Religion II

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Sure. But whats the endgame? To be absorbed into Being, or to remain a distinct self participating in the eternal exchange of love between the Persons of the Trinity, or to have gone deep in vanity, instead of going deep in self-gratuity, if only one step ahead of the law, as Actor should be proposing, or some other finality?

I believe it was John of the Cross who once said, and I paraphrase: "What's the use of speaking of God? No matter what we say of Him...we miss him by the widest margin". The same could be said about speaking of the "endgame" of spiritual practice...IMO.

I remember when I was a young man starting out in the grocery business. My manager then, while perhaps overestimating my knowledge about things, would ask me to do things which would leave me in a state of confusion right from the start. I would just stand there... staring into space, wondering what the display that I was asked to put up was supposed to look like upon completion. And then the manager would come around again...to give me the advice that I wouldn't be able to forget for the next 40 years: "Don't overthink things from the very start. The important thing is to start the work. It's in the DOING that the end result starts revealing itself. This isn't architecture. Here, we start the work...and we make adjustments as we go along. The end result doesn't come to you right from the start"...I can still remember him patienty telling me. I don't know how much significance I placed on that piece of advice then, but I consider it very significant now...and I ponder it whenever I contemplate the "endgame" of things.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Anagogical interpretations, with Christ as the point of reference, should be referring to active love (agape), conscience, invincible ignorance (in the charitable sense of the word), etc., as criteria.

Understood positively, man can only be justified to "participate in the divine nature", share in the life and love of the Trinity, through the merits of Christ. That does not preclude individual circumstances which complicate one's availability to the Christ-event.

Objectively speaking, a Sentenilese who has never heard of Christ but exhibits agape love, or a Muslim militiaman who decides to save a Catholic schoolgirl in Nairobi from death, has lived the gospel as opposed to Alexander VI.

Then why do you deny a Buddhist understanding of the "divine" naming it "consciousness"

Your personal god precludes religions that do not have a personal god. Remember you were aghast comparing "Consciousness" with the Abrahamic personal god.

"Christ with Buddha, a personal God with Consciousness".

I think words are trapping you and all of us. Jews often spell G-D in English out of reverence and specifically as a reminder the divine is beyond our grasp fully. And perhaps we would be overwhelmed otherwise......

"The hiddenness of God, which comes from our inability to survive the full revelation of God's glory"

In general mystical experiences share ineffability, a strong feeling of certainty which cannot be expressed in words. If we go deeper and have those experiences , albeit fleeting moments ourselves, we go past naming the ineffable.
God,
the divine,
Buddha nature,
satori,
or cosmic consciousness"

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You have excluded yourself. You have counted yourself as unworthy; for scripture invites all men to God through his Son Jesus Christ.

So in the context of your latest to me, scripture invites all men who aren't Sentinelese, or limited cognitively, or infants, prevented from hearing of Christ by life's circumstances? If Paul held to the same, how could he bear to have written Rom 2:12-16? God's initiative has placed the natural law in the heart of the above. You can take the Lone Ranger Christian out of classic Calvinism, but you can't take the classic Calvinism out of the Lone Ranger Christian.

The word "faith" in scripture is a synedoche- a word that stands for a whole process, in addition to intellectual assent. That is why totally selfless, unconditional love (agape) exists in eternal life with God (1 Cor 13), while faith and hope become unnecessary.

The justified don't punch a time clock and "earn" their sharing in Christ's Sonship. They are incorporated into Christ's Sonship at baptism, the grace of justification, earned by Christ, poured into their hearts (infused grace) so that they live out that Sonship (divine filiation/theosis/participation in divine nature) -which necessitates active charity/love- the imitation of Christ ...again, 1 Cor 13).

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I believe it was John of the Cross who once said, and I paraphrase: "What's the use of speaking of God? No matter what we say of Him...we miss him by the widest margin". The same could be said about speaking of the "endgame" of spiritual practice...IMO.

