Welcome to Gaia! ::

One of the big things I think that modern Christianity lacks is experiential understanding of their religion. I mean Christianity is a religion, not a philosophy. I find it quite foolish when I hear people say I don't have a religion, its my faith, which is true but at the same time the people who say this have no clue what that means. There is supernatural s**t that cannot be explained within it, and no I am not taking about Jesus toast. I'm talking about supernatural stuff that truly humbles an individual and makes them know of what the Scriptures mean. The Scriptures and rituals have a deeper meaning than just the words and actions. It's sad that much of the rituals are reduced to mere symbolism, which on some levels it is but the rituals are more than just that. They were designed with the intention of bringing an experiential understanding of what God is.

Also the distrust of looking inward is also something I see as a failing. We can't trust looking inward because it will make us prey to Satan, WTF, seriously? Even without the Gnostic Texts, the Bible does say that we are to look inward to find the Kingdom of Heaven. For it is written:

Religion is supposed to help a person develop spiritually and come to a better understanding of themselves and the world in which they live but empty words and empty actions cannot do that.

And neither are the Episcopals either. It just seems that so many groups are afraid of violating Sola Scriptura that they loose some significant parts of the religion.

Unfortunately there are leaders in Methodist Church that do not stress experience.

Well -the problem I find is that most people take their faith off of what they have heard mostly and not by researching it and experiencing it for themselves. This was the issue I had before I went on my little journey which was to find out if I believed based on my own understanding or by the understanding of what my family believed. When I finally came through I found myself in the Greek Orthodox Church studying Liturgics and openly laughing at my Sola Scriptura friends who I believe threw the baby out with the bathwater.

On another note it is also important, in my opinion, that we lean not so much on emotionalism in the faith as per say the obedience to follow though on what may become a mystical journey towards Theosis. People often seek out a feeling, an emotion, instead of direct observance towards union. In prayer we sit in silence waiting for the Holy Spirit to come upon us, and as many have experienced a huge emotional outpouring upon them, wailing and throwing themselves to and fro like an epileptic. oddly, according to the Early Church Fathers and several Sainted Monks in the Eastern Church The Holy Spirit "falls upon us as the morning dew, soft and quiet, as we envelope Him in complete awe and obedience. he enters into us, giving us understanding and complete peace(paraphrase mine)". Emotional diatribe as I once experienced is sadly something which many of our Charismatic brothers and Sisters believe to be the set of the day, emphasizing a very strongly led worship service and music to set the mood for the emotional control. Sadly Silence is better for the HOly SPirit to speak to us, than to raise our hands and rol around the floor or hang around the rafters in a a fit of utterings some call tongues.

In the Acts of the Apostles yes the Holy Spirit burst open doors, caused what some would call chaos and utterings which in turn made many look upon the Apostles and the Disciples as "drunkards". The flame was a testament of the Holy Spirit's arrival, as has been taught by the Early Church Fathers. The tongues, not utterings of some spiritual language as what is practiced today were actual spoken languages many nearby were able to understand as a testimony of the Truth of Jesus Christ. Other than this I could understand exactly how my comment earlier would be misunderstood.

Emotionalism, which has been shown to be the case for today is rampant, and needs to be examined. Many people, myself included came from a Pentecostal Evangelical Spiriti-Filled background. I was also a licensed Minister who preached a Full Gospel ministry aplying the Gifts of the Spirit, raising hands and uttering in a spiritual language, and I am awitness firsthand that this is not the Holy Spirit but an emotional outpouring; though sincere it is not the Holy Spirit.

The Ascetic Monastics, who would glow with a bright hue while in prayer, documented that the Holy Spirit would come upon them softly and gently, like a soft, gentle morning dew. This is one example of non-emotionalism that shows us the Holy Spirit working in people's lives.

Even in some Gnostic circles I knew in Southern California they would seek out a non-emotional practice of prayer and worship. Asceticism was praised among the Gnostic circles abroad.

I think some things should be defined to help clarify things. I understand where you're coming from on your argument but Gho raise some good points. How can one tell the difference between the false spirit, as my tradition calls it, and the Holy Spirit? I do know the standard answer is that you'll know and while true, it doesn't explain a lot could you try to put it in to words if possible? Why do you believe that rituals in the Pentecostal Church, and similar churches, cannot bring the Holy Spirit into an individual? While I do know that a stillness of mind is necessary to receive the Holy Spirit, why do the rituals of the Pentecostal Church and churches with similar rituals, not bring the stillness necessary to see the Light or at least feel that connection with everything, the Lower Sophia?

The Authority is the Early Church Fathers who, if you are a Gnostic, would not recognize anyways.

Bran or Blueberry, both are muffins. The issue is more than what you have just implied.

Yes I am saying there is only one path on the way to God. To say otherwise would be Universalism.