Religion II

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah...a "view" that is diametrically opposed to all worldly views of God. I wonder how all 40 writers of the bible pulled that off.

And all the writers of the bible were alive in 400 A.D., heh?

I don't understand your comment. The Bible is hardly diametrically opposed to all other worldly views of God. The Bible has several twists which are unique and puts Christ in a different light of course, but it shares much, much more content with Judaism and Islam than differing from those faiths. Much of the general guidance is shared by many more faiths (ie, thou shall not kill - or is it murder?)

As for all 40 writers pulling any consistency off, you obviously believe the ancient texts support that view. Hmmmm. I don't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible wasn't assembled until 400 AD or so, and back in the times when so few people knew how to read or write (which was tightly controlled by the elites), it's not difficult to believe that was some "editing" done. Reading the Good News version of the Good Book makes that readily apparent.

As a matter of fact, the term "Scripture" is rather nebulous. Is it the Torah, the Quran, the Bible, or something else? Are newer versions of Scripture any more truthful? Book of Mormon, Dianetics, etc?

The bottom line is that if you believe the Bible to be the Word of God, that's certainly within your rights to have that opinion. But it's an opinion that's not shared by all.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

And yes, it's a contradiction to say the Bible proves nothing, but then tear it apart quote by quote.

That's what creationists do with Darwin's Origin of Species. They say it's not true (essentially saying it proves nothing) then they try to tear it apart. In particular they quote Darwin's comment about the evolution of the eye and then ignore the following 20 pages. Claiming that the same approach is a contradiction when applied to scripture is special pleading.

[Actor]

YouTube

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by hcap

... Scripture of all major religions are mostly distorted fragments alluding to living in a vaster more enlightened "territory.
....
I said Zen favors "killing the Buddha" to move into the reality or new territory, the experiential ascending above ordinary mind. So not being able to grasp transcendent "god" is a limitation rooted in our normal state of intellect.
....
Eastern thought encourages mindfulness techniques to begin to prime the pump of higher intellect and other faculties.

— Maurice Nicoll —

Quote:
...Everyone on this planet is capable of a certain inner growth and individual development, and this is his true significance and his deepest meaning, and begins with metanoia.

I would agree that Scripture cannot adequately explain the Great Beyond, which is severely restricted by the human brain. Everything related to our experiences on the mental, astral and spiritual planes (plus others), is processed through that cubic foot (or so) of the Universe containing our brain. Scripture also runs into issues when religion is organized and applied to vast groups of people.

Mindfulness can be very useful, IMHO, for expanding an individual's experience BUT there are limits to how that experience and knowledge can be applied to others - due to the spiritual experience by definition being quite unique. Of course, many in the West consider the Eastern views as undermining their own Western, mechanical dogma - and therefore are to be ignored or limited in their growth. This is not to be confused with the undermining of the Christian faith in general by the sinister forces of .GOV and others - which I do believe is ongoing.

Maurice Nicoll must have hung with a better crowd. It's been my experience there are many who are not capable nor interested in inner growth. Often they are found at the racetrack.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

I don't understand your comment. The Bible is hardly diametrically opposed to all other worldly views of God. The Bible has several twists which are unique and puts Christ in a different light of course, but it shares much, much more content with Judaism and Islam than differing from those faiths. Much of the general guidance is shared by many more faiths (ie, thou shall not kill - or is it murder?)

As for all 40 writers pulling any consistency off, you obviously believe the ancient texts support that view. Hmmmm. I don't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible wasn't assembled until 400 AD or so, and back in the times when so few people knew how to read or write (which was tightly controlled by the elites), it's not difficult to believe that was some "editing" done. Reading the Good News version of the Good Book makes that readily apparent.

As a matter of fact, the term "Scripture" is rather nebulous. Is it the Torah, the Quran, the Bible, or something else? Are newer versions of Scripture any more truthful? Book of Mormon, Dianetics, etc?

The bottom line is that if you believe the Bible to be the Word of God, that's certainly within your rights to have that opinion. But it's an opinion that's not shared by all.

When the Canon was assembled and when scripture was written are two very different issues.

And of course scripture shares content with Judaism! Why wouldn't it since virtually all its writers were Jews!? In fact, sir, I have often said that New Covenant Christianity is nothing less but fulfillment of Old Covenant Judaism. Jewish believers in the Old Covenant and believers in this New Covenant era would certainly recognize their own scriptures. For all scripture is an organic, homogenous body of literature, progressively revealed by God over about a 1,500-year period, that manifests continuity between the Old Testament scriptures and the the New. Scripture actually tells a coherent story of God's redemptive plan for mankind. This is one way biblical Christianity differs from other theistic religions.


