i can pray to God the Father, in the name of Jesus and to the Holy Spirit without a difference. It all goes to the same source.

 

[Morgain]

Nah, it is not Trinity. It is the triad of gods. Those pagan gods are all independantly functioning. People did offerings to them individually and prayed to the individual gods calling to their names.

Holy Trinity means they are one. That is why in my prayer i can pray to God the Father, in the name of Jesus and to the Holy Spirit without a difference. It all goes to the same source.

christianity stole the idea elsewhere:

The Hindu trinity is of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They are respectively the creator, preserver and destroyer of the universe. They are also aligned as the transcendent Godhead, Shiva, the cosmic lord, Vishnu and the cosmic mind, Brahma. In this regard they are called Sat-Tat-Aum, the Being, the Thatness or immanence and the Word or holy spirit. This is much like the Christian trinity of God as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The trinity represents the Divine in its threefold nature and function. Each aspect of the trinity contains and includes the others.

they only forgot to mention the second part. The representation of the female aspects of the divine. But since females are inherently evil in christianity they just skipped that part

Each God in the trinity has his consort. To Brahma is Saraswati, the Goddess of knowledge. For Vishnu is Lakshmi, the Goddess of love, beauty and delight. For Shiva is Kali (Parvati) , the Goddess of power, destruction and transformation. These are the three main forms of the Goddess, as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the three main forms of the God. The three Goddesses are often worshipped in their own right as well as along with their spouses.

 

[Satya]

Nah, it is not Trinity. It is the triad of gods. Those pagan gods are all independantly functioning. People did offerings to them individually and prayed to the individual gods calling to their names.

Holy Trinity means they are one. That is why in my prayer i can pray to God the Father, in the name of Jesus and to the Holy Spirit without a difference. It all goes to the same source.

Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion that predates Christianity, was once one of the world's largest pagan religions, and had a trinity quite similar to that of Christianity.

The point is, that many religions had triads or even a trinity before Christianity even existed. The idea of one almighty God that is simultaneously three different beings is not unique to Christianity and was even thought up by pagan religions that preceded Christianity. I am sorry if you were lead to believe otherwise.

 

[just me]

I've gotten to the point where I don't read spiritual scriptures when I see them posted online. You may not intend it to be but I find it very disrespectful, particularly since not everyone holds to the same faith as you. It would be similar if someone came into a discussion you were having and just started quoting from the Quran.

Those were actually confirming in a sense some things you had said, especially the Romans 12:2.

 

[Satya]

Those were actually confirming in a sense some things you had said, especially the Romans 12:2.

It is simply my personal view. I find it disrespectful for people to quote scripture. It could be paraphrased instead of quoted. I personally feel that following dogma such as the Bible is immoral and I see the quoting from scriptures as proselytizing. I don't mean any disrespect, that is simply my perspective. You have your views on what constitutes poor human conduct and I have my own.

 

[just me]

You think you have it bad. In the Bible a man named Abraham bound his son, Issac, to a rock and was preparing to sacrifice him for God. Christianity demands that a person's relationship with God takes absolute priority over all other relationships. I don't let it get to me. I'm sure a lot of children put their relationship with Santa Claus ahead of their relationship with their parents. It's kind of the same thing in my mind.

In a true relationship with God, God wants a person to Love Him and to love his neighbor as himself(if he loves himself, that is). I really don't think God would rather I go to church Sunday morning when my Father might be dying in the hospital. When Christ was on the earth in the flesh, there was a certain timetable to be dealt with. Jesus said the poor we would have with us always, when they used things on Him that could have been sold and given to the poor. He was not going to be here very long in the flesh.

Jesus said, "Because you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." I think a lot more research and thought could be put into this mindset.

A ram was given Abraham before he could slay his own son. I do not think God would have let Abraham go through with it. I would have said, "Lord, take me; not my son." The Bible does not state whether Abraham offered himself first, but I know what I would have done. Surely I am not more noble than he.