»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Peace of Mind After All These Years
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Peace of Mind After All These Years |
|
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa 
|
My search for the truth has finally ended. Notice, I said "my" search. One may not agree with my findings, but that means nothing to me, which is actually a part of the truth I have found. What am I talking about? I am talking about beng at peace with myself with regards to religion, God, afterlife, and all of those such matters. And how I have searched for the truth. I started out as a small child who feared and loved God as a Catholic. I joined the navy and met many people of various faiths and learned from each of them... I sought the truth and read the Bible on my own, never understanding why so many people believed in the same God, yet couldn't get along and become one body, as Paul described it. I finally gave up on that. I realized that there could never be one religion that "had the market cornered" on salvation. But... I still didn't have peace of mind. I still didn't know what was the truth. I only learned what wasn't. And now, with everything I went through in my recent divorce, and all that was shed to light during this trying time... it hit me, just the other day... In fact, it hit me like, as they say, "a ton of bricks." What would a Creator expect of his or her creation? What is one truth that runs through practically every religion throughout time? The ability to, with a contrite heart, forgive and be forgiven by any person who I have or has done me wrong. Some people may call it a "born again" experience... but to me, it happened many years ago. I developed a hatred for a person I worked with, as he did to me. One day, it got so bad, I planned on sabatoging things that could hurt or humiliate him, as he done to me, but while going about to do that... it came over me, ask him to forgive you and let this all end. I didn't know it at the time, but that is what separated me from many of my fellow human beings. The longer I went through the pains of my divorce and how my ex-wife had treated me, the more I began to understand that the difference in people are not which church they go to, but what is inside of each person. It doesn't matter which religion or God you pray to... It is what is inside of your heart. "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
| © Copyright 2005 JesusChristPose - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
JCP, Don't get angry when I ask you this ... But how can a mere moral platitude set you free, especially if you can't really fulfill it like you want to? I know you still harbor bitter feelings and shabby thoughts from time to time, toward those who've wronged you ... I do too. My "born-again" experience consisted of coming to an understanding of how impossible it was for me to live up to even my own moral discoveries. That the law which was set against me, was too steep for me to climb successfully. Some may call it condemnation, or spiritual darkness, but whatever it was, God reached in and showed me that through Christ he was forgiving me of all. In light of that truth, I am able to forgive others better than ever before, but not perfectly. (I still have trouble too). But now it is a response to a higher forgiveness, not a rule-keeping contest, to gain that forgiveness. If he has forgiven me of so much mess, how can I hold on to an ill will toward others? Having said all of that, I wanted to say that's precisely where the religious question does matter. You nor I can live up to that epiphany you are describing. Only by God's forgiveness, (still with his Justice not being compromised) through Christ Jesus, can we find a peace with God. Notice that I said, peace with God (as someone we were at odds with through our misdeeds), not merely subjective feelings of getting along better. The Christian answer is that no one is righteous enough to find lasting peace through moral platitudes alone. They can help us along, and they are the true standard for us all, but we fall so short of really fufilling their demands on thought and behavior. But once we have the forgiveness of God, the moral prescriptions become our practical friends ... rather than tools to reach an impossible assurance of peace. Remember that Hindu Buddhist religions, though teaching morality, have no real basis for it ... being non-theistic, and monistic. They won't admit it, but morality for them has to be simply a preference, not an obligation. So their Karmic system has a universal "right" that sits upon no foundation whatsoever. The Islam religion is one of sheer law. Do good and live. Do wrong and die. Don't know about you, but that one rules me out. Actually you'll find that all religions other than Christianity are either 1) Define your own goodness, because all is relative. or 2) All is not relative, so Do or Die. Stephen. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
And I hope I don't upset you... all you say to me is jibberish... just like any person who believes that his or her truth is for every one else. I know my peace is real. You or any other person can't change that. I have talked to the Creator in my own way, and have made peace. I know, in my mind what the Creator expects of me. I still don't know who the Creator is, but that is okay. It is not for me to know at this time. However, I do know this, the True Creator cannot be found in any man's words coming from any man's books. To know the Creator comes from within the heart. And I also disagree with you. I have the ability to forgive all who have done we wrong, but more importantly, or just as important for that matter, I am able to ask for forgiveness with a contrite heart to all whom I have done wrong to. And there is nothing you can say to change the truth I know. Good luck to you. "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Good for you! And I mean that very sincerely, too.  I'm not entirely sure, however, given your apparent attitude, why this was posted in the Philosophy forum? If you would like, I can move it into the Announcements forum. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
Ron, I don't know why I posted it here except maybe I was looking for a philosophical understanding from others, or other philosophical phenomenoms experienced by other forum members who could relate to what happened to me. "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
JCP, Congratulations! It makes me happy to hear about people meeting God within the temple of their own being. There is, in fact, a philosphical angle to your catharsis, and that is the question of whether or not morals function as ends and not means, or as vehicles which propel the mind/body/spirit closer to God when used in the proper, guiding context. Stephano, JCP is not describing the concept of forgivness in a do/do not context, but rather as a state of being achieved at the non-verbal, intuitive level. The reason God gives his people morals and laws is to provide the best possible social and personal environment with which to pursue him from within, not so that he can keep a tally of wrongdoings on his chalkboard. There is no sense of spiritual responsibility behind the idea that morals exist only as impossible-to-scale ideals man can never ascend. They exist as canes for the blind until we no longer need them. And as for the slams on eastern religions... Buddhism, although denying that moral absolutes exist, has incredibly strict codes of behavior which govern every minute aspect of monk behavior. Buddhist monks (or Hindu sannyasin for that matter) are every bit as capable of ascetic, selfless devotion to union with the divine within as any Christian priest. Matter and energy are never created or destroyed; they simply change form- scientific fact. Therefore, the universe exists as an unalterable whole in which every little piece, on a long enough time scale, affects every other piece. Karma is a universal law; every cause has an effect. You reap what you sow, etc. It has nothing to do with morality, although moral principles, established within the context of karma, can be very helpful. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
Thanks for providing your insight to this subject matter, Baba. To me is it very simple... it is what is inside one's heart and nothing more. No temple, no church, no doctrine, no one-way to salvation, no man-made religious doctrines to follow... all of that is meaningless. Even Christ said, to love one's neighbor as one love's herself and also to love God with all of one's heart and soul. I interpret that to mean, to care for your neighbor as much as you care for yourself - especially when the situation arises... to care for strangers as if they were family - especially when the situation arises to do so, but also to love one's self... and in that, one show's her true love towards the Creator, because afterall, the Creator created all of us, and if we treat the Creator's creations with love and respect, we are in fact, showing great love for the Creator. All of this religious {edited}, and to me, especially christianity, because christianity has surrounded me my entire life, can shove it. Mind you, not all of the people who worship a christian God, or any denominational god, but to those who believe that their religion is the only true one... they can take a hike because they have missed the bus. "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." [This message has been edited by Ron (12-10-2005 04:26 PM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
You do seem less angry.  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Baba, Neither am I describing forgiveness exclusively in the sense of "Do and Don't". It goes much deeper than that. I concede that God is relational, and he meets us one-on-one. Therefore our problem is an existential one, not merely a legal one. But we must never forget that our relational / existential crisis results in actual deeds and words, manifesting in an objectively external world. And that's where God's law begins to confront us, since that's where we confront others. What we do still matters a whole lot. But doubtless, Jesus took the law farther and deeper than external rules. He took it to a heart level, saying that external rules are only broken when they've been broken in the heart many times before. You know the scriptures where Jesus reminds us that "hating someone" is equivalent to murder, and lust is equivalent to adultery, right? Sin IS an existential problem, not merely a legal one. And I've known JCP long enough to understand that what he is posing is a hermetically closed personal religious world, where every man's "truth" is an island. But it's not that way. Our responsibilities to others aren't determined by our subjective whims. Neither are our responsibilities to God. And why should salvation not have a strong objective element also? As long as God is other than us, and not merely a figment of our imagination, there has to be a divinely determined part. Now my whole statement was ... By saying "Love your neighbor, equals personal salvation", one has put himself in the grips of law-keeping once more, though it doesn't sound that way. Accepting salvation and forgiveness as divine gift, frees one to love others, but not in order to merit salvation. Against this assertion (of loving our way to heaven), the law itself frustrates us. JCP's problem, and mine, is that we can't love enough. We have good intentions I'm sure, but our selfishness overcomes our natural ability to love, time and time again. So how can we ever know if the standard is met? So I am not opting for rule-keeping, when it comes to one's relationship with God. Actually to say "every man his own way" to the point of arguing when others disagree, is a tell-tale sign that the arguer's subjectivism has its limits. I honestly feel that JCP's subjective religion is pushed just as universally and morally bindingly, as my universal religion is. Only I have no disguise, everyone here knows that I believe Christ is the only way. I've never claimed that truth is not somewhat exclusive by it's very nature. And Karen, I too am not trying to begrudge anyone their happiness in whatever measure they feel it. I've just been taught to be wary of false security. And yes, I know I am to hate it in myself the most, and firstly, when I find it. And JCP, whatever it's worth, I appreciate the civility that we've been able to maintain in this discussion. We haven't always been able to do that in the past, and that is progress. Later, Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I've never denied that a moral code (a very strict one) exists within the Hindu/Buddhist framework. I just think that such a priority is in conflict with it's metaphysical teachings. If all is one, if good and bad are illusory, if individuality itself is transient and unreal, then why insist so religiously on morals? Because the human mind can't dispense with divine fiat, whether it is written on stone, or on "the human heart". Buddhism is certainly not bad through and through. It contains much truth. Stephen. |
||
|
Brian James Member
since 2005-06-26
Posts 147Winnipeg |