But, also, Christianity differs significantly from other religions because all other religions (especially the theistic ones) teach that man is in control of his destiny and can earn God's favor by living a good life, by keeping the 10 commandments, etc. But this isn't the Gospel message at all. The Gospel says that man is totally incapable of saving himself or finding favor with God by his own strength or ingenuity. And the reason man is incapable is because man cannot change his nature. Man cannot change what he inherently is. Man cannot change his essence! Only God can! And this, sir, is the warp 'n' woof of the Gospel message. God supernaturally transforms a human being from the inside out so that that person loathe his sins, repent of them, will love Christ and desire to walk in Christ's path of righteousness. God causes his people to be born again -- the proverbial "second chance", if you will. But....BUT because God is righteous He could not do any of this (since He cannot deny himself!), before satisfying the demands of his own righteous Law by taking on flesh so that he could die on the Cross to pay that penalty of sin, which is DEATH. As Paul basically said (to paraphrase): The Cross of Christ demonstrates the love of God and his justice. Therefore, God in Christ reconciled the world (Jews and Gentiles) to himself. Christ satisfied his Father's righteous demands of the Law and so Christ's righteousness is imputed to all those who would call on his Name, asking him for forgiveness.

You will not find another religion on this planet that even remotely resembles this Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That's what creationists do with Darwin's Origin of Species. They say it's not true (essentially saying it proves nothing) then they try to tear it apart. In particular they quote Darwin's comment about the evolution of the eye and then ignore the following 20 pages. Claiming that the same approach is a contradiction when applied to scripture is special pleading.

But Creationists don't say that "Origin of the Species" proves nothing! It's one thing, Mr. Actor, to say that a thing is false and another to say that a body of literature proves nothing. It's very said that you cannot recognize the fundamental difference. In the former, the Christian has liberty to use the work to demonstrate its incoherency, it's false claims, etc. But in the latter, we would not be able to use the work since it "proves NOTHING".

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Actor

That's what creationists do with Darwin's Origin of Species. They say it's not true (essentially saying it proves nothing) then they try to tear it apart. In particular they quote Darwin's comment about the evolution of the eye and then ignore the following 20 pages. Claiming that the same approach is a contradiction when applied to scripture is special pleading.

I would say both tactics, being critical of the Believers and their Bible or of Evolutionists and Darwin's work, are not constructive. When dealing with the issues of the unprovable, there's nothing wrong with taking a stand and expressing what your personal conclusion might be, but it's just urinating in the wind to think that you can win an argument of faith - whether that might be in Creation or Evolution.

Rather than being a case of "special pleading", it's simply a case of contradictions humans have with the supernatural, or when attempting to "prove" scientific theory outside our capabilities. Which is why I admit that while the Theory of Evolution makes more sense to me, it can't be proven to be any more factual than the Theory of Creation - where, of course, anything is possible.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

When the Canon was assembled and when scripture was written are two very different issues.

Uh, not in my opinion. We're talking about a very limited number of original documents, with plenty of potential for scandal and revision and editing and warping and translating taking place. For the average Christian on the street, they are under guidance from communications that would not stand up to even a cursory chain of custody inspection.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And of course scripture shares content with Judaism! Why wouldn't it since virtually all its writers were Jews!? In fact, sir, I have often said that New Covenant Christianity is nothing less but fulfillment of Old Covenant Judaism. Jewish believers in the Old Covenant and believers in this New Covenant era would certainly recognize their own scriptures. For all scripture is an organic, homogenous body of literature, progressively revealed by God over about a 1,500-year period, that manifests continuity between the Old Testament scriptures and the the New. Scripture actually tells a coherent story of God's redemptive plan for mankind. This is one way biblical Christianity differs from other theistic religions.

The point I was attempting to make are that the Abrahamic faiths share much of the same content. Whether Christ is the messiah, a heretic, or The Seal of The Prophets, is of course where the dividing lines are drawn. Just another issue with interpretation.

Originally Posted by boxcar

But, also, Christianity differs significantly from other religions because all other religions (especially the theistic ones) teach that man is in control of his destiny and can earn God's favor by living a good life, by keeping the 10 commandments, etc. But this isn't the Gospel message at all. The Gospel says that man is totally incapable of saving himself or finding favor with God by his own strength or ingenuity. And the reason man is incapable is because man cannot change his nature. Man cannot change what he inherently is. Man cannot change his essence! Only God can! And this, sir, is the warp 'n' woof of the Gospel message. God supernaturally transforms a human being from the inside out so that that person loathe his sins, repent of them, will love Christ and desire to walk in Christ's path of righteousness. God causes his people to be born again -- the proverbial "second chance", if you will. But....BUT because God is righteous He could not do any of this (since He cannot deny himself!), before satisfying the demands of his own righteous Law by taking on flesh so that he could die on the Cross to pay that penalty of sin, which is DEATH. As Paul basically said (to paraphrase): The Cross of Christ demonstrates the love of God and his justice. Therefore, God in Christ reconciled the world (Jews and Gentiles) to himself. Christ satisfied his Father's righteous demands of the Law and so Christ's righteousness is imputed to all those who would call on his Name, asking him for forgiveness.