I remember when I was a young man starting out in the grocery business. My manager then, while perhaps overestimating my knowledge about things, would ask me to do things which would leave me in a state of confusion right from the start. I would just stand there... staring into space, wondering what the display that I was asked to put up was supposed to look like upon completion. And then the manager would come around again...to give me the advice that I wouldn't be able to forget for the next 40 years: "Don't overthink things from the very start. The important thing is to start the work. It's in the DOING that the end result starts revealing itself. This isn't architecture. Here, we start the work...and we make adjustments as we go along. The end result doesn't come to you right from the start"...I can still remember him patienty telling me. I don't know how much significance I placed on that piece of advice then, but I consider it very significant now...and I ponder it whenever I contemplate the "endgame" of things.

I understand, Thaskalos. It's kind of what I have just been addressing to Boxcar- love surpasses knowledge. Yet I must confirm, if only for myself and perhaps my family--and I agree with everyone that words can't convey the interior- the supernatural sense of gratitude and awe for all that flows from my understanding of the implications of the Incarnation.

My goal is not to do the impossible-sway internet opinions- but to propose why a particular Christian might have cause to be one.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Sure. But whats the endgame? To be absorbed into Being, or to remain a distinct self participating in the eternal exchange of love between the Persons of the Trinity, or to have gone deep in vanity, instead of going deep in self-gratuity, if only one step ahead of the law, as Actor should be proposing, or some other finality?

Again the mystic in all ways speaks of merging with the divine. The trinity is Christian specific and doe not apply to non Christian mysticism

Jewish mysticism, also known as Kabbalah dating back to the Second Temple of Jerusalem or earlier, is a practice that seeks to understand divinity, achieve union with God, and enter into divine realms or dimensions.

Sufism is Islamic mysticism, is found in the sunnite as well as the shiite traditions of Islam. It is extremely difficult to attempt a description of Sufism. Like all forms of mysticism, it is above all the search for God and this search may be expressed in many different ways. " Mysticism " in the Sufi sense means living as closely united to God as possible

However, you cannot use the concept of "merging" with a personal god in non-Abrahamic religions---without a personal god. Although a Christian’s ultimate goal, or ultimate reality is being one with God or finding a place with God and being accepted into heaven.

A Buddhist’s ultimate goal, , is to reach the state of Nirvana, or Satori. I think what is common and wholly comparable is compassion in Buddhism to love in Christianity. Vertical love towards the divine means quieting one's raging ego and surrendering to a larger presence. The Buddhist must also surrender his ego. In fact it is a must. The second Christian commandment or the horizontal love towards ones fellow is comparable to the Buddhists compassion for all sentient beings

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I understand, Thaskalos. It's kind of what I have just been addressing to Boxcar- love surpasses knowledge. Yet I must confirm, if only for myself and perhaps my family--and I agree with everyone that words can't convey the interior- the supernatural sense of gratitude and awe for all that flows from my understanding of the implications of the Incarnation.

My goal is not to do the impossible-sway internet opinions- but to propose why a particular Christian might have cause to be one.

Even the enigmatic G.I. Gurdjieff, when asked by a student to put a label on his "Fourth Way" teaching...could do no better than to call it Esoteric Christianity.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Even the enigmatic G.I. Gurdjieff, when asked by a student to put a label on his "Fourth Way" teaching...could do no better than to call it Esoteric Christianity.

You have now uncovered the mystery of your avatar for this under-educated reader.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

Then why do you deny a Buddhist understanding of the "divine" naming it "consciousness"

Your personal god precludes religions that do not have a personal god. Remember you were aghast comparing "Consciousness" with the Abrahamic personal god.

"Christ with Buddha, a personal God with Consciousness".

I think words are trapping you and all of us. Jews often spell G-D in English out of reverence and specifically as a reminder the divine is beyond our grasp fully. And perhaps we would be overwhelmed otherwise......

"The hiddenness of God, which comes from our inability to survive the full revelation of God's glory"

In general mystical experiences share ineffability, a strong feeling of certainty which cannot be expressed in words. If we go deeper and have those experiences , albeit fleeting moments ourselves, we go past naming the ineffable.
God,
the divine,
Buddha nature,
satori,
or cosmic consciousness"

I have utilized the symbols of "YHWH" in my posts, for reasons you cite. In the past, I have posted the respect for Eastern mysticism by others in my circle of contacts. My latest posts have been emotional and defensive when I sense the same addressed to me.