quote: Read that over to yourself a few times. Emphasis on "the bus." As far as its own principles are concerned, absolute relativism differs from other religious dogmas only in being a lot more naive. It's actually kind of funny, when you think about it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Buddhism asserts that every cause has an effect. But doesn't it also assert that every cause IS an effect? Choice or will denies that our behavior is merely caused by previous events. And if that is so, then religiously speaking, the moral question becomes paramount again ... not merely a part of a larger propositional framework. The will is something very different, miraculous, set right in the midst of the machine. So the way I see it, even "Karma" has to do more with the moral question, than with blind mechanics ,,, because it deals with the effects not of blind causes, but of chosen actions of morally responsible beings. The part of Buddhism that really stumbles me is it's insistence on the unreality of the individual. If there is no "I", then how can a significant moral question really exist? Also there is no distinction between good and evil, in the Buddhist framework (except embedded in the moral code). Good and Evil are unreal categories that we create in spiritual ignorance, according the Masters. Therefore, it seems to me, their Karmic system (on which much depends ... even the final liberation of the soul), is free-floating, and incongruous with the metaphysical teachings of Buddhism Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Baba: quote: I missed something here, and if I may comment to clarify ... By presenting the "Law" in the way I did, (as an impossible and ever-frustrating standard) I only described one function ... one aspect of the law. But there are surely others. The law is also divided into categories: Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral. Here are the functions of the law as I see them: 1) To provide social order and stability in a chaotic and sinful world. (primarily the Civil Law) Romans 13:1-5; 1 Timothy 1:9-11 2) To provide the Jewish people with a religious culture rich in symbolism, that was to be prophetic and point them to their coming Messiah. (primarily the Ceremonial Law) Hebrews 10:1 3) To help those under the Law, through frustration and failure, to see the need for something (or someone) more ... since law can never reform, but only convict of the need to. (Primarily the Moral Law) Romans 5:20,21; Romans 7:7-13 4) To provide a sense of Moral beauty, and to point to something even greater than itself ... namely, Faith and Love. (Primarily the Moral Law) Galatians 3:23-26; Romans 7:6 ;Romans 13:9-10 So, I wasn't trying to say that you are wrong. there is indeed more to the law than just something to frustrate us. But God, knowing our sinful hearts, knew that we were prone to be satisfied with a mere moral system of "dos and don'ts" unless that very system frustrated us, and revealed that we needed something more... unless the richness of moral teaching revealed an internal emptiness. And I guess that's the whole of what I am trying to say ... You and Mike are both right to recognize a need for something deeper and more universal than moral and religious observations. But it is through faith in the person of Christ, that it comes. Saying that salvation is simply to "Love your neighbor" is nothing more than restating the problem for me and my slow-to-love heart. It is a reiteration of the law. Here's another way of putting it... Loving your neighbor as yourself is a fulfillment of the later half of the Ten Commandments ... (don't Commit adultery, murder, steal, covet, bear false witness). But the first 4 or 5 have to do with how we relate to God ... (Have no other gods, make no graven image, don't use God's name in vain, Keep the Sabbath). So no matter how one tries to love one's neighbor ... there is still the question of God himself. And to say that truth is dictated by the individual ... that God is whatever a person says he is ... is not fulfilling the first and greatest commandment ... To love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and mind, which fulfills the first half of the 10 commandments. Notwithstanding the various interpretations (and imperfections) men have clouded the message with, there is still the general revelation of God as given in the Bible which bears the marks of divinity. There are still saints among the pseudo-saints and heretics. There is pure love and devotion among the mediocrity we see at large. Like stars they have shown throughout history to give us light. And so to reject Christ (after the knowledge is given) and still speak of "pleasing God" by loving one's neighbor, leads to the question: "which god"? The Christian God is a very particular view of God. The Jewish view of God, before Christ, was one of keeping strict laws and bloody animal sacrifice. The pagans have never agreed on who god is, so much so that their gods even battled among themselves, being only amplified humanity. The Hindu gods have passed beyond definition, and deny that there even is a good and evil. In short ... relativism of truth, does not lead to Mike's conclusion of "Just Love everyone as yourself". Militant Muslims consider heroic and bloody Jihad one of the greatest services that can be rendered to Allah. "Heaven's Gate" cult followers thought that their god wanted them to commit suicide and catch a spacecraft to utopia. Etc ... Etc ... In short, what I'm saying is, Mike is seeing the Truth, just not all of it yet. What he is saying about love is all true and good. But it is a particular revelation (very very Christian actually)... not the necessary logical conclusion of subjective searching. Nietzsche was one of the most logical philosophers I ever read, but "lovey-dovey" was a slave mentality within his mind ... and "Will to Power" was preferred philosophy. A child may vociferously announce to all that he doesn't like apple roots, and with good reasons ... being all dirty, brown, smelly and grotesquely figured, and still excitedly talk about apple pie and cider. But sooner or later such reasoning may have to change. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephan, Don't have time to get into this with you but you have to go back to the four Noble Truths: 1. Life is suffering. 2. Suffering is caused by desire. 3. Suffering ends with the end of desire. 4. Desire ends by following the 8 fold path. Karma ain't as all encompassing as you think. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
But isn't it still "Karma" that determines whether or not one overcomes desire through the eight fold path, ... whether or not one escapes "samsara" or remains on the wheel? And the eight fold path, is certainly a morally charged formula. So isn't Karma the standard, or judge, as it were, of the life of the Buddhist? Stephen. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
Interesting points, Stephanos. However, your argument seems to be structured towards someone who is a Relativist, and that would be an inaccurate description of my views on spirituality. I believe in free will, and that means that there are wrong choices, that all paths, regrettably, do not lead to the top of the mountain. However, I also believe that there is not just one path. Spiritual truths, by their eternal nature, cannot be defined, because to define something is to place limits on it. In science, laws are merely observations about what will always occur in given circumstances, and what has been shown not to. They are not really forces unto themselves, but descriptions of observed forces. It is no different with spirituality. God can be thought of as an Other, yes, but he is also a part of the human heart and psyche, and does, as you said, meet us on a relational basis. My point is that religious laws are simply observations that, when it's difficult for us to judge for ourselves which is the surest path of action to align our beings with God, generally hold true, because it has been observed through direct experience that they are valid guidelines. However, any sort of definition or rule can only help us to get so far, before we have to meet God from within, and establish our own code of conduct. This is where my relativist friends stop nodding and look at me like "We thought you were on our side..." Because God isn't just out there, but is also an inextricable part of the human psyche, soul, and heart (I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his brother, saying: 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest." -Hebrews 8:10,11), then contacting him within, letting Christ into your heart, being absorbed in the Atman, letting the Holy Spirit move through you, whatever you want to call it, alleviates the individual from the need to consult others about "right" conduct. Making it your own self-discipline to be in that inner place as often as you can, and becoming a true instrument of the divine, is what cultivates the fruits of spirituality. It is not the same as just doing what you want or following mere passing whims. God's moral law adapts itself to every nation, society, and individual, in order that they should be able to meet him at an intimate and loving level within. It is not entirely subjective or objective, but has elements of both. God's law is supremely flexible, but not relative. I am with you one hundred percent when you say that there is an objective, moral effect for every action, but I believe that it's symptomatic of the larger spiritual question, and that is "To what extent have I involved God in my life?" Therefore, in my defense of Buddhist and Hindu beliefs (I'm not knowledgeable enough for Islam; if I was ever caught reading the Koran my father would cheerfully burn me at the stake), I contend that they address this question directly, and that dogmatic contradictions are merely a problem of semantics, which is the angle I will now take. The Buddhists deny that Good and Evil are inherent elements of the universe, but use them as convenient concepts in showing the way to enlightenment. This is not in conflict with Buddhist metaphysical teachings. First of all, the Buddha's goal was never to explain how the universe actually worked, or even to communicate the full insights he gained. His primary goal was to alleviate the suffering inherent in the human condition using the most convenient means possible (suffering here is not defined as all negative experiences, but rather as the discontentment that arises from grasping at transient states, good or bad). Understanding something intellectually is not the same as letting the truth of it really sink into you and letting it transform your consciousness. Therefore, mental constructs which are most conducive to this type of intuitive knowledge are adopted. They are the vehicle, not the destination. So, basically, the Buddhist code stems from "do this, and you get to this place", as a simple observation based on experience, not a question of values based on Good and Evil as forces unto themselves. Karma, within the framework of Buddhist metaphysical concepts, is not really a judge, in that no "entity-esque" features are ascribed to it. It is simply an observation about how the universe works. We are all intimately connected with our environment, each other, the planet, the cosmos, etc. Time and space make this fact less apparent, but time is not really an objective force in and of itself (Stephen Hawking explains this MUCH better than I can in Brief History of Time), and space has been shown not to be an obstacle to the spiritual adept when they did the experiments about the effect of praying. Therefore, when one is attempting to construct a moral code through which to bring themselves closer to the Creator of the Universe, it's just a lot easier to do it in accordance with the rules that He set up. Yes, yes, the buddhists don't believe in a God per se, but I'm getting to that part. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
The Buddhists simply do not define a God, because any time you define something you place limitations on it. They understood that if they tried to ascribe any sort've particular qualities to God that they couldn't possibly ever get them all accurate, because of God's eternal and vast nature. They do not find it to be a helpful concept, because of the intellectual difficulties which could keep a person hung up on fine points instead of evolving spiritually. However, cultivating compassion, truth, patience, etc. are sure-fire ways to meet God very quickly, and just because the Buddhists choose not to call overwhelming love and peace towards everything "God" or "The Holy Spirit" does not mean that this is not what they are experiencing. God, or Absolute Reality, or Nirvana, are transcendent of existent/non-existent ideas. Ideas can only help us open the right doors at the non-verbal level that JCP described, the level of love which transcends ego and selfishness. Ditto for their stance on the soul. Hinduism describes much the same process, but finds the concept of a soul to be helpful, and so their religious structure is different. They call it the Atman, and believe that any honest attempt to identify one's consciousness with it instead of primarily with the flesh will receive a response from God: "Quickly I come To those who offer me Every action, Worship me only, Their dearest delight, With devotion undaunted. Because they love me These are my bondsmen And I shall save them From mortal sorrow And all the waves Of Life's deathly ocean. Be absorbed in me, Lodge your mind in me: Thus you shall dwell in me, Do not doubt it, Here and hereafter." -From the Bhagavad-Gita The argument I hear most is that Brahman is just a pagan, ambiguous God who doesn't have that kind've power, etc etc. However, when dealing with a subject like God that is beyond all language and description, a degree of ambiguity is to be expected, and may even be a good sign. The reason Hinduism has survived for so long is because of its emphasis on God's flexibility and universal nature. When the Christian missionaries first attempted to convert the Hindus, they met with very little intellectual resistance, because Hinduism, at its core, does not confine its gods to scenarios of "if it doesn't go by this name, and this name only, then it ain't really God". They freely admit that God is beyond man's imaginaning or direct perception, and that God embraces anyone who honestly wishes to respond to him within their being. So if the British wanted to call one of their gods Jehovah, why not? The contradiction inherent in this stance is that one of God's commandments is for us to have no other gods before Him. However, I feel that this is a gesture towards making things less complicated and to directing humanity's attention towards the essential oneness of all things. Therefore, any attempts to sort out The God from other gods can be very helpful, because it requires spiritual discrimination, an excellent thing to cultivate, but this process should not be based on attempting to define God. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
Okay, my last thought before I head out for some vittles... My previous posts are all well and good, but what about the question of spiritual salvation in relation to heaven and hell? My thoughts are simple: believing in Christ is a phenomena which, although often catalyzed through intellectual processes, is something that takes place in the heart, whatever name one gives to it, and that the presence of the "fruits of spirituality" are sure signs that, whatever the ideas of the individual, Jesus is at work in their heart. Our consciences direct us towards it, and whatever ideas we have about it can only be evaluated by their capacity to bring us closer or further away from Christ within. I'd like to reiterate the importance of the fact that spiritual truths transcend rational thought and linear thinking. Such processes can be helpful, but whether or not you believe that Jesus was an actual person, (AND I MOST DEFINITELY DO!) is irrelevant to the greater question, which is: Do you answer him when he calls you from within? So, in closing, I stick with my original congrats to JCP (would you rather be called Mike?) for having made friends with Jesus at the most important level of all. "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:24 |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
