Religion II

[Light]

Hank, here's another Goethe quote:

“The human race is a monotonous affair. Most people spend the greatest part of their time working in order to live, and what little freedom remains so fills them with fear that they seek out any and every means to be rid of it.”

[hcap]

Originally Posted by traynor

A very large building--perhaps a warehouse of some kind--brightly illuminated with many. many lights. One by one, they dim and darken, until one lone bulb, in a far corner, is the only illumination. At that point, one "awakens" and believes himself or herself--in the faint and feeble light cast by that single little bulb--"conscious." I am not one of those who so believe.

I agree. Attaching one's entire being and identity to one momentary flicker of asttention is the problem, and the opposite of the unity I was pointing to. The opportunity to reconcile opposing attitudes is a useful exercise. However one needs to separate from being pulled into and identifying and losing oneself among and with the lower selves.

Meditation is one way to quiet the incessant noise of the constant changing of the "guards".

We all have conflicting attitudes or "I's" that need bridging. But remaining "stuck" viewing the entire warehouse with a single feeble light is the antithesis of reconciling different parts within. And I think that the situation is even worse than lights at different locations in the building. It's almost like we wear miners helmets carrying an extremely narrowly focused beam as we look within.

I used to have a a wood etching drawing of a Buddhist monk sewing his robe. His gaze was transfixed INTENSELY on where the thread was under tension as it exited the material of the robe. Looked like his eyes were about to pop out of his head in total concentration. Originally I thought it was a drawing on one pointed attention-which it was but soon I came to understand that his attention was on the "unifying" action of the thread joining and mending the material of his robe. The monk was not lost in the separate parts but rather the proper art of "sewing" gave him the opportunity to fix all the parts of the robe.

Interesting connection. The Sufis-the mystical school of Islam- paid special attention to mending their garments or the "Muraqqa" and had strong teachings on how to do it.....
He must know how to do the patch work rightly on his muraqqa.

.................................................. ..................
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. F. Scott Fitzgerald
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/q...fit100572.html

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

You're putting me on, aren't you Sport? You can't have that drag-knuckle neanderthal type of thinking, can you?.....Apparently so.

Why are you surprised? He thinks he descended from hairy beasts of the jungle, doesn't he?

[traynor]

Originally Posted by hcap

I agree. Attaching one's entire being and identity to one momentary flicker of asttention is the problem, and the opposite of the unity I was pointing to. The opportunity to reconcile opposing attitudes is a useful exercise. However one needs to separate from being pulled into and identifying and losing oneself among and with the lower selves.

Meditation is one way to quiet the incessant noise of the constant changing of the "guards".

We all have conflicting attitudes or "I's" that need bridging. But remaining "stuck" viewing the entire warehouse with a single feeble light is the antithesis of reconciling different parts within. And I think that the situation is even worse than lights at different locations in the building. It's almost like we wear miners helmets carrying an extremely narrowly focused beam as we look within.

I used to have a a wood etching drawing of a Buddhist monk sewing his robe. His gaze was transfixed INTENSELY on where the thread was under tension as it exited the material of the robe. Looked like his eyes were about to pop out of his head in total concentration. Originally I thought it was a drawing on one pointed attention-which it was but soon I came to understand that his attention was on the "unifying" action of the thread joining and mending the material of his robe. The monk was not lost in the separate parts but rather the proper art of "sewing" gave him the opportunity to fix all the parts of the robe.

Interesting connection. The Sufis-the mystical school of Islam- paid special attention to mending their garments or the "Muraqqa" and had strong teachings on how to do it.....
He must know how to do the patch work rightly on his muraqqa.

.................................................. ..................
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. F. Scott Fitzgerald
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/q...fit100572.html

It is actually easier than it seems. Consider--if another "focus" (for lack of terminology that might upset those with conceptually impoverished "understanding" of what they call "reality") has some special talent, how advantageous it would be to be able to tap in to that talent. Also consider--"you" may have some skill or talent that is "special" (as in useful, desirable, needed, necessary, essential) to another "focus," such that a symbiotic, synergistic exchange would be of mutual benefit.

How to bridge the gap? Find a common activity, and engage in that activity mindfully--inner stillness, yet focused awareness.

Holding opposing ideas in the mind at the same time is only difficult if one judges them. That is, engages in the mind-numbing practice of labeling, "identifying," "categorizing," and "selecting" one or the other as "better." The trick is to simply observe, avoiding the semi-automatic pigeonholing and labeling and categorizing that causes others to see patterns where there are none, and to make connections that exist only within their own minds.

