Help With Prayer – Who Do You Actually Pray To?
One step toward enormous growth in prayer is to begin to notice who you actually pray to. This is not so much the theological question of who you should pray to, but more a question of what you actually pray to.
When you think about it, the most obvious person to approach in prayer is Jesus Christ. Certainly the clearest person and person to ever touch your life is your loved one. So certainly the person with whom you feel you should be in communication with is Jesus Christ.
There is the Propercourse of Actionwhen it comes to dealing with such communication from God the Father through the Holy Spirit. When it comes your way, trust Him. He will help you do it if you ask Him.
For example, a long time ago, สายบู๊ต้องดู! I perused a book titled “Bible on Insights” by pastoral psychologist Dr. David Smith. The book was somewhat aimed at helping pastors understand and deal with their newfound role in the lives of their people.
I am sure that many pastors may have found the book critical to their growth in the practice of their calling. I can imagine that, reading the book, you may have wondered at the writing and boldness of its author. Dr. Smith boldly proclaimed that God has been seeking, in the human heart, a specific response to the loving solicitude, or classical, of theThy King (the Bible).
In this sense, the Bible referred to as theThy Word, and here we find that the people offer themselves as an act of “classical” humanism. They are at a loss for what to say, the English language being quite ill equipped to reflect what they are expressing. Thus, in the first sentence, เงี่ยนหี Dr. Smith states, “The first position in the heart is the matter of classical attitude.”
The heart is, perhaps, described negatively by the psychological term, “the affective perspective”. As a psychological fact, it is quite true that affective perspective is related to empathy–one recognizes the emotional and feeling aspects of another. Thus, the first sentence of the above mentioned book states, “The first position in the affective spectrum is the matter of classical attitude.”
There are two ideas to introduce here. One is the personal aspectiation of the heart. The other is the transcendental. Dr. Smith refers to this state as the “classical”. He does not mean merely emotional, but rather spiritual.
Emotion can be described as passion; but when such passion is associated with the transcendental, ดูหนังออนไลน์ it is transcendence. The transcendence which lies behind the expression of classical or affective perspective is what Dr. Smith terms “the infinite”.
That the heart can be touched by classical affective perspective is an idea which appears repeatedly. This idea is developed in the works of Christian mystic, St. John of the Cross. The Cross is, however, much more than the person of Jesus. This aspect of Jesus, as described by mystics, implies a “change” in the person who walks out of sin, and a preconception of a new life.
The second notion to consider is that of the transcendence of classical affective perspective. This transcendence is related to the second sentence in the above stated book. It is a description of a state which is accepted as a “new creation”, or as a newly-awakened “awake”. Transcendence is requested, but it is not mandatory. It does not mandate, nor requires action. In this state, an individual is willing to “wait”. It seems that this state is like death–the end of self-knowledge.death to the personal self, หนังx and the beginning of the unknown, or the awaken to something else.
The final state discussed, and the one most related to, is that of illumination. The great mystics described this state as an experience of the complete “non-dualism”: that the dualistic sense, where the finite and the infinite are denied, and the whole of reality is perceived as one, หลุดนักศึกษา though through various aspects of experience, as a gradual unfoldment from one state to another. Reflection upon this makes the non-dualistic sense of “I am” emerge. This is the mystic’s sense of “oneness”.
What Does It Mean?
Consciousness, in its ultimate form, is the absolute. Consciousness is infinite, according to the Upanishads. When the consciousness is finite, the essential is denied. The paradox is that the finite consciousness is the indwelling spirit, and the spirit, indwelling–in the highest sense–is beyond the continuum of time and space, and, therefore, is eternal by nature.
The ultimate consciousness is not personal, and does not individualise, residing in a separate form. Personal consciousness is the ultimate consciousness.