Baba, You display great wisdom in your post, even if I didn't agree with or disagree with what you posted, but I don't believe you would ever change the mind of Stephanos. His mind is made up, and has been for quite some time. Whatever you post, he will come back with a biblical post to retort what you have said. Mind you, I am not putting Stephanos down, I am merely stating what is fact. There are people who believe in a ONE WAY. They always will. No matter which way that is, to them, it is only ONE WAY. To people like us, we understand that there is more than ONE WAY, and respect each way, even if it differs from ours. All I can say is this... through all I have studied, it is clear in my mind, that the true Creator has never, ever, cornered his/her self to any one manmade religion, but can be found in the hearts of his/her creation throughout the planet. Seriously, has any one out there ever loved another more than him or herself? How about loving even total strangers more than the self? I have, and it is a lonely place to be. Jesus commited the ultimate sacrifice, and that sacrifice was suicidal. He could of easily not chosen to die and save the self, but the masses were more important, so he commited suicide to save them. ... and when one feels the same in one's life, who is to say what is right or wrong with regards to when it is time to end one's life? "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Baba: quote: I think you may be more relativistic (spiritually speaking) than you think, because from what you've said I can't imagine a spiritual scenario where a person says "I'm happy with my beliefs", that you wouldn't approve upon that basis alone. That's still a high degree of subjectivism. And so I would like to ask you, where exactly (in spiritual doctrine) might unyielding objectivity actually intersect and correct the subjective? Your view presents me with another problem historically speaking, as I believe that the personal transcendent God has left us a reliable written revelation of himself (propositional truth as Francis Schaeffer called it). Through this propositional truth God has spoken to us about a particular history. And the New Testament emphatically says that salvation / redemption is exclusively through the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus himself said "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). So do you believe such sayings are not accurate concerning Jesus, and if not, why? If, conversely, you believe in their textual accuracy, how do you substantiate such an ephemeral interpretation that would throw out much of what our minds naturally tell us when we hear such words in their context? It's probably easy enough to be fluid with Buddhist / Hindu interpretations, since their "scriptures" are mainly philosophical and aphoristic texts. But the New Testament, being rooted in history (as you've attested to) is not so easy to spiritualize in a way that would contradict what the text indicates in very overt fashion. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that God is not working in and through the truths in other religions. I'm just insisting upon an exclusivity of who Christ is revealed to be ... God incarnate who has paid the penalty for our sins. Not only that, but the Old Testament dialogue about the uncleanness and danger of idolatry, keeps me from adopting a "harmless" view of syncretism. I think wrong beliefs can hurt, and there are certain doctrines, beliefs, practices, in which it would be much harder to find and keep anything of Christ (I'm referring to that experiential contact with God you mentioned), apart from renouncing those very religious expressions. About the best I can do is align myself with Paul in declaring that partial truth, though good in some ways, is not enough, and therefore an "unknown God" can be declared and seen from any religious system. But as one moves from unknown to known, dogma imposes more rigor and necessity. Lastly, Patheistic religions (Buddhism and Hinduism) and Orthodox Christianity cannot be in further disagreement on the most fundamental aspect of their beliefs ... the nature of God. One says that humanity needs only to understand that it's individuality is illusory, and by ascetic discipline and thwarting desire, escape the human condition. This flows from the personal (evil) to the impersonal (beyond good and evil). Christianity says that God is and always has been personal, having created man in his own image. Humanity, through sin, allowed something foreign and destructive to infect and spoil the personality. Therefore personality is to be redeemed and restored, not abolished or escaped from. And how is this to be accomplished? By God literally becoming a man, being born into the world of space-time, and taking on even a distinctly human personality. This flows from the imperfect personal (good and evil), back to the personal (good). quote: To define something is also to prevent a loss of meaning. Ask your optometrist. Don't rivers without banks become marshes?Now notice, in your sentence about scientific law, you said that laws were "obervations about what will always occur in given circumstances". If a law declares what will "always occur" in given circumstances, then it is more than observation ... it is also inference. No one, like David Hume proposed, could really live as if there were no uniformity of nature. He put forth a very rigorous empiricism which declared that scientific inference was a very irrational thing if epistemology only included what is directly observed ... which philosophy led him to a scepticism that evntually bordered on insantiy. Christianity however, declares that reliable knowledge of God comes in two fashions. 1) Natural theology ... or human inference about what is seen. 2) Special revelation. But both of these methods operate on the truth that definition is not a bad thing, but a necessary thing. The former is man defining God, based upon what he observes. The latter is God telling man (propositionally) what he is like. That doesn't mean that human knowledge of God is exhaustive, just that it is knowable. And to be knowable requires definition. The Judeo-Christian view of God, and the revelation of the Bible, maintain the necessity of antithesis. quote: I think you may be too fluid with interpreting that passage. It is in reference to a time of Spiritual revival when many people will indeed know the Lord in a personal and individual way, therefore making secondary and elementary teachings largely unnecessary. But to equate "knowing the Lord", (a relationship with the transcendent personal God), with being absorbed into Atman, is a mistake. Because it denies the antithesis between an eastern Pantheism, and Biblical Theism. Pantheism is actually a word that creates allusions and "feelings" of personality by way of connotation. It has the word "theism" in there. And because of the history of this word, the everything (Pan) is endowed with the overtones of personality, becoming more attractive. But a study of the eastern view reveals that what is meant is really "pan-everything-ism" (to coin Schaeffer again). There is no concept of an infinite personal God, separate but involved in his creation, who has emotions and communicates propositionally. Again, the Eastern Religions deny that personality is ultimately real, and that there is no distinction between God and his creatures. When the "I" is dissolved into the cosmic basin, the impersonal ALL is realized. And so I'm not talking about consulting others about "right conduct", but about right belief about God. Sometimes this is necessary before someone can even begin to think about knowing God on a personal level. quote: Yes the larger spiritual question is "To what extent have I involved God in my life". But the question then follows, what does "God" mean? Who or what is "God"? The larger Hindu paradigm (apart from it's animistic and semi-theistic expressions) is in direct disagreement with the Christian answer to this even more fundamental question. So it's not that the Hindu approaches the question more "directly" than a Christian, but that he approaches it quite differently. quote: We'll just have to disagree on this point. I think the concept of good versus evil is inextricable in their system .. though they doctrinally can't explain it. It's no mere "convenient concept" used to explain a different concept (enlightenment). It runs all the way through, since anyone could ask whether enlightenment is good, or better than unenlightenment. In one sense the very word enlightenment is inseperable from the concept of good, because it sets itself as superior to something else, namely ignorance and darkness (which makes no sense in a system where the individual and personality itself is abolished). quote: It still raises the question as to why one should consider one place "better" than another. If the answer is in experience alone ... then why did Siddhartha criticize the lifestyles of the rich and complacent ones whose "experience" led them to different conclusions? quote: It has elements that go beyond this however ... especially in it's determinancy to allow one to escape Samsara, or to enter into bliss. This is nowhere in the realm of observation. I honestly don't see the difference between such a force, and a moral judge. Though the arbitration of Karma in the Hindu/Buddhist framework, is divorced from personality and from good and evil ... it is irrationally done in my opinion. If Karma is merely what you say, then Buddhists attribute to it, way too much influence. quote: I already mentioned how I think the unwillingness to accept knoweable definition, leads to loss. This is true in actual life, it is also true spiritually. quote: It is the Christian belief that God isn't beyond ALL language and description. And though such knowledge is not exhaustive, it can be both real and correct. I'm simply saying that "a degree of ambiguity" denies Hinduism its fullness of ambiguity. The Judeo-Christian scriptures have "a degree of ambiguity", more than some Christians like to admit. However, as Ravi Zacharias put it, the Hindu system is like a spiritual sponge or indiscriminate vacuum cleaner. Or to put it another way, It has opened it's arms so wide that it is now impossible to close them. quote: You are right. It is a contradiction. The oneness of all things, and discrimination, are difficult bedfellows. Try that philosophy with your spouse, and you'll get a quick reminder of the necessity of "either/ or". So why would such discrimination, as the Jew differentiating God from idols, be a good thing, if really any path would do? It must be based upon God's definition (or special revelation) of who he is, or the Jew couldn't even know who "ME" is, in that scripture. "You shall have no other gods before me". Without identification, and distinguishing features (not the featureless beinglessness of Hinduism) this commandment is impossible and irrational. Why not just say that you're an Eastern Pantheist, and that that view is right, rather than trying to force the antithetical statements of the Bible into that framework? I think I hear the vacuum cleaner again, as you would have to embrace some degree of antithesis about God, to even claim that you're right. Some things just don't belong in a vacuum cleaner.  quote: But who is Jesus? (smile). I'm still going to insist on a historical man, and a God who is not whatever you want him to be. But (hold your breath here) I actually agree with you here more than you think. the very fact that Mike is identifying "loving your neighbor as yourself" as a right piece in relating to God, tells me his is moving closer to 1) a historical Jesus (that's actually a quote of Jesus out of the gospels), and 2) a knoweable God who differentiates between love and non-love or hate. In that sense, yes, someone can be close to the spirit of Christ, while still stumbling at his exclusive claims. But this is often done, despite the stumbling point. What I was trying to show Mike, in a respectful way, was that to believe in a personal God, and one who delights in love, is actually at odds with his "my truth, your truth" philosophy. Because this is a particular kind of God. Indeed a very Judeo-Christian God. And I have no problem if someone, having been offended at whatever, discovers him in their own pace and way. The fact is ... him is still him. (That was quite a breach in grammar I know). Sometimes a divorce from tradition, or custom, is necessary to go and, as G.K. Chesterton described, discover England again: "I am the man who with the utmost daring discovered what had been discovered before. If there is an element of farce in what follows, the farce is at my own expense; for this book explains how I fancied I was the first to set foot in Brighton and then found I was the last. It recounts my elephantine adventures in pursuit of the obvious. No one can think my case more ludicrous than I think it myself; no reader can accuse me here of trying to make a fool of him; I am the fool of this story, and no rebel shall hurl me from my throne. I freely confess all the idiotic ambitions of the nineteenth century. I did, like all other solemn little boys, try to be in advance of the age. Like them I tried to be some ten minutes in advance of the truth. And I found that I was eighteen hundred years behind it. I did strain my voice with a painfully juvenile exaggeration in uttering my truths. And I was punished in the fittest and funniest way, for I have kept my truths: but I have discovered, not that they were not truths, but simply that they were not mine. (G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy) I'm not trying to call Mike a fool, as Chesterton did himself. Actually Chesterton is one of the wisest I can think of. I'm just saying that I understand the need to distance oneself, from offense or misconception, and then to come to the same truths afresh. Originality may be lost, but a treasure is nonetheless gained. quite an interesting talk, later and Merry Christmas everyone!, Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
oops. Double post. Please remove. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"I'm not trying to call Mike a fool, as Chesterton did himself. Actually Chesterton is one of the wisest I can think of. I'm just saying that I understand the need to distance oneself, from offense or misconception, and then to come to the same truths afresh. Originality may be lost, but a treasure is nonetheless gained." ~ You said this three times already, at least, and I still don't know why you are saying it. Deep into your own water, is what I think... time to come up for some air. And Ches never called me a fool, as far as I know. I think this, or should I say, these, identitical replies by Stephanos says much... it says how much one has to defend himself, in this case, in what he believes, in order to try to show that any other belief is incorrect... refer to my previous entry to understand why. "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: That means "as Chesterton did (call) himself". I wasn't saying that Chesterton called you a fool. If you read carefully the passage, he calls himself a fool for "discovering" seemingly new and heretical truths that were really old and orthodox. I just felt that I could see some of the same process going on with you ... I just disagree with Chesterton that this makes one a fool. If that's so then call me a fool. I've done the same thing. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
