I feel it was only his death that saved him from excommunication, but you're right to say he was investigated and criticised rather than condemned.

Still, he's hardly flavour of the month in the Vatican. His experience seems to have outstripped the Roman theology. Christians are not usually encouraged to believe what he teaches and in my experience rarely know what it is.

I feel the battle is best revealed by the reaction of Christians to the book A Course in Miracles. Some respect it but most deem it wildly heretical. .

We seem to agree in many respects, but I feel the topic is too deep for a forum. .

You cannot build a perfectly consistent theological system: it is just impossible. — Angelo Cannata

I feel this is a vital observation. Orthodox theology simply does not make sense. Fortunately, this does not invalidate the teachings of Jesus but only certain interpretations. .

I think my point was just that the church wants nothing to do with mysticism, for this states that the God of monotheism is a misinterpretation of experience. As Plotinus notes, consistent with Eckhart, to think of The One as mind or God would be to think of it 'too meanly'. . . . .

I think the major problem with your thesis is that your putting your own beliefs and morals above Gods. God is a wrathful and judgmental God, he desired us to be loving because he will ultimately judge evil not us. God wages a Holy war, unto which we cannot do, so that we can receive rest from Evil. Some of the times we need to trust in God and know he's all-knowing.

I think the major problem with your thesis is that your putting your own beliefs and morals above Gods. God is a wrathful and judgmental God, he desired us to be loving because he will ultimately judge evil not us. God wages a Holy war, unto which we cannot do, so that we can receive rest from Evil. Some of the times we need to trust in God and know he's all-knowing. — Isaiasb

Many, most, of the people here on the forum believe that the Christian God, or any god for that matter, does not exist. Quoting scripture won't get you anywhere with them. Actually, no argument will get you anywhere other than providing them with solid, concrete proof of his existence. This is a battle that has been fought here and everywhere else where theists meet atheists.

Concrete evidence does exist, and when questioning a God why wouldn't you be able to fight for that God with that book. In order to prove science, we don't stop people from using data.

Concrete evidence does exist, and when questioning a God why wouldn't you be able to fight for that God with that book. In order to prove science, we don't stop people from using data. — Isaiasb

Actually, I agree with you. I consider the Bible to be evidence for the existence of God. If I were interested, we could discuss whether it is good evidence for God. But that wasn't my point. Whether or not it's fair, using the Bible or other similar religious text as evidence is not considered philosophy here.

But it's wrong to decide, " I'm just going to not take this one text because its religious'". Also the only time the bible is quoted is when I was speaking to Christians'. In my defense agianst nonbelievers I never sight scripture.

would you describe yourself as a duplicitous person?

I think it is a mistake to absolutize these statements. They are just rules of thumb and there are always exceptions: the iron behind the velvet. Sometimes even war is justified (eg The Battle of Britain).