You will not find another religion on this planet that even remotely resembles this Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Messiah factor is hardly unique to Christianity - the difference is that He's been here already once. The other two Abrahamic faiths obviously don't believe that, but they buy into much of everything else. I won't argue that there are obviously technical differences between the religions, (especially pertaining to the path of the Afterlife), but for the average Joe and concerning their life here on Earth, the differences are not that great.

It seems to be a contradiction to me that you insist Man cannot change his nature, but has the Free Will to accept or reject the Savior. That makes no sense. Man can change his nature, and whether that change is through God or mindfulness or hugging a big pine tree three times daily is open for debate.

People are flawed of course, all of us. But that little factoid shouldn't be allowed to provide the grounds for establishing a rigid view of "one, and only one, true path" for all. That takes us away from being human, and attempts to turn us into robots.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But Creationists don't say that "Origin of the Species" proves nothing! It's one thing, Mr. Actor, to say that a thing is false and another to say that a body of literature proves nothing. It's very said that you cannot recognize the fundamental difference. In the former, the Christian has liberty to use the work to demonstrate its incoherency, it's false claims, etc. But in the latter, we would not be able to use the work since it "proves NOTHING".

Actually, my college roommate said quite forcefully that "Origin of the Species" was a pack of the Devil's lies, and proved nothing. He was a Thumper, a member of The Navigators, and overall a bit of odd dude, though I'm sure he felt the same about me.

We used to have some, err, interesting discussions about Evolution vs. Creationism. They were not nearly as exciting as his arguments with the Catholic fella down the hall.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Uh, not in my opinion. We're talking about a very limited number of original documents, with plenty of potential for scandal and revision and editing and warping and translating taking place. For the average Christian on the street, they are under guidance from communications that would not stand up to even a cursory chain of custody inspection.



The point I was attempting to make are that the Abrahamic faiths share much of the same content. Whether Christ is the messiah, a heretic, or The Seal of The Prophets, is of course where the dividing lines are drawn. Just another issue with interpretation.




The Messiah factor is hardly unique to Christianity - the difference is that He's been here already once. The other two Abrahamic faiths obviously don't believe that, but they buy into much of everything else. I won't argue that there are obviously technical differences between the religions, (especially pertaining to the path of the Afterlife), but for the average Joe and concerning their life here on Earth, the differences are not that great.

It seems to be a contradiction to me that you insist Man cannot change his nature, but has the Free Will to accept or reject the Savior. That makes no sense. Man can change his nature, and whether that change is through God or mindfulness or hugging a big pine tree three times daily is open for debate.

People are flawed of course, all of us. But that little factoid shouldn't be allowed to provide the grounds for establishing a rigid view of "one, and only one, true path" for all. That takes us away from being human, and attempts to turn us into robots.

Sorry...you're totally ignorant of biblical Christianity. The few superficial agreements between Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths pale by comparison to the numerous profound differences between the two sets of faiths.

The Messiah of the bible is unique because no other religion portrays their version of the messiah as being the savior of the world. No one has their Messiah going to the Cross to satisfy his Father's justice. No one has their Messiah raising from the dead three days after his death.

For your info, the vast majority of Muslims loathe the concept of the Cross of Christ and his sacrificial death, even though many of them might even pay lip service to Jesus as being a "great prophet".

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Maurice Nicoll must have hung with a better crowd. It's been my experience there are many who are not capable nor interested in inner growth. Often they are found at the racetrack.

As I mentioned Nicoll was a contemporary of G.I. Gurdjieff,and P.D. Ouspensky. The assumption is that they contacted and learned from esoteric schools that were "custodians" of ancient spiritual teachings on the evolution of humanity.
Gurdjieff spoke in general terms about esotericc schools directed by a circle of evolved human beings who have guided the spiritual development of humanity throughout
history:

Originally Posted by http://gurdjiefffourthway.org/pdf/wisdom.pdf

The supposition that such people have existed in the past, and that they decisively influenced human life in ways that ordinary people cannot understand, is the hypothesis that a n ‘Inner Circle’ of humanity existed in the past . . . This tradition is
common to most Sufi teachings and it was affirmed by Gurdjieff himself.
He associates it with the idea of esoteric
schools. He defined ‘schools’ as organizations that exist for the purpose of transmitting to the ‘Outer Circle -- that is, ordinary people -- the know-
ledge and powers that originate in the ‘Inner Circle.’