JCP: quote: I almost missed this. I just have to comment. (nothing like us keeping things buzzing in these forums eh Mike?) Jesus committed suicide?? I think that's an inaccurate statement for 2 reasons: 1) sacrificial death (to save someone else) is not viewed as suicide by any culture, else you'd have to say rescue workers who die during rescue attempts, are "suicidal". 2) Historically, Jesus was betrayed, arrested, and sentenced to death by the Jewish leaders, and the Roman Government. He did not die by his own hand. Nor did he want to die, for it's own sake. He prayed "If it be possible let this cup pass from me". Isn't there a difference between loving someone more than yourself, and not loving yourself at all? Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Your analogy, I think, says much about your arguments, Stephen, and serves well to strengthen Baba's/Michael's point. A river becomes a marsh only when the river is finite. p.s. Just as a reminder, guys, these forums will not condone nor support a romanticized, non-medical viewpoint of suicide. Some of JCP's comments are already dangerously close to that line and I would hate to see a good thread ruined by crossing it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I can think of at least one River (described in the book of Revelation) that is not described as finite. Who is limiting God now? To say that he can't have definition and still be divine, is a limiting statement. "Infinite" in Hindu philosophy and "eternal" in Christian Theology are two different things. One is absolutely inclusive, the other is absolutely determinate. There is a difference. If God is determinate of things being good and others being not good ... if God has a personality ... if God has definable attributes then all-inclusiveness doesn't fit with his revelation to us. That's my point... not that Baba is completely wrong. I actually agree with him. that by the grace of God, people who hold different religions can still see much truth and be prepared, as it were, for the gospel ... the gospel both affirming, and correcting certain things. And in a way that's true of the most "Christian" settings too. I just have to insist that he is still himself, not the impersonal "ALL" of Hinduism, New-age philosophy, and Neo-orthodoxy. If God makes any distinctions between righteousness and unrighteousness, or between truth and non-truth, the river has banks, no matter how infinite it is. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-24-2005 08:53 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I'm not quite as willing to tell God what He can and can't be, Stephen. Nor am I so convinced He has told me all He has to tell. Parent, child, lover, best friend -- I doubt I know anyone well enough to definitively define them as a human being. I don't think I know even myself that well. Forgive me if I'm unwilling to accept that God is so simple. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But saying that God is neccessarily complex, and always too complex to be understood, is also putting a limitation on him. Surely if something as little as a crumb may be simple and understood, someone as mighty as God can be too. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
JCP, it may be that Stephanos believes in only one way, but I respect that, and am not trying to change anyone's beliefs on this forum. I just really love to argue. Stephanos, this has been a wonderful debate, and afterwards, I look forward to ending this destructive conflict and ruling the galaxy as father and son. With that said... I'd like to begin by reasserting my criterion for what constitutes a "correct" spiritual path as opposed to just flying off in the wrong direction. I never said that being happy with one's beliefs is a sign that their beliefs are valid, or that any path will do. I said that production and cultivation of the fruits of the spirit- kindness, compassion, humility, selfless love, wisdom, patience, etc. are the telltale signs of one who is on good terms with God. Examples of bad paths? Scientology, Satanism, and anyone whose cult involves suicide. I do not think that they are correct by any means, and so I am not a relativist. Absolute objectivism intersects and corrects subjectivity when the invidvidual sits down to pray, meditate, do yoga, whatever, with an incorrect concept or question about how they should live their lives in accordance with the Spirit, and during this time with God, the correction comes through insight. To put it another way, I believe that God has different plans for everyone, and it is up to the individual to tune in and listen to what it is. Therefore, the objective fact is that God works with everyone in different ways, so that everyone's spiritual path is unique. They all share common qualities, which is the objective factor, but the subjective factor can not come from simple obedience to society's rules and ideas about God. It comes from within. I never said that one finds salvation without Jesus. However, conflict between Christianity and other religions occur because of limited definitions of Jesus Christ. Hastily answering the question "What and who is/was Jesus?" is the problem. As with God, defining Jesus creates limited mental scenarios which give rise to the type of questions children always ask, the most common being "What happens to the people who've never heard of him?" If we confine recognition of Jesus to be something which merely occurs at the physical level, as I've said before, then we have not grasped his glory or his sacrifice in the most critical ways. Yes, Jesus was a real person, the Son of God, who performed miracles, but as such, he was also a highly spiritual being, free of illusion, and most capable of putting spiritual truths into their approximate human language equivalents. Concentrating on the historical background of his physical personage is a rich, educational pursuit, but not central to his message of love. Spiritualizing Jesus's message is the most useful and productive thing anyone could possibly do with it, because spiritual truth is, really, the only constant truth. Everything else is in a state of constant flux and change. The naturalness with which my mind reports to me is no indicator of whether or not the subject of its report is being correctly interpreted. Our natural inclinations are generally based on habit and prior experience, and are certainly useful for mundane affairs, but in dealing with something as complex and transcendent as Jesus's message, we must go way deeper than "what our minds naturally tell us." I certainly don't doubt the textual accuracy of the bible. Making it out to be some kind've flawed document is, of course, a copout, and generally used by people who don't want to take the time to think about it, and that's something I think we can all agree on. However, if an "ephemeral" interpretation of the scriptures causes us to throw out doctrines which prevent us from condescending to other religions, I think it is a line of thought worth pursuing. Yes, my interpretations of the scriptures are very fluid, and very spiritual, but that's because I believe it ought to be applicable in any situation anywhere, at any point in earth's history or future. Spiritual truths are by their very nature fluid and, well, spiritual. Attaching them to physical, transient events and circumstances may serve quite well for particular cultures at particular times, but spiritual truths do not require physical details in order to be valid, and with a literal, physical interpretation, one is presented with the contradictions which plague cross-culture religious dialogue. Eastern religions are not often based on historical events and places, but that far from renders them invalid or inferior to christian beliefs. A spiritual truth is a spiritual truth, regardless of its historical/sociological circumstances, and the sooner a person can cut the fat and get to the heart of what's most important, the better, which is what buddhism, Daoism, and Hinduism try to do. If scientists were to disprove (this is, of course, theoretical; i believe in all Jesus's miracles because my intuition tells me he truly was awesome like that) that Jesus had actually performed any of the miracles it was purported he did, it wouldn't matter in the slightest to someone who had benefited from his teachings and met him in their own heart. Spiritual truths are the only valid guidelines by which to live, and basing the validity of Jesus solely, or even mostly, on physical circumstances only distorts his message. I also believe that wrong beliefs can hurt, but if one defines wrong beliefs simply as "different than one's own" then they are isolating themselves from others, and this is against Jesus's message of loving others freely and without reservation. There can not be condescension mixed into one's love and respect. When moving from unknown to unknown, one develops a sense of humility about the ignorance of the human state of being, that we cannot truly "know" anything intellectually, and forces one to live a more spiritually virtuous life. Dogma is a substitution for real spiritual knowledge and experience. As for my statements about scientific law, I should've gone ahead into that topic while I was on it. Every scientific law ever put forth by man has been later shown to be false or severely flawed, and the current ones are, as we speak, being re-examined. With the advent of quantum mechanics, re-examination of basic concepts about gravity, time, the "emptiness" of space, and the possiblity that everything is inter-connected are what scientists have their hands full with right now. Science constantly uproots itself in an attempt to get to the bottom of things, and in the process, shows that we human beings build our picture of the universe on top of shakey, constantly-changing "laws", observed and filtered by a limited, biological organ. When I said "always", I did not mean it in an eternal sense, only in the sense that a given phenomenon has not been observed which would prove otherwise. But that could change at any time, as it is currently for many of the basic "laws" that we used to hold as solid. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
Again, Buddhism... First of all, the aim of buddhism is not to destroy or abolish anything, least of all the Self. It is to become non-attached to desire and the Self in order to experience Absolute Reality. Being non-attached to something does not mean pushing it away or destroying it. That's detachment. Neither is it embracing- attachment. It is a state of peace and harmony with all things that is the natural result of quieting the mind and becoming aware. The moral or qualitative nature of enlightenment as opposed to non-enlightenment is likewise lacking in any such inherent value. The assignment of values to ideas, actions, or things, depends on the objective of the one assigning. The Buddha's lifegoal was to show as many people as possible the way he had discovered to enlightenment. Therefore, values of "good and "evil" (actually, these terms are not used in buddhism; instead, actions are classified as to whether they are "skillful" or "unskillful" in relation to the goal of waking up) are merely temporary concepts, as I've said before, adopted in order to achieve that goal, and are not rightly part of buddhist metaphysical concepts. Siddhartha Gautama did not criticize the lifestyles of the rich, because he thought they were inherently bad or evil. He was merely pointing out that such habits do not promote enlightenment. As to the "betterness" of enlightenment as opposed to other states of being, an experienced buddhist does not use subjunctive forms of grammar in reference to it. There is no "should be" "ought to have been" or "would be better" about enlightenment. That is why buddhists see no reason to run around trying to convert as many people as possible. It's simply an option, a way, and they do not view it as superior to other states of being. It just so happens that many people find the idea of enlightenment preferable; however, this is not indicative of buddhist thought, but a commonly held perception independent of buddhist doctrine. If accounts of the buddha's life are to be taken the least bit seriously, then no, pure bliss is not outside observation. I still don't see why you find Karma to be an irrational concept. It's very useful. As you sow, so shall you reap and all that good stuff, what goes around comes around, etc. Karma is just the name given to a property of the universe, stemming from the essential oneness of all things. It logically follows that, in order to be at harmony with the universe, one takes into account its properties and the ways it works. Arranging one's working methods around an undeniable force in the universe is not "attributing too much" to it, any more than putting engines on airplanes is attributing too much to gravity. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
And as for Hinduism... I never said that Hindus approach the primary question of spirituality "more directly" than Christians do. I merely contend that to say that Christians do it more directly or more accurately is presumptuous. Yes, Hindus do hold their arms very wide, but is there such a thing as "too wide" when dealing with infinity? Furthermore, saying that their picture of "who/what God is" is extremely ambiguous is completely inaccurate. Multiple accounts of him/her are given, yes. They are often abstract and require long contemplation, yes, but they are not all that difficult once you've spent some time getting comfortable with them. Any Hindu will tell you that the idea of there being many gods is only to account for the fact that God has so many qualities (being infinite and all), but that one God is something at the root of Hindu tradition. In fact, sometimes instead of using the name of a particular deity, some texts simply say "aspect." God, as viewed by Hinduism, is certainly not featureless or lacking in personality, a statement that makes me wonder just how much Hindu literature you've actually read. I firmly believe that the idea of God having many aspects is also a very strong theme within the bible, and is perfectly compatible with Hinduism. Hindus could even be said to be more descriptive of God. In fact, many Hindus are exclusively monotheists. Others believe that the divine is in everything in the natural world, and I agree with them. If the Holy Spirit isn't breathing life into the world, what is? Implying that the Hindu perception of God as having many different manifestations is idolatrous is like saying that Christians are hypocrites for talking to burning bushes or for worshipping three Gods; the level of contemplation given to the trinity is also necessary for the study of hinduism. Spiritual discrimination, used within the Buddhist or Hindu context, is, as I've said before, not an explicit statement about the state or arrangment of the universe itself. Discrimination is cultivated and used so that we can see through the illusions of ignorant views aobut life in order to experience its essential oneness. This is not to say that illusions are not part of the universe, that they are bad, or that buddhists/hindus try to destroy them. In the interests of living a spiritually rich life, one cultivates discrimination and steers clear of illusion in order to bring themselves closer to God. So, simply put: Step 1: illusion of separateness Step 2: use of discrimination Step 3: experience of oneness They are not mutually exclusive elements, but rather different steps of the same equation, much as Water isn't "contradictory" to chemical bonding or hydrogen. Believing that the judeo-christian definitions or qualitative experiences with God are more valid than those of other religions is undefendable. God never came down with the explicit purpose of trying to explain exactly who he was or how he worked. Therefore, we can conclude that this is not information he thought was all that important in our spiritual walks. He will guide us towards towards him/herself in whatever way he/she sees fit, and if illustrating notions of itself in different manifestations helps, then so be it. That is the Hindu take on defining God. In other words, although the judeo-christian view of God is nowhere near as nonspecific as buddhism or hinduism, in order to explain to other religions why christianity has a more accurate view of him they would have to prove that any given quality of God within the said religions was completely false, in a definite way. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