At least in my reading, hcap, you can't avoid expressing mystical transcendance as intangible. That certainly has merit. Except for the Incarnation, I would live similarly. But the whole point of believing that Mystical Transcendance has pitched his tent with us, the whole point of a human introduction (Incarnation), is that G-d wants to reveal something of himself. I choose to listen.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Again the mystic in all ways speaks of merging with the divine. The trinity is Christian specific and doe not apply to non Christian mysticism......


However, you cannot use the concept of "merging" with a personal god in non-Abrahamic religions---without a personal god. Although a Christian’s ultimate goal, or ultimate reality is being one with God or finding a place with God and being accepted into heaven............

If I may your take on the above is not the Christian ideal according to Apostolic teaching.

The Christian's hope is his body will be resurrected, like Christ, on the last day. The Christian having a body will not be merged into a personal God, but will participate in the Divine Nature. Heaven is being in the "beatific" vision and sharing in the glory. The "beatific" vision is seeing God as God is. There is no merging, it is seeing God as God is and participating in the Divine Nature.

Of course is by Grace.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Even the enigmatic G.I. Gurdjieff, when asked by a student to put a label on his "Fourth Way" teaching...could do no better than to call it Esoteric Christianity.

I've wondered about that. Emphasizing a certain degree of syncretism among schools, but then choosing "Christianity" for part of the marquee.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Anagogical interpretations, with Christ as the point of reference, should be referring to active love (agape), conscience, invincible ignorance (in the charitable sense of the word), etc., as criteria.

Understood positively, man can only be justified to "participate in the divine nature", share in the life and love of the Trinity, through the merits of Christ. That does not preclude individual circumstances which complicate one's availability to the Christ-event.

Objectively speaking, a Sentenilese who has never heard of Christ but exhibits agape love, or a Muslim militiaman who decides to save a Catholic schoolgirl in Nairobi from death, has lived the gospel as opposed to Alexander VI.

Great post. The best way to describe God's love is self-giving, self-sacrificial love.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It's no wonder at all that you questioned the existence of heaven. When you die you would certainly miss your "greatest" teacher here on earth, since it will be barred from heaven. But be of good cheer....since you're so fond of pain there is another place beyond death in which Pain reigns supreme on its throne, and you'll be able to worship at its feet forever and ever -- sweet endless worship to be accompanied by the sounds of numerous voices to join yours in crying out in agony. And Pain's lessons will never cease...

You downplay pain as if it does not affect you. Yet I just saw that it did.

When Actor asked you if you were Atheist I was surprised to hear you admit you once were. It told me that pain changed your beliefs. It taught you.

This is why I believe this is the school of life and pain is the main teacher and motivator. How you process pain varies. Certainly another kind of teacher like Thaskalos says can help. Or your Biblical teachings or my "Love" teacher.

All these other teachers show us how to minimize and transcend the pains in our lives and help us overcome the control that pain can exert over our lives. But without pain, nothing would grow. Nothing to overcome. No pain, no gain.

Pain is a major and necessary teacher. In Heaven, yes, no pain but growth is slower. On Earth, pain is a plenty and a catalyst for faster growth. That is why we are here and why reincarnation exists.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

So in the context of your latest to me, scripture invites all men who aren't Sentinelese, or limited cognitively, or infants, prevented from hearing of Christ by life's circumstances? If Paul held to the same, how could he bear to have written Rom 2:12-16? God's initiative has placed the natural law in the heart of the above. You can take the Lone Ranger Christian out of classic Calvinism, but you can't take the classic Calvinism out of the Lone Ranger Christian.

The word "faith" in scripture is a synedoche- a word that stands for a whole process, in addition to intellectual assent. That is why totally selfless, unconditional love (agape) exists in eternal life with God (1 Cor 13), while faith and hope become unnecessary.

The justified don't punch a time clock and "earn" their sharing in Christ's Sonship. They are incorporated into Christ's Sonship at baptism, the grace of justification, earned by Christ, poured into their hearts (infused grace) so that they live out that Sonship (divine filiation/theosis/participation in divine nature) -which necessitates active charity/love- the imitation of Christ ...again, 1 Cor 13).