[traynor]

A "common activity" might well be sewing one's garment. Rhythm helps, but it is not so much what is done as that it is done mindfully.

[boxcar]

Yesterday, I presented an insurmountable problem to folks who believe that the New Covenant, predicted by Jeremiah, was fulfilled soon after the Jews returned from their Babylonian captors to their homeland. But as we saw yesterday, the biggest problem with this theory is that there is no way to account for why God would so severely punish his beloved chosen people in 70 A.D., since it wasn't possible for them to break the unconditional New Covenant. God said, through Jeremiah very clearly, that he would put his laws in their hearts and cause them to walk in his statutes. Being driven from their land for a third time in 70 A.D. seems clearly to be a fulfillment of the Old Covenant curses Moses spoke of in the Mosaic Law -- or even more specifically in the Books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

But this is far from the only difficulty with this theory of OT fulfillment for the New Covenant. There is another very sticky problem: In short, there is no record of its fulfillment anywhere in the OT; or, again, even more specifically in any of the Books of the Post-Exilic Prophets of the OT. These prophets are totally silent on when specifically God instituted and ratified the promised New Covenant! Yet, we're supposed to believe blindly that God kept his promise? Really? This New Covenant OT fulfillment theory is so lame that its advocates and supporters must literally argue from deafening silence for its fulfillment.

The post-exilic prophets are the following: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachai, Obadiah, Joel, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther. I tell you a truth: You will not find even the remotest, slightest hint of any New Covenant fulfillment during the times of these prophets. This, then, leaves only three other options for New Covenant fulfillment.

The first is that the New Covenant was instituted and ratified during the 400+ years of the silence between Malachai (last OT prophet) and the advent of The Prophet (Jesus). But again, this is another argument from silence plus even more stickier problems (which I won't elaborate on now).

Another option, I covered with Traynor, is that it's highly unlikely that the New Covenant will be instituted and ratified at the coming of the "Jewish messiah" at some future date from now, since this means that tens of millions of Jews, since 70 A.D., were condemned to hell because they had no way to atone for their sins all these many centuries after the temple was destroyed. They had no way to obey the Law of Moses, yet there are no "escape" clauses in the Law to cover this kind of contingency. The Law is very, very crystal clear on this issue: Without the shedding of innocent blood for the guilty, there is no remission of sins! (I previously cited several OT texts to this effect.) So..if a Jew is going to cling to the Torah for his hope and salvation, then he should be a consistent Jew and cling to ALL the Law!

Finally, the third option is that the New Covenant was indeed instituted and ratified by Christ at the Last Supper and on the Cross, respectively. Christ indeed did make that Covenant with the ancestors of the post-exilic Jews of the Babylonian captivity, and ratified it in his blood on the Cross, AND the Covenant is still in force being fulfilled until the Second Coming of Christ, at which time the visible Kingdom will be ushered in and the New Covenant will realize it complete fulfillment. And this option presents ZERO theological difficulties. Plus the New Covenant promise fulfillment is recorded in the books of the NT for all the world to read.

Ahh...my coffee tastes so good this morning.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Lewis Black on the Old Testament. You have to get by some stuff about Bush first. Starts at about 3 minutes

YouTube

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yesterday, I presented an insurmountable problem to folks who believe that the New Covenant, predicted by Jeremiah, was fulfilled soon after the Jews returned from their Babylonian captors to their homeland.

I never presented such a theory. I presented a theory which states the prophecy by Jeremiah "utterly failed."

Allow me to repost in case you missed it:


The second problem with Jeremiah's New Covenant prophecies is that they utterly failed. They had to be fulfilled either in the sixth century BC or not at all, for they are linked to the Babylonian Exile. Jeremiah's "seventy-year" exile began in 587 BC when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia conquered Judah, destroyed Jerusalem, and deported its inhabitants to Babylonia. Throughout this period, Judah, Jerusalem, and the Temple were to lie in ruins, and the Jews were to dwell as exiles in foreign lands.[8] The exile ended forty-nine years later in 538 BC, the year after King Cyrus of Persia had conquered Babylonia, when he allowed the exiles to return to their homelands.[9] At this time, God was supposed to bestow the blessings of the New Covenant upon the Jews.[10]

Some Jews did return to Palestine at the end of the Exile, but God did not miraculously reform their hearts or keep them in their land forever as predicted by Jeremiah. The books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi condemn the postexilic Jews as sinners. Furthermore, the Jews were scattered from Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Most of the Jews just remained in the Diaspora from Babylonian times till the present.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I never presented such a theory. I presented a theory which states the prophecy by Jeremiah "utterly failed."