This is my last point for the evening... *backs slowly away as he is menaced with a lightsaber, cradling hewn hand* I'LL NEVER JOIN YOU! Essorant, you have a good point. That is why, when asked if enlightened monks became reborn, the Buddha simply said: The term "reborn" does not apply, the term "not reborn" does not apply, and the terms "both reborn and not reborn" do not apply. He is profound, immeasurable, unfathomable, like the great ocean... Acceptance of Jesus depends first on determining who he is. If Jesus were simply a man, or the Son of God in any isolated sort of way, then salvation would, according to his written word, be made possible only through knowledge of said personage. However, Jesus is identified as part of an inseperable, indivisible, eternal trinity, and that means that dealing with one aspect, one any level of one's being, of the trinity (the Holy Spirit or the Father) means that they are simultaneously dealing with all aspects of the trinity. Therefore, if, due to prompting by one's conscience, discontent with life, or whatever, a person chooses to align their consciousness (that is to say, their mind, body, and soul) with that inner presence, then they are as saved as saved can get, and will not need introduction to any gospel in the afterlife, because they will have already accepted Jesus in the most intimate way. Therefore, a path must be chosen (and not just any path, a good'un) which cultivates the qualities necessary for such an inner relationship, and it is my assertion that Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism are equal to one another in this regard. Well... having safely dispelled any ideas that I might have a social life, I will now retire to bed. Frohe Weihnacht, alle! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Baba, It has been an enjoyable interchange. And I do appreciate your humor and your courtesy. Let's continue ... quote: No, you never said that But are you adquately addressing the problem of a too wide, non-specific definition of Christ? I've conceded your point about truth in other religions ... even Christ at work in other religious settings. How I marvel and appreciate how gracious God was to the Magi, (in the Nativity story in the Bible), who were probably Babylonian astrologers. Here was a very eastern, even occultic pagan tradition, out of which came ardent worshippers of Christ. The wideness of God's power and influence are astounding, and often, from unexpected quarters, we see such examples. Of course, Babylon did have a strain of influence through the Old Testament Daniel, of the One True God. And who knows but that example of Daniel didn't create a crude but passionate following outside of Israel, of Israel's God? But if not, can we realistically imagine that the discovery of Christ by the Magi, merely resulted in them returning home to the same religious expressions, without reform, correction, or renunciation? I can't. You've already rightly said that Christ, being the Son of God, was also a historical person. That alone, warrants close attention to what he said and did. You've already rightly said that trumping up historical faults with the Bible is avoidance of the issue. So, what best makes sense out of the kinds of things Jesus actually said? The attempt to harmonize Hindu/ Buddhist philosophy with Jesus, is an enterprise which tends to leave us with large portions of text, unexplained and unelucidated. And worse, those excerpts in their own context, if read in an ordinary way, deny or contradict the all-inclusiveness of Eastern religion. And don't misrepresent my use of the word "ordinary". It would be very easy to take my description of "ordinary reading", and make it seem unimaginative or unspiritual, and the sycretistic way therefore "extraordinary". What I really mean by "ordinary", is the most common and contextual way we would read any text. It is not flying away from the text to force it into another system, or a preconceived view, but reading as you would read other narrative / historical texts. The same phenomenon happened, I think, with your use of "spiritual" versus "physical". The connotation of the word "spiritual" (in the sense of being the opposite of unspiritual) is a positive one. So if your intepretation of a scripture is more "spiritual", and mine more "physical", you seem to gain by the positive connotation of the word, because mine is assumed to be unspiritual. But the word spiritual, as the opposite of physical, is a totally different sense of the word. And the positive connotation shouldn't be counted on. Actually spiritual and physical are both neutral words, as far as being sacred (ie spiritual) is concerned. A demonic spirit is "spiritual" in one sense, but nevertheless devilish in nature. A loving mother breastfeeding her infant is "physical" in once sense, but nevertheless can be sacred. I just wanted to clarify that. So, this "ordinary" way of reading and understanding text, is what is lost, when one tries to allow the Hindu/Buddhist system to absorb the Christian God, as it has millions of other gods. Others refer to this different approach of things as "exoteric" versus "esoteric" interpretation. Sadly, "exoteric interpretation" is maligned with bad connotations again ... of being too-strict, narrow, unimaginative, unspiritual. "Esoteric interpretations", however, are laced with positive descriptions of being liberated, enlightened, unbound by man's rules, spiritual etc ... While there are spiritual truths in scripture, and deep symbolic poetic interpretations (I have nothing against that). They still must not ignore or contradict the ground-level interpretation, of what was done or said in space-time. If the spiritual contradicts and actually refutes the physical, then we have gone astray, by dividing the word of God against itself into a Kirkegaardian dualism. And it's not that I'm against speculating and seeing what truth may be seen in scripture. But unless a person has truly wrestled with the New Testament words as simple reportage of a historical person who claimed to be divine, I don't think he's really fitted for such speculation. Because there is no corrective anchor to keep one away from the rocks. I wonder how many are struggling on the rocks even now, ideologically speaking, overwhelmed by post-modern thought or Eastern philosophy . I wonder, for instance, if some professing Christians are now finding it difficult to even say that the statements "Jesus is the son of God" and "Jesus is not the son of God" must be mutually exclusive. The Bible says expressly that our faith stands upon the one, and falls upon the other. quote: This is an example of what I was mentioning before. Does the Bible seem to suggest that the historical aspect of Christ is "not central" to his message of love? I would say that it is central enough, that without it we fall into heresy. If you study Church history, Docetism was the error of those who divorced Christ from human history. It has been refuted quite thoroughly using the testimony of scripture. It was espoused mainly by the Gnostics, who leaned more toward such a "spiritual" interpretation of Jesus Christ. It's interesting that the Gnostics did not have much success in supporting their views from the earliest writings of the New Testament. They went on to write their views in additional texts (pseudepigraphal). Why? Because that annoying tendency for men to read texts, as if they actually meant what they said, made the apostolic texts inadequate for the purposes of Gnosticism. Everything is in flux or change, including the space-time history of Jesus Christ? Consider the following scriptures, and ask yourself how central historical facts are, to the message of the gospel: "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:1-6) "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:12-17) Again, if I may respectfully say ... The Hindu/Buddhist system can easily absorb the Christian History as just another "divine" text, without the need of it being historically or spiritually true. But that results in nothing but an emasculation of any text with exclusive truth claims. It deconstructs the text, as it were, and then says, "What it really means is ... Hinduism". When things in the historic text are pointed out, which tend to counter that view, the Hindu system has that covered. History is either denied, or made insignificant based on a fiat of Eastern Philosophy. Therefore it can be ignored, or reinterpreted in a purely aphoristic way ... divorced from reality, and the need to think about what Christ really said. Christ becomes a nebulous sage, that is admired for the generalized glow of persona and imagery, rather than for his very real body of teaching, and his very real actions. quote: Why do we have to abandon "what our minds naturally tell us" about a text, to go way deeper? We only have to do that if we accept the fracturing dualism that a Pantheistic view of The Bible creates ... a dichotomy between history and "spiritual" truth. quote: I agree, and spiritual truths can even be derived from stories that didn't actually happen. Consider Greek Myths or Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. But when something really happened (as you concede the New Testament to be accurate in its history), is there any need to choose or divide? History and Spiritual Truth are equally important, why not accept both. The distinction, is artificial. quote: Consider the scriptures I quoted earlier. Wouldn't you at least admit that the Bible (as a whole) says differently, if you take it as it reads? It would be more honest to say that you lean toward the Pantheistic view, rather than the Biblical one, than to try and say the Bible is really affirming the Pantheistic. Here is an example of where, to maintain your view, you'll have to completely disregard, deny, or trivialize a significant portion of scripture that plainly states that if Christianity were just another aphoristic philosophical religion, and not stubbornly historical, that such faith would be futile. quote: So your epistemology is that you can't know anything intellectually? Then why are you debating on a philosophy forum as if you really know that you can't know anything? Stubbornness, unwillingness to hear, anger, lack of humility, can all be a result of dogmatic belief. But you can't say that's the cause. The human heart, sinful, and selfish is the cause. Am I ever that way? I'm sure I am, and when I'm a Jerk, I want to apologize. But you must understand that anti-dogma is one of the most doggedly dogmatic dogmas in town. Just think about Mike. I missed THE bus didn't I? quote: Another false dichotomy. It may be, but it need not be. Some of the most virtuous people I've known are very dogmatic as far as religious beliefs are concerned. quote: What about the teaching of anatta (no self)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta quote: Perhaps with a monistic view of reality, it is hard to speak with subjective forms of grammar. But even if that's the case, Buddhist teaching is not without prescriptive language ... which emphasizes one thing and not another. Such prescriptive language, and even the word "enlightenment" itself holds the concept of "good / better" inherently. The Buddhist may deny such a connotation, but the attractiveness of his teaching depends upon it. The Buddhist himself also has to feel that enlightenment is a truly better path, or he wouldn't be urging and teaching others to take that path as well. Consider the bodhisattva of Buddhism: an enlightened teacher who out of compassion, has refused to enter nirvana in order to help others along the way of enlightenment. What sense would compassion make if there were no real category of "good"? Remember I am not arguing that Buddhists don't deny such in their doctrines, but only that they do so inconsistently with their practice and teachings. quote: It's not irrational. But it is incompatible with the metaphysical views of Buddhism ... in which all actions and motives should really be indistinguishable, both pragmatically and morally. But here is this "thing" in the universe which sets up a hierarchy. A hierarchy within a monistic system makes no sense. If it stands "above" the monad of nature, then it has ceased to be monistic, and is more compatible with the Judeo-Christian view. Karma actually imposes a dualism upon a closed system ... a clue that something is wrong with idea of a closed cyclical cosmos. quote: I would say so, seeing that infinity is literally everything. If everything is God, including contradiction, and non-truth, good and bad, life and death, etc ... then such a statement is indeed too wide to be meaningful. You even lose God in the mix. It's more irrational to say that everything is God, than simply to say everything is everything. Why else do you think that Hindus worship Kali, a female representation of God with fangs and skulls hanging about her neck? Because even the terrifying aspects of the universe, death, sickness, and cruelty, are all a part of what has always been ... what Hindus might call "god". Distinction has been lost so that ugliness and futility is also considered part of the divine. quote: Again, saying that believing that the Biblical view of Jesus is "limited", and to proceed to absorb and Christianity into a Pantheistic worldview, is to accept something other than Christianity. The Gnostics were refuted by the early Church for that same kind of doctrine. One thing for certain, that view is heterodox. And it would be more consistent for you to just say, "I disagree with the Bible when it asserts the exclusivity of Salvation through Jesus Christ, and align myself more with a monistic, pantheistic world view." Essorant: quote: That is very true, Ess. We shouldn't confuse exhaustive knowledge with genuine knowledge. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-27-2005 01:36 AM).] |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