Rom 2:12-16 does not nullify any of the proof-texts I have provided. What Paul is doing in Romans 2 is establishing the very basis upon which a just and holy God can judge both Jews (those who had the written) and Greeks (those who had only intuitive knowledge of the Law). You are using this text to contradict what Paul then goes on to say a little later in the same epistle:

Rom 3:20
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
NASB

"No flesh" means no one -- neither Jew or Gentile.

Scripture invites all who hear the gospel. Again, from the same epistle:

Rom 10:16-18
16 However, they did not all heed the glad tidings; for Isaiah says, " Lord, who has believed our report?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. 18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;

"Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world."
NASB

God does not have two plans of salvation: One for Jews who have the written code; and one for Gentiles who do not. Paul did not preach two different gospels -- one for Jews and one for Gentiles. Paul was quite adamant: He preached only one gospel and pronounced a curse on anyone who preached a different Gospel (Gal 1:9).)

Further, your assumption is that it's God's intention to save everyone. But it's not! God's intention is to call out for himself a remnant of people (nonetheless still a "great multitude) from every nation, all tribes, peoples and tongues for himself.

Further, biblical faith -- saving faith is far more than mere mental ascent. It is heart-held belief. All the faculties are engaged in believing.

Once again, from the same epistle:

Rom 10:9
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;
NASB

In short, your "saved-by-your-poor circumstances" gospel is a false gospel.
You unwittingly put yourself in Hcap's camp that says that Jesus is A Way -- not The Way. Your version of the gospel contradicts the entire bible, including the OT, by the way.

Finally, Faith and Hope become unnecessary in the eternal kingdom because sight replaces faith and hope. But in this age, It is impossible to please God without Faith. And biblical faith believes God and trusts him. Anything short of this kind of faith is spurious in nature.

P.S. One final thought: Your "saved-by-your-circumstances" gospel omits another necessary component to salvation: Repentance! But one cannot repent of his sins apart from saving faith. One cannot turn from his sin and unto God apart from faith! These two are inseparable and inextricably linked.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Again the mystic in all ways speaks of merging with the divine. The trinity is Christian specific and doe not apply to non Christian mysticism.................



...A Buddhist’s ultimate goal, , is to reach the state of Nirvana, or Satori. I think what is common and wholly comparable is compassion in Buddhism to love in Christianity. Vertical love towards the divine means quieting one's raging ego and surrendering to a larger presence. The Buddhist must also surrender his ego. In fact it is a must. The second Christian commandment or the horizontal love towards ones fellow is comparable to the Buddhists compassion for all sentient beings

What does Nirvana mean? I've described the hope of the traditional Apostolic Christian and the "beatific" vision. How does Nirvana compare if there is a comparison?

Under my current understanding, I disagree that compassion in Buddhism is comparable to self-giving love in Christianity. I can have compassion without having to give of myself. I am missing your actual meaning of compassion. Does compassion in Buddhism mean self-giving and/or self-sacrificial acts based in love?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

You downplay pain as if it does not affect you. Yet I just saw that it did.

When Actor asked you if you were Atheist I was surprised to hear you admit you once were. It told me that pain changed your beliefs. It taught you.

This is why I believe this is the school of life and pain is the main teacher and motivator. How you process pain varies. Certainly another kind of teacher like Thaskalos says can help. Or your Biblical teachings or my "Love" teacher.

All these other teachers show us how to minimize and transcend the pains in our lives and help us overcome the control that pain can exert over our lives. But without pain, nothing would grow. Nothing to overcome. No pain, no gain.

Pain is a major and necessary teacher. In Heaven, yes, no pain but growth is slower. On Earth, pain is a plenty and a catalyst for faster growth. That is why we are here and why reincarnation exists.

Pain is unnatural. God never intended for pain to enter this world. Pain and death entered due to Adam and Eve's sin.

Rev 21:4
4 and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."
NASB

Feel free to lament the death of pain and mourning and crying and indeed death itself. But I can't wait to be totally free from your "greatest teacher".

The no pain, no gain adage applies only in this dark, fallen world. It's very evident to me that you cannot grasp the infinite superiority to pure holiness, righteousness, justice and love which exists only in heaven.

Pain is not the greatest teacher in the world. Jesus Christ is through the Holy Spirit who teaches his people God's Word.