The "inner Circle" have left behind clues in all of humanities works. Be it great literature, art and music. Religious works and scriptures get passed down to us mostly thru an enormous historical game of "telephone". Religious masters, Christ, Buddha and Lao Tsu and their immediate students and disciples did the best they could to leave behind "alarm" clocks to wake humanity from their waking sleep.

Events from 2,000 years ago reach us as ripples in time produced by heavy stones of truth dropped in the river of time by these masters among the inner circle of humanity. Unfortunately we stand on the distant shoreline of this river and the original major waves reach us as hugely diminished hard to observe ripples.

As I keep telling boxcar the diminishing of truth is primarily due to taking extremely impotent concepts in the lowest literal sense.

Idol worship

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

As I mentioned Nicoll was a contemporary of G.I. Gurdjieff,and P.D. Ouspensky. The assumption is that they contacted and learned from esoteric schools that were "custodians" of ancient spiritual teachings on the evolution of humanity.
Gurdjieff spoke in general terms about esotericc schools directed by a circle of evolved human beings who have guided the spiritual development of humanity throughout
history:

The supposition that such people have existed in the past, and that they decisively influenced human life in ways that ordinary people cannot understand, is the hypothesis that a n ‘Inner Circle’ of humanity existed in the past . . . This tradition is
common to most Sufi teachings and it was affirmed by Gurdjieff himself.
He associates it with the idea of esoteric
schools. He defined ‘schools’ as organizations that exist for the purpose of transmitting to the ‘Outer Circle -- that is, ordinary people -- the know-
ledge and powers that originate in the ‘Inner Circle.’ (1)

The "inner Circle hve left behind clues in all of humanities works. Be it great literature, art and music. Religious works and scriptures get passed down to us mostly as an enormous historical game of "telephone". Religious masters, Christ, Buddha and Lao Tsu and their immediate students and disciples did the best they could to leave behind "alarm" clocks to wake humanity from their waking sleep.

Events from 2,000 years ago reach us as ripples in time produced by heavy stones of truth dropped in the river of time by these masters among the inner circle of humanity. Unfortunately we stand on the shoreline of this river and the original major waves reach us as hugely diminished hard to observe ripples.
As I keep telling boxcar thew diminishing of truth is primarily due to taking extremely impotent concepts in the lowest literal sense.

Idol worship

True idol worship is allegorizing gods made in your image.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

I would tell them that "We are all children of God...and while God loans a child to us and expects us to care for him or her, God can beckon any of us home at any point, be it after 1 minute of life or 98 years."

Good effort, but there is no correct answer the way the question is framed. The assumption is that the parents do not understand their faith or beliefs. If the parents correctly understand their belief system the only words needed would be words of condolences for their loss and to grieve with them in their time of sorrow.

If the parents are atheist, again words of condolences regretting that the parents passed on defective genes to their offspring.

[Show Me the Wire]

And Kisa Gotami had an only son, and he died. In her grief she carried the dead child to all her neighbors, asking them for medicine, and the people said: "She has lost her senses. The boy is dead. At length Kisa Gotami met a man who replied to her request: "I cannot give thee medicine for thy child, but I know a physician who can." The girl said: "Pray tell me, sir; who is it?" And the man replied: "Go to Sakyamuni, the Buddha."........

Putting away the selfishness of her affection for her child, Kisa Gotami had the dead body buried in the forest. Returning to the Buddha, she took refuge in him and found comfort in the Dharma, which is a balm that will soothe all the pains of our troubled hearts........

"Not from weeping nor from grieving will any one obtain peace of mind; on the contrary, his pain will be the greater and his body will suffer. He will make himself sick and pale, yet the dead are not saved by his lamentation. People pass away, and their fate after death will be according to their deeds. If a man live a hundred years, or even more, he will at last be separated from the company of his relatives, and leave the life of this world. He who seeks peace should draw out the arrow of lamentation, and complaint, and grief. He who has drawn out the arrow and has become composed will obtain peace of mind; he who has overcome all sorrow will become free from sorrow, and be blessed."



http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg85.htm [emphasis added]

[Show Me the Wire]

what to tell a grieving parent over the loss of a child.

“The impermanence of this floating world
I feel over and over
It is hardest to be the one left behind.”
Otagaki Rengetsu (1791-1875)