"That is very true, Ess. We shouldn't confuse exhaustive knowledge with genuine knowledge. Stephen" excuse me, but have I been asleep or something? for I am not familiar with this distinction (but please, can you make it a short explanation? lol, thanks) |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I guess the short of it is this ... Whenever claims of Biblical certainty are made, or claims of divine revelation, someone inevitably attempts to refute it with the fact of our inability to know everything. Because we are finite, it is said, we can never know anything about an infinite God. But it does not follow that because we are finite, that God cannot communicate to us true knowledge about himself. Especially if we are really created "in his image" with some capacity to communicate. So knowledge need not be exhaustive (or to the fullest extent) in order to be genuine knowledge. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Within the realms of omnipotence, how can any two things be mutually exclusive? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: According to your view ... omnipotence and any two things which are mutually exclusive, are mutually exclusive? When you do away with proper antithesis, and make God's omnipotence to be all-inclusive, rather than the power to do all things worthy of doing (determined by him), excluding non-sense, lying, doing evil, etc ... haven't you stepped outside of a Biblical definition of omnipotence, and accepted your own philosophical one? Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Biblical definition of omnipotence, Stephen? I'm not sure I've ever seen one of those? Doesn't matter. Even if we let you define omnipotence any way you wish, Stephen, once defined, as the words I've highlighted above might suggest, it passes beyond your personal control of it. Logically, you can no more tell us what God deems worthy of doing than you can presume to tell us what God can or can't do. If God wants to do something that seems to defy mortal comprehension, like, oh I don't know, be three beings that are only one being, I for one won't try to tell Him that He can't. Similarly, if He wants to reveal a Contradictory Truth to Buddha or Muhammad, it won't be me calling Him a liar any time soon. Limitations, where they exist, are mine, and I would be a fool to try to impose my own lack of full understanding on God. The child sees contradictions that only make the adult smile knowingly. The very existence of God creates paradoxes. Whether one rejects them as contradictions or accepts them as miracles, the paradoxes will nonetheless remain. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, But where is Satan, "The Father of Lies" in your equation? The Judeo-Christian God doesn't acknowledge everything as truth. The "determined by him" part is exactly right, you can underscore that, and I'll even help. But a written revelation, full of antithesis, says that much of it has been revealed. You accuse me of determining truth for God. And yet I only encourage a plain-man's reading of the words of scripture, to support my case, not philosophical jujitsu. You however won't even speak to me on that basal level of coming to terms with scripture. How does leaping always to Quantam mechanics, or a post-modern epistemology, get to the heart of the matter? Your position sounds credible, as a thinking Christian, until you actually suggested maybe Jesus could be the son of God, and not the son of God at the same time. Could you actually comment on that theologically, and try and help me come to a real-world understanding of how such a thing might be, and how it might be compatible with orthodox faith? If not, perhaps we'll just agree to disagree again, and drop this portion of the discussion for now. Stephen. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"You accuse me of determining truth for God. And yet I only encourage a plain-man's reading of the words of scripture, to support my case, not philosophical jujitsu." ~ Many men, and women too, read the words of scripture and many of those people understand it quite differently from each other. I can't determine truth for God, but I can respect practically all religions while understanding that the Creator does not rely on one way for His/Her people to "connect" with Him/Her. ~ I think I have said this before, but I'll say it again anyway... Why would any person believe that God, having created so many different types of people, cultures, languages, etc., limit Himself to only one way in understanding, so that Her people could be eventually "saved?" That doesn't make sense to me at all. There is no doubt in my mind, that in every religion, God's truth can be found, and it is only through the human-kind, where the flaws, half-truths, lies, etc. originated and have grown to what we have today. "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
smiling here, JCP. Yep. S(HE) is above all our human descriptions and beyond our cubby-hole positions. That's IF there is any entity out there behind those clouds. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: True, but don't you concede that the Bible (when read as any other text might be read) states that salvation comes exclusively through the person of Jesus Christ? Why not just say that you disagree with the Bible on this point, rather than to force it into a totally different system? No one who wants to argue the "many paths" view ... is really addressing the texts of scripture. Rather they are belaboring the point of their own philosophical views. And to maintain such a view, is to do so at the expense of exegetical integrity, not with the support of it. The evidence for what I'm saying? Specific passages never get talked about ... but deftly avoided. Is anyone (who believes such a view) gonna be brave enough to admit that? Is it because "Biblical" prestige and respect is to be had on one's side, even if it means to revise it? I think a good lesson from the Gnostics is in order here! (those good old fashioned type heretics, who admitted their departure from Biblical orthodoxy) They wrote addendums, because it wasn't beneficial for their new dogmas, to use the stubbornly orthodox texts. But those were the days when one had to argue from texts to make much headway. Today there seems to be a reliance upon a general philosophical presupposition (deconstructionism) which makes the text either irrelevant, or too fluid to say anything definite. This general mood is not as easily retained however, when the Biblical text is actually read. It is simply my challenge that if anyone will explore what the Bible says, for themselves, resisting the prejudice that it is simply another mystically ambiguous text, they will find at least, that it honestly doesn't lend a verbal support of everythingism. Then one may find themselves becoming more free, to either agree with, or disagree with it's fundamental message, and less constrained and dictated by the spirit of the age, which is an absolute denial of absolutes, and amalgamation at all costs. Stephen. |
||
|
Mandamus Junior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 13 |
Ron and Stephanos: You guys could save yourselves a lot of time if you realized you should be talking about God's sovereignty rather than his omnipotence. Sure He's powerful ... He's God. What's far more interesting than His power, however, is that nothing - nomatter how terrible it might seem at any given time - escapes His will. Stephanos, your reference to the Magi (actually, Magians ... Medo-Persian, I think, rather than Babylonian, but I could be wrong) is an excellent example of God's sovereignty. After the Babylonians destroyed the Jewish Temple and exhiled the Jews from their homeland, a very superstitious cast of people living in and around the Babylonian emperial territory (the Magians) became exposed to the Hebrew faith, including the writings of the prophet Isaiah. The Magians who purportedly saved Jesus' life would never have known of the significance of his birth had it not been for the cruelty of the Babylonians. Enjoying this from the sidelines ... wish I had more time to play. Baba: quote: Sounds good, but it simply doesn't demonstrate a fundamental understanding of Christology - the Atonement, propitiation, justification, the meaning of "second Adam," or even the very purpose of or need for the Incarnation. Why would God "clothe" Himself in flesh if all man needed to do was take the bypass directly to God's "inner" being? Maybe my problem is that I'm assuming the Jesus that Paul worshipped is the Jesus of history. If Paul was mistaken, then surely I'm mistaken as well and you are right. But if Paul is not, then ... Mandamus |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Mandamus: quote: And maybe my problem is that I'm assuming that the Biblical writers could write well enough to make that point clear. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Real-world understanding, Stephen? I guess it depends on your world. In my real world water doesn't turn to wine and dead men don't get up and walk. So, no, I can't offer any real-world understanding. If I could, of course, there would be no need for faith. As to being compatible with orthodox faith, that again is going to depend on whose orthodoxy you want to pursue. Still, I think most would probably insist that Jesus is the Son of the Father, not the son of God, since of course Jesus IS God. Then again, the Father is also God, so your choice of wording is certainly (I wanted to say understandable, but I doubt any really understand it) not unusual. That would mean Jesus is the son of God in the sense that the Father is God, but Jesus is not the son of God in the sense that He's not the son of Himself or of the Holy Spirit. Am I just arguing silly semantics? Maybe. Or maybe human language and logic were never designed to accommodate the infinite. I might be arguing that you've already accepted, through faith, countless paradoxes that can't possibly be explained in your real-world life, not because those paradoxes make sense to you, but only because you have become habituated to them over the course of your whole life. To believe that Jesus is at once the Son of God and, simultaneously and eternally, IS God is to already accept a paradox as true, poor choice of words notwithstanding. quote: I envy you, Mike, that lack of doubt. I have many doubts, including a very strong one that "every" religion contains God's truth, and an even stronger one that ANY religion contains (or is even capable of containing) the whole truth. However, my strongest doubts are still reserved for my own limitations. I doubt I am able to tell which religions are true and which are complete fabrications. Fortunately, I also doubt the fate of humanity will ever rest on what I do or don't known. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"I have many doubts, including a very strong one that "every" religion contains God's truth, and an even stronger one that ANY religion contains (or is even capable of containing) the whole truth. However, my strongest doubts are still reserved for my own limitations. I doubt I am able to tell which religions are true and which are complete fabrications." ~ I understand your point, Ron. I think maybe I should word it differently. Not religions, but I believe there people who worship in various religions, who understand certain truths given to them by God - each in his/her own way. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"True, but don't you concede that the Bible (when read as any other text might be read) states that salvation comes exclusively through the person of Jesus Christ?" ~ For those people who can understand that particular way. Who are we to say that God, Jesus in this case, (as the trinity still bothers me and I can't understand it and actually find it to be false... which if I am wrong about that, why would God not allow one of his creations find the Trinity doctrine to be true, especially since this person, me, has prayed for understanding) the entity, or spirit if you will that is known as Jesus by those people of that era, hasn't made himself known to other cultures, in other religions, and that the human kind titled that same spirit - Jesus -in one instance and not in others? "No one who wants to argue the "many paths" view ... is really addressing the texts of scripture. Rather they are belaboring the point of their own philosophical views." ~ We been down that road before. Even Jesus says, "In vain do they worship me, believing in doctrines of men." Philosophy of men has crept into the meaning of the Bible long long time ago. "And to maintain such a view, is to do so at the expense of exegetical integrity, not with the support of it. The evidence for what I'm saying? Specific passages never get talked about ... but deftly avoided." ~ I have never deftly avoided any biblical passages. I simply disagree with how you, and many others, interpret it. "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Now we're getting somewhere, and I see some very common ground. You're right that I do accept paradoxes by faith, and not because they make complete "sense" to me. But I think it's safe to say that the ones I accept (concerning God) are expressed and given assent in the pages of the Bible. The Trinity for example. But there are other paradoxes which are not given assent in the Bible, and are actually refuted by the scriptures. Let me suggest a few easy ones: God is wicked / God is good. God is a liar / It is impossible for God to lie God has a personality (like a person) / God has no personality (like an idol of stone) God created mankind/ Mankind created god. If I will concede your point about apparant paradoxes, that Lions sometimes lie down with lambs, would you consider conceding my point about true paradoxes? ... that in reality do not rest together, and never will? If you choose to remain agnostic about knowing which are which ... fine. A partial concession will suit me for now. I think the discomfort of an unbroken agnosticism will perhaps help you to at least doubt it, from time to time. And if I may say so, I think you deny certain paradoxes more than you admit. For you to ever say and believe that "Jesus is Lord", you have to believe that the contrary is not true. And the barest profession of Christianity, denies a paradox somewhere ... and to defend those kinds of paradoxes, I believe, would put one's faith in Jeopardy. Don't you remember how Peter was commended by Jesus himself for saying "You are the Christ, the son of the living God"? That kind of confidence is good to have, and not surrender to the spirit of the age. But maybe you exist Ron (my own personal paradox? lol), to remind me that Peter, immediately after his noble profession of faith, was also rebuked and corrected for not accepting a Paradox ... "This shall never happen to you!". There's probably something in that story for the both of us. But anyway, I think maybe I understand you a bit better now. I hope maybe you are understanding me some better too. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-27-2005 11:03 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: If it is Jesus, how would you know it? Do you believe in a Jesus of History? If Jesus said everything that he said, concerning many things, then we find a number of things incompatible, in other religions. If you want to say that Jesus is the author of what truth is in other religions, I have no problem with that. That's actually what I believe. But to say all religious beliefs are truth, and that all of it is a revelation of Jesus, is to not believe in the Jesus Christ of history, since so much does not comport. And so, you may keep the word "Jesus", but that's not the Historical Jesus of Christian scriptures. For example, even your question of one culture naming a "spirit" Jesus, is not in line with the historical account in the book of Luke, where the name "Jesus" is given to a human baby, through an angel. I actually don't have a problem with you doubting whether or not scripture is an accurate portrayal of the historical Jesus ... if that's your position. Of course, I disagree, and think that it's history is solid. But if you are going to doubt that, then we are back at point of asking why don't you simply deny the Bible? If you're going to believe a doctrine of "all paths lead to god" ... why call him "Jesus" at all? What is your connection point to a man who walked this earth and was named Jesus? Why would you want to retain even that? I'm just curious. quote: This illustrates my point. You're doubting the integrity of the scriptures themselves, but using a part of those scriptures to make your point. How do you know the saying of Jesus you quoted, is not a part of what was corrupted in scripture? How do you differentiate? What is your criteria for an acceptable scripture, or an unacceptable one? Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Rest easy, then, my friend, because I certainly never tried to say that everything is a paradox or that all paradoxes are necessarily manifest. I simply refuse to restrain God by human logic, especially my own. quote: I thought that an interesting choice of examples, Stephen, because you inadvertently create the classical Liar's Paradox when you attempt to prove or disprove either assertion by using scripture, i.e., the Word of God. Still, I think God's veracity is probably at the very heart of this discussion. I don't believe God has ever directly lied to humanity, if only because there is no conceivable need for God to lie (not to mention that omnipotence insures that the Word of God immediately becomes the reality of man). However, I also believe God has never told any of us the WHOLE truth, because frankly, that would make the recipient of the whole truth into a god. I don't even have any reason to believe that God has told all of us the same truth. Some might argue our inability to grasp the entirety of God creates a very necessary lie of omission? The bottom line is that even when I believe I know what God has told me, I can never know what God has not told me, and -- here's the paradox -- I can never be sure it won't appear to contradict what He has already said. My only real certainty (and certainty is always just another word for faith) is that it won't matter. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
Stephanos, as I've implied before, I don't put my faith in scriptures which are not direct accounts of something Jesus Christ said. Much of your argument stems from the idea that one cannot stay true to Christian orthodox beliefs if they also believe my philosophies, but I am not interested in Orthodox beliefs or in sticking with tradition, nor do I consider dogma to be of great use. That is not to say that I am anti-dogma; I simply see it as having limited potential for spiritual growth. If I have "dodged" scripture, it's because it was written by someone other than Jesus, and I take it with a grain of salt. I don't put my faith in "the doctrines of men" as Ron says. One of Jesus's huge frustrations was always that people just didn't seem to be "getting it", and I don't think that that changed much after his death. I do think that Jesus is the only way, but that whether or not people want to call him that makes no difference. Jesus forgives all sins, including semantic ones. However, the historical figure of Jesus was only one aspect of his many dimensions, and to consider his physical personage more important than all other aspects is, I think, dodging the real spiritual issue. If a religion addresses this issue directly then I consider it to be very valid. Please re-consider my post about the trinity, and tell me your reponse. Back later for Buddhism... |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
Baba, It was I who wrote about "... doctrines of men." And I happen to agree with you about men's interpretations of what Jesus did and said. Common sense dictates here... I could tell a story, many stories, and perform many acts that people were absolutely agog about, and I'd bet after a year or two, haven been talked about and written about, even by my own eye-witnesses, much would be changed and meaning would be lost. Proof? I have personally witnessed the changing of meaning as soon as it was written, like here on this site. ... and I am not even taking into account the numerous changes in the meaning of words and in the changes of the meaning of words when translated over eons... especially when those interpreters had in mind their own philosophies and doctrines while interpreting the scriptures - which leads to a whole new area about why only certain scriptures are being used as the Holy Bible and others are not (that is Raph's forte' and he explained it very well, he did). "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
In the link to wikipedia you posted, did you scroll down to the part where it talks about Buddha Nature? I never read a sentence which involved destruction of the Self. How can you destroy something which doesn't exist? Nothing has permanent form; that which is impermanent is not truly Self, but an illusory concept based on the idea that separation can exist in a universe in which everything is intimately connected with everything else. Everything in the universe, though it may change form, is always One. Realizing this essential unity leads to uncovering Buddha Nature, which is the compassion that arises in light of this fundamental truth. Sounds a lot like the Hindu Atman, and is, I believe, a similar concept to the Christian soul (not in theory, but in the effects it produces), even if a little "esoteric." The Buddha never said that he thought all people should be buddhists, or that everyone "ought" to be enlightened. In Buddhist thought, there is no "ought." It is simply a given that most people aren't satisfied with their lives, and if one has identified themselves with pure compassion, it has become part of their individual nature to help alleviate suffering in whatever way they can. That doesn't mean buddhists think everyone should be buddhists. He even gave a criteria for assessing other valid teachings and teachers, wishing good luck to the "Kalamas", a group of people who were confused by the conflicting claims of the religious systems of their day. Buddha advises them to examine the systems based on result: "Do not be [convinced] by reports, tradition, or hearsay; nor by skill in the scriptural collections, argumentation, or reasoning; nor after examining conditions or considering theories; nor because [a theory] fits appearances, nor because of respect for an ascetic [who holds a particular view]. Rather, Kalamas, when you know for yourselves: These doctrines are non-virtuous; these doctrines are erroneous; these doctrines are rejected by the wise; these doctrines, when performed and undertaken, lead to loss and suffering*- then you should reject them, Kalamas." *Remember my previous definition of suffering. Okay, now karma... Just because "good" and "evil" are not considered valid concepts in buddhist metaphysical thought, does not mean that all causes and effects are indistinguishable. That is an enormous leap to have made. I think that the conflict you perceive between buddhist metaphysical teachings and the idea of karma comes from the fact that your idea of karma is more Hindu than it is Buddhist. In Hindu thought, good actions are encouraged in order to receive their "good" karmic effects. In Buddhism, however, karmic effects are merely classified as to whether or not they are "pleasant" or "unpleasant" based on whether the individual in question has performed "skillfully". However, gathering lots of "good" karma is not the aim of buddhism, nor is one's progress towards enlightenment in any way measured by how many pleasant karmic effects one has accumulated. Karma is an inseperable function of Samsara, and it is exactly this state that buddhists wish to transcend; one cannot escape Samsara just by having more good karma than they know what to do with. Sure, the buddhist eight-fold path brings good karma with it, because it involves skillful action, but the aim of skillful action is to create the appropriate inner conditions conducive to waking up. The Buddha never said "Get enough good karma, and you'll be enlightened." (A similar idea, though not as popular as within Buddhism, actually exists in Hinduism, and is expressed in the Bhagavad-Gita, when Krishna tells Arjuna that the Vedas were all well and good, but that if one wanted to truly be united with God, it would require the individual to step outside the motivations of spiritual self-preservation and abandon the idea of accumulating good karma.) Your depiction of Kali was very condescending and culturally insensitive. Death and sickness are universal facts of life, and Hindus do not try to sugarcoat them. Thus they are incorporated, very logically, into the Hindu cosmological ideas about how the universe works, and your perception of these elements as having the flavor of futility is not a reflection of Hindu sentiment, any more than in Ecclesiastes, where the themes of mortality and impermanence are also explored. Hindus also have more respect for other religions than to simply say "Oh, you mean Hinduism..." in reference to other methodologies. The only Christian ideas which are downplayed or left out of the Hindu embrace of Christian ideas is the notion that Chrisianity is better than all other religions. A more accurate way to state the Hindu stance on Christianity would be "Oh, you mean you know the same God?" |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"Your depiction of Kali was very condescending and culturally insensitive." ~ Now I can't speak for the Christians participating in this discussion, or for those Christians who are forum members, but practically every single Christian whom I have met in real life (mostly in the south and every one of them protestant) will say either behind the backs of or in front of a Hindu, Muslim or add any other non-Christian group, is that they are wrong and evil and are going to hell upon death... and that makes me sick to my stomach. "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Baba: quote: You do understand that when the New Testament documents were compiled and written, many of those who knew Jesus or his disciples personally, were alive? These were direct accounts, in the sense that that's how written accounts were typically processed in those days. Events ---> oral tradition ---> unofficial writings ---> official writings/ compilation. Seeing that the New Testament documents have more manuscript attestation (and closer to the events they describe) than any other examples of Ancient literature, and that gnostic documents only appeared much later, how do explain the lack of an alternative story among the early writings? There is no such manuscript support for a more "real" account of what Jesus said and did. So historically, do you really have much to support the idea that these documents are not accurate descriptions of what Jesus really said, other than a "hermeneutic of suspicion"? quote: That's fine. You must choose for yourself, and I respect your responsiblity to choose. But I only wanted to clarify and underscore that your view is indeed heterodox, and not compatible with the Christian scriptures ... and in that sense, it cannot really be called Christian. It's just better to admit such (if that's really true) than to patronizingly try to absorb the Christian History into another system which denies that very history, in any actual sense, but tends to uphold it, only in a mystical sense that contradicts the texts. And I believe you have admitted that such is what you are presenting since 1) you have denied your confidence in the New Testament scriptures, rather than directly discuss them in their own context, and 2) have denied the importance of "dogma" based upon your own philosophical views- while Christianity has asserted from the beginning that dogma (though not everything) is essential. quote: But that's simply one more Christian article of faith that you deny ... that God was able to "inspire" writings that accurately reflect both history and truth. In that sense, your belief is non-Christian, or perhaps pre-Christian. I won't call it "unchristian" because of the association of that word with meanness. And I know you are sincere. How are you even sure that Jesus was frustrated that people didn't seemed to be "getting it", if you don't trust the very history that records such episodes? And what's more how do you even know what "it" was, that Jesus was trying to convey, if you don't have an accurate history out of which you may know it? What "gospels" are you going to refer me to? The pseudepigriphal writings? Those are more doubtful than any of the apostolic Christian texts. The only way you can identify what is the body of Jesus' teaching is, by historical texts, or by complete revision ... saying that it was really something more like Hinduism or Buddhism than anything else. But you've taken your foot out of history, if you do that. You say you can't believe the history, because it is doubtful ... but how can you believe the one you're making up? quote: You have to at least understand if someone calls you by another name, they could be calling you a nick-name, but it's a greater possibility they may not know you. You haven't addressed that possiblity with Jesus, historical or supernatural. The scriptures do not say that his name is unimportant. Do a word study on the name of God in the Old testament and New. Then do a word study on the name of Jesus in the New Testament, and note the seeming importance attached to the language used. When I meet someone, I get introduced to the name at some point, either early or later. And often with the learning of someone's name, misconceptions are disspelled, and new understanding comes. I'm not saying that someone can never know Jesus, without knowing his name first. But I am saying you're going too far by suggesting that Pantheism is just another way to "know Jesus". quote: I don't consider his physical personage "more important" than other aspects. I just don't accept the one, at the expense of the other. A view of Jesus which denies the physical / historical personage is, I think, dodging the unity issue. History and spirituality need not be at odds. I don't deny the "spiritual" aspect of Jesus. We can talk about the spiritual nature of his words, his deeds, his divinity, ad infinitum. I can talk about love, grace, peace, universal brotherhood, sacrifice, beauty, cosmic wonder, etc.. etc.. But you have only tended to discuss Christian spirituality, in the context of another system ... not on it's own terms. quote: That's my point. I mean that Buddhism destroys the self, in a philosophical sense, by denying that it ever existed. You just restated what I was saying. Buddhism denies individuality, while Christianity affirms it. quote: If I may say respectfully, you're going to have a hard time convincing me of the Buddhist view that there is no "ought" in the universe, if you can't convince me that there is no "ought" in Buddhism itself. The "oughtness" in Buddhism, is subtle, as Buddhism is a religion of mildness and subtlety. But it is present nonetheless, through connotation and language. It really makes no difference whether