The problem with that theory PA is that it is Chris Sandoval's opinion and boxcar has previously stated that he wasn't interested in debating with people who don't post here and won't be rebutting his opinions.
That's a fair point I believe.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

The problem with that theory PA is that it is Chris Sandoval's opinion and boxcar has previously stated that he wasn't interested in debating with people who don't post here and won't be rebutting his opinions.
That's a fair point I believe.

Boxcar didn't write the Bible either, but it's his entire basis for debate...throwing scripture at us left and right that he himself did not write.

Maybe we should all refuse to debate with Boxcar because the prophets don't post here?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Boxcar didn't write the Bible either, but it's his entire basis for debate...throwing scripture at us left and right that he himself did not write.

Maybe we should all refuse to debate with Boxcar because the prophets don't post here?

That's a very good and fair point too.
However, we can be certain that boxcar believes the opinions that he is presenting.
I'm not as convinced that you believe Chris Sandoval's opinion as much as Sandoval does.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Boxcar didn't write the Bible either, but it's his entire basis for debate...throwing scripture at us left and right that he himself did not write.

Maybe we should all refuse to debate with Boxcar because the prophets don't post here?

Man, you suck raw eggs when it comes to analogies. I'm not debating WITH the bible, the way you are so eager for me to debate with people who don't post here.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I never presented such a theory. I presented a theory which states the prophecy by Jeremiah "utterly failed."

Allow me to repost in case you missed it:


The second problem with Jeremiah's New Covenant prophecies is that they utterly failed. They had to be fulfilled either in the sixth century BC or not at all, for they are linked to the Babylonian Exile. Jeremiah's "seventy-year" exile began in 587 BC when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia conquered Judah, destroyed Jerusalem, and deported its inhabitants to Babylonia. Throughout this period, Judah, Jerusalem, and the Temple were to lie in ruins, and the Jews were to dwell as exiles in foreign lands.[8] The exile ended forty-nine years later in 538 BC, the year after King Cyrus of Persia had conquered Babylonia, when he allowed the exiles to return to their homelands.[9] At this time, God was supposed to bestow the blessings of the New Covenant upon the Jews.[10]

Some Jews did return to Palestine at the end of the Exile, but God did not miraculously reform their hearts or keep them in their land forever as predicted by Jeremiah. The books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi condemn the postexilic Jews as sinners. Furthermore, the Jews were scattered from Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Most of the Jews just remained in the Diaspora from Babylonian times till the present.

I never said you did; although you have presented some lame ones.

The problem with this Sandoval guy is that he's looking at prophecy from a low spot in his valley, instead of from a high mountain peak. As stated yesterday, God's prophecies very often extend peak-to-peak, having very little to do with the unseen valleys of time that connect the mountains.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by traynor

A "common activity" might well be sewing one's garment. Rhythm helps, but it is not so much what is done as that it is done mindfully.

Doing things mindfully is often very, very difficult. Mindful self observation requires detachment and even explaining detachment to western sensibilities as NOT the cessation of all thought and understanding is a familiar discussion here on this thread

The "garment" both the Buddhist monk and Sufis speak of is the accumulated baggage we have grown in order to cope with the human environment. A good portion of the Greek "know thyself is about that baggage. Benjamin Franklin compared the great difficulty of knowing one's self--- "There are three Things extremely hard, Steel, a Diamond, and to know one's self."

In the Esoteric traditions one goes past personality and eventually moves closer to essence. But quieting the personality and learning to organize it properly generally comes first. And knowing all variations of personality is tough

Gurdjieff described humans as body, Essence and Personality

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Man, you suck raw eggs when it comes to analogies. I'm not debating WITH the bible, the way you are so eager for me to debate with people who don't post here.

You're using the Bible to defend your opinion/belief.

Just like I'm using various items written by other people to defend my opinion.

And my opinion is that there is no hinting to the Trinity in the OT and that your use of the Hebrew language is incorrect in doing so...AND that Jesus did NOT fulfill the requirements of the Messiah AS STATED IN THE OT...AND that this "New Covenant" talked about in the OT does not refer to Jesus.