Buddhists choose to proselytize or not, or even whether it is seen as proper in the Buddhist system. Aside from the word "enlightenment" (in which resides the implicit assumption that light is better than darkness), consider the four noble truths. Nobility is hierarchically better than that which is ignoble. Consider the eight-fold path, which tells of right speech, action, livelihood, effort, awareness, meditation. What does "right" mean? Subtle or not it's there. I see it. How else do you explain these things, without merely reiterating the dogma that there is no "ought"? I never denied that Buddhism asserts this, only that it does so inconsistently. quote: Okay, I'll accept that for now. I'll read more about Karma in relation to Samsara, Enlightenment, and Nirvana. Even so, the goal of "nirvana" is incompatible with the prescriptions of the eightfold path. How can "no self" have right conduct, or be "skilled"? And if the "oughtness" of these prescriptions are presented merely as an unfortunate part of the illusion of selfhood, then how can they be vehicles of escaping that very illusion? quote: Not meaning to be insensitive or condescending. But Ecclesiastes does express futility, quite vividly. The point of contention for me, and the difference I think between the futility of Ecclesiastes, and that represented in Kali-worship, is that one is presented as the musings and vanity of life on planet earth, while the other is actually elevated as deity. If you read Ecclesiastes, the "Meaninglessness" that the teacher expounds upon is set in antithesis to the purpose and power of God. And though the solution for this "vanity" is given as rays of sun peeking through nature's clouds, rather than all at once, the worship of God as redeemer is given at the end of the book as the solution. The writer of E. speaks of "evils" he has seen under the sun, and injustices. And thus the problem (much like that in the book of Job), is how an all-good God could allow such real injustices and evils to exist. A thorny problem, to which the goodness of God is set in juxtaposition, as a contrast. Such is the "spirit" and answer of Ecclesiastes, and Job. The Hindu worship of Kali, conversely, does not juxtapose the goodness of God against the problem of "evil", rather it denies that evil exists, and places the problem not in juxtaposition with God, but in union, making God himself (herself, itself, noself) the composite mixture and denial of good and evil. Whichever way you see it, Ecclesiastes and it's musings, are not placed upon the altar of worship. The fact that Kali, in all her destruction, is placed upon the altar of worship, is rooted in the perennial inability of Hinduism to distinguish between good and evil, or cruelty and non-cruelty ... Everything that is, becomes divine in such a system. The shortest way to put it is that the underlying cosmology of Ecclesiastes and Kali-worship is wholly different, though descriptions of futility and death are going to be similar, in any culture. It is the meanings ascribed to evil and death, in Judaism and Hinduism, which are at odds. quote: But that would be mistaken. Their very definition of God is not the same in those systems. The infinite-personal God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, is not the impersonal "ALL" of hinduism. For a hindu to admit to "knowing the same God" is linguistic osmosis, not conformity of knowledge. And I'm not saying that Hindus blatantly or disrespectfully say that Christianity equates Hinduism. Nor am I saying that they see nothing true, or refuse to recognize truth in Christianity. I'm more addressing their total system, and how it leads to that belief. The more vocal abductors of the Bible into a Monistic pantheistic system, in my experience, are Westerners who tend toward Eastern views, rather than Hindus themselves. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-29-2005 12:43 AM).] |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
JCP... whoops, sorry about miscrediting the quote... Stephen, Well, it's been a great debate. I feel like, in my post where I talked about the trinity, I summed up just about everything I can say on this topic, and past this point I'll only be repeating myself... I fully admit the historical validity of the New Testament, that is to say, that what happened and was said is pretty accurately recorded. I just don't happen to agree with standard interpretations of Jesus's message, so I think this is where you and I reach our stalemate, and I don't think I could offer any more views without using some kind've jujitsu-esque "just pretend for a sec that everything you've grown up cherishing as sacred is wrong" tactic, which would be disrespectful and futile. As for the buddhism thing... all I can say is that the Buddha offered people a road to what he considered spiritual salvation, and that all questions of value which seem to be present in the language should be considered in light of that objective, not as inherent values unto themselves, yadda yadda yadda, *a cane pulls me offstage* Haha, but seriously, this was a killer good debate, and hopefully we'll find a new topic to argue about soon. Have a great New Year! Michi |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
JCP: quote: Yessirree ... Condescending and culturally insensitive. And even though they are a bunch of narrow minded bigotted rednecks, I hope you might meet one or two someday who are different than the rest of 'um. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Michi: quote: Likewise, my friend. It's been very interesting and much fun. And I think I learned a thing or two from you. God bless, and may you prosper in your New Year as well. Stephen. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
I just wanted to add that I was born and raised in South Carolina, JCP. It's better not to let a debate sink to the level of geographical intelligence generalizations. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Michi, I was born and raised (and reside) in Georgia ... in your basement. . Want to do lunch sometime? We don't have to eat Coon and rice, less'un ya want to. Stephen |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"I just wanted to add that I was born and raised in South Carolina, JCP. It's better not to let a debate sink to the level of geographical intelligence generalizations." ~ Never was that my intent. Amazing, isn't it? Stephanos replied to my southern Christian comment with a sarcastic barb and you joined right in... it amazes me that that misunderstanding of what was written happened in a matter of less than 24 hours, and the debate is about what was said and written almost 2000 years ago. ~ Did I ever say "all" southern Christians think that way?" No. ~ Did I ever say that it was "ONLY" southern christians with whom told me those things? The answer again is no. ~ Stephanos, I hope you put more objectiveness in your studies than you do reading my replies. ~ My comment had nothing to do with a geographical slur against southern Christians, but I was only relating to those reading this thread that that was the area of the country where I was taught that if one is not a Christian one goes to hell. ... so Stephanos, let me ask you this question, do you believe that any of the Hindus or "other than Christianity believers," like those participating in this discussion, can be saved without accepting Christ as their saviour? When I asked this question to any protestant preacher or "true believer" the answer was always, no. And I mean, always. "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." [This message has been edited by JesusChristPose (12-29-2005 10:56 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't think there is any other answer in the bible. If you believe everything the bible says then what else may your answer be? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
JCP, Don't take what I said so seriously. I just found it funny that you were talking about cultural insensitivity, and made a comment that could easily be taken that way. If you didn't mean it that way, then maybe you can imagine that my comments about Hinduism aren't intended to be culturally insensitive either. quote: I am of the opinion that God gives many common and uncommon opportunities, to come to him, and to know him. I'm even of the opinion that he is wooing people to his truth, even in the noble aspects of other belief systems. But are you asking whether or not someone can be saved without EVER accepting Christ as Savior? If Christ is (as the scriptures say) the only Savior, then how could they be saved? I guess the closest way I can answer your question is this: I believe Jesus Christ to be the Savior of humanity, both corporately and individually. And apart from him there is no hope, no right relationship with God, no forgiveness of sins, and no resurrection from the dead. The intricacy and variation that may be involved in the "how" of indiviudal salvation, or the extent of God's mercy at work in those who aren't yet Christians, I don't know. I only know that he is merciful. Stephen. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
Stephanos, ~ You should become a politician. ~ A simple, "Yes, they can be saved" or No, they can't be saved" would of sufficed. ~ It is apparent in your answer that you believe that Christianity is the only true religion. Knowing that, you that is, why even debate others about religion, unless you are doing so to convert, only? Certainly, you are not debating with an open-mind. You can't be, because unless God comes down from heaven and says to you, "Stephanos, who are you to say how one can come to truly know me?" You will never change from your belief that Christianity is the only way, and our fine "non-Christian" friends who are participating in this debate, such as myself, have no chance for salvation and will suffer forever, unless you or other Christians can convert us. "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." [This message has been edited by JesusChristPose (12-29-2005 06:34 PM).] |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
I missed this... "Don't take what I said so serious. I just found it funny that you were talking about cultural insensitivity, and made a comment that could easily be taken that way. If you didn't mean it that way, then maybe you can imagine that my comments about Hinduism aren't intended to be culturally insensitive either." ~ How should I know when you are serious or not? It seemed to me your words were quite intentional, and that only now, you can buttress your condenscending remarks about Hinduism with a "mirror, mirror" type reply. However, Stephanos... it doesn't matter does it? Your belief that Christianity is the only true way to know God and reach salvation automatically makes you culturally insensitive, but we been down this road before, and I believe I don't need to say anthing else about it... as they say, the proof is in the pudding. I wish you no ill will. In fact, I enjoyed reading this debate between mainly yourself and our fine "non-Christian" friends, even if they are headed towards the lake of fire unless you can convince them otherwise. "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: The question is not exactly a simple one ... There are subtleties and complexities about such a question that warrant some explanation. I'm not ready to consign anyone to hell. God's mercy is great. I'm just insisting that it is his to give. If we must disagree, then let us disagree peacefully. Stephen. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"The question is not exactly a simple one ... There are subtleties and complexities about such a question that warrant some explanation. I'm not ready to consign anyone to hell. God's mercy is great. I'm just insisting that it is his to give." ~ I still don't know what you believe by this answer. So, you are saying that you believe that one does not have to accept Christ as his or her personal saviour in order to become saved and avoid the Lake of Fire? "If we must disagree, then let us disagree peacefully." ~ I thought we were. I am just curious about your answer and what you believe in. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I missed this, you must of edited or I just plain missed this reply... "But are you asking whether or not someone can be saved without EVER accepting Christ as Savior?" ~ Yes "If Christ is (as the scriptures say) the only Savior, then how could they be saved?" ~ So, you are saying they cannot? "I guess the closest way I can answer your question is this: I believe Jesus Christ to be the Savior of humanity, both corporately and individually. And apart from him there is no hope, no right relationship with God, no forgiveness of sins, and no resurrection from the dead." ~ Okay then, you answered it. You believe that Baba and any other non-christian participating in this thread, and any others all around the world, cannot be saved and are doomed to an eternal hellfire. ~ Why debate these people then, unless you are only trying to convert them? "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I have answered. You don't have to try and understand if you don't want to. Seriously, the mood of this present exchange has become unfruitful. Baba and I did fine, so I don't think it's just me. Maybe it's the dynamic between us. Whatever the cause, Let's stop for now. Stephen. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
~ I do understand, I just don't understand why what one truly believes in, they cannot just admit to, but "sugarcoat" it instead. If I believed Baba or any other non-christian person was doomed to the Lake of Fire for their beliefs, I'd flat-out tell them. That is called, honesty... especially when debating, because isn't the point of a debate that either side is open to change his or her views? "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
We weren't debating about hell, or the lake of fire. There are other threads where we have discussed those things. You know I've never hidden my orthodox beliefs concerning them. But the discussion that Baba and I were having was about whether or not Hinduism, or Buddhism, represented a "way" to Christ. Stephen. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"We weren't debating about hell, or the lake of fire. There are other threads where we have discussed those things. You know I've never hidden my orthodox beliefs concerning them. But the discussion that Baba and I were having was about whether or not Hinduism, or Buddhism, represented a "way" to Christ." ~ Not exactly, that was one aspect. However, it was also being discussed if Christianity and believing in Christ as the Saviour is the only way to obtain salvation, or if God makes Himself known in the hearts of people from all walks of faith by the methods He chooses. Afterall, that is what the origin of this thread was all about before different "sidebars" came into existence and were being discussed. "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
We should probably be grateful, I suppose, that this very interesting thread had already run its course before being ruined. I'm sure a lot has changed since December 13, 2001. I'm equally sure that nothing has changed. Sigh. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
