Religion II

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

As a "poor" golfer, I can relate to that.
In that game, overthinking can lead to 'paralysis by analysis.'

The ant, after having watched the centipede for many days, goes up to the centipede and says, “Friend, you are truly amazing. You have 100 legs and they march in such unison, like a well-trained army. It is fabulous to watch. How do you do this without any flaws?” The pleased centipede asks, “Never thought of it. Are you sure? Am I really that good?” The ant replies, “I have just 6 legs, and I trip over them all the time. I don’t know how you do this so well with one hundred legs! You are a genius.”

I think the all encompassing metaphor in interpreting many parts of many scriptures, is the use of scaled up or scaled down "model" as an analogy or metaphor . External trees, external gardens, external snakes to paint a story of our psychological being.

The Bhagavad Gita is clearly about the war within. The old testament follows a similar external model. In this allegorical approach, battles, slaves, soldiers, monarchs and servants describe spiritual, and non spiritual processes within. Mostly assuming the honest practicing wishes to move towards the spiritual.

My approach is to attempt to witness the ongoing struggle to wake. After understanding there was very little vitrified history in the bible, and a curious multitudes of atrocities, I gave up on typical approaches. My rabbis did not agree. Until I met some who used the same metaphor. Literal minded Jews are as prevalent as literal minded Christians.

I think the main distortion of scripture is confusing the external for the internal real message.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... you're assuming speech is limited to only humans. Yet, scripture teaches otherwise.

So, after refusing to answer a direct question, you volunteer the information. You do believe in talking animals. This is what keeps you from seeing that the story is fiction.

Now the question remains, do you believe horses give birth to rabbits? I'd say that the answer to that one is yes, you do. The next question is why?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

So, after refusing to answer a direct question, you volunteer the information. You do believe in talking animals. This is what keeps you from seeing that the story is fiction.

Now the question remains, do you believe horses give birth to rabbits? I'd say that the answer to that one is yes, you do. The next question is why?

You're misrepresenting what I told Hcap with respect to the Serpent. Very dishonest of you. The Law of Distrust applies to you at least a 100 fold.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're misrepresenting what I told Hcap with respect to the Serpent.

How?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Very dishonest of you.

The pot calling the kettle black.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

So Adam and Eve failed the test and were banished for screwing up? On the other hand god frowned on "self-mastery apart from the Creator".

Maybe god should have included some "self-mastery" when he made the whole kit and caboodle of his "children" and the universe. Galaxies, space, time, and matter and everything, but no ability to determine god's preferred direction his children should take towards him?

Seems to me all of the ensuing original sin, destruction of the world by a flood and spiritual dead ends experienced by mankind, might have been minimized with some self-discipline and knowledge and ability needed to discriminate the correct way from the wrong way.

Self mastery is not the problem. On the contrary it is mainly the ego driven substitution of an overly active analyzing mind for experience life directly. Knowledge is useful, but:

I remember as a kid, playing softball. Got pretty good. But there were a few friends that spent hours and days studying professional baseball players, games and a ton load of statistics. They would argue theoretically and knew details beyond any of us who played and developed the life skills of playing.

Of course they were awful as athletes, and were never chosen on anyone's' team when the kids actually played. They were so full of the "weight" of facts they could not run, or field, or hit or throw.

Or live.

Their self-mastery in thinking at the wrong time interfered with the proper self-mastery of playing.
...............................................

Zen Buddhism addresses this collection of substituting pre-conceptions for direct understanding :

A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a University professor, who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”

“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”

"If I were god, I'd have done a better job." Strange to see "ego" mentioned in the same response.

"Banished", the OT concept of YHWH as efficient cause/YHWH "withdrawing" his grace (but not his covenantal commitment) out of justice as a divine attribute, and other aspects such as subsequent wounded nature/concupiscence are in play here. But it will have to do.

Well, I can choose between hcap, Deepak Chopra, Levi Dowling, Jose Silva, Edgar Cayce, Richard Bach, Matthew Fox, or any of the future stars of the "Spirituality good, Religion bad" league, to inform me that the Christ of the bible can be understood in any mysterious, gnostic, esoteric, subjective manner, as long as it's my idea (or theirs) rather than a traditional, corporate understanding because, you know, fixed standards and dogmas (unless forthcoming from the above named) cause conflict, unlike these comboxes where self-help monism co-exists with young earth creationism.

I can write off the trendy and chic love affair with Eastern mysticism by Westerners, so unhindered by reason, logic and metaphysics just as easily as my Christianity, held by many a scripture scholar, is written off. I'm able to see that the rejection of authority ought to extend to my authorities admonishing me in obscure off topic forums, also. I can grasp that it's nothing more than an hermeneutic of suspicion that suggests the true Christ was suppressed in a game of arm wrestle which the Gnostics lost, who then went underground until rescued by relatively contemporary saviors of divine consciousness.

In reading your past performances, when Paul signaled for a left turn at the corner of Phrygia and Galatia (Acts 16:6), allegory or no it was a bane for the West, but I shall remain thankful. I may have stated it before, but "that's what makes a horse race."

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I can write off the trendy and chic love affair with Eastern mysticism by Westerners, so unhindered by reason, logic and metaphysics just as easily as my Christianity, held by many a scripture scholar, is written off. I'm able to see that the rejection of authority ought to extend to my authorities admonishing me in obscure off topic forums, also. I can grasp that it's nothing more than an hermeneutic of suspicion that suggests the true Christ was suppressed in a game of arm wrestle which the Gnostics lost, who then went underground until rescued by relatively contemporary saviors of divine consciousness.

In reading your past performances, when Paul signaled for a left turn at the corner of Phrygia and Galatia (Acts 16:6), allegory or no it was a bane for the West, but I shall remain thankful. I may have stated it before, but "that's what makes a horse race."

Buddhism, Taoism and Hindu philosophy in many cases are older than Abrahamic philosophy, and only "trendy" in your popularized understanding. In many cases these older teachings do provide in your own terms "competing polemics" But just because you think they are in opposition, doesn't mean they are. Nor are they only "chic" or fashionable or trendy. Which you use in a silly attempt to devalue other "opposing myths" and other religions

Sorry you buy into the exclusivity of

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

You have severely limited your horizons.
You use spirit as a dirty word. Jesus's exclusivity derives from what I think is a poorly understood interpretation

A more inclusive view was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church itself during the 1960s. They may have believed that the only fully true religion is their own particular branch of Christianity, but that it was still possible for some non-Christians to be saved and attain Heaven even though they have never heard of Yeshua or have never heard of Christianity.

C.S. Lewis:

"Though all salvation is through Jesus, we need not conclude that He cannot save those who have not explicitly accepted Him in this life."
"We do know that no [one] can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.

Jews and Muslims obviously reject this exclusivity.

When Jesus claimed he was the only way, he was speaking mostly in the context of the inner spiritual journey, warning against adhering blindly to Jewish law which had had become only a shell, of what was once.

The choice is always between the spiritual, and only the rules. Almost like a comic book on "Law" versus the deeper understanding of the Supreme Court.

The "map" had become and was confused literally for "the territory"

...The map–territory relation describes the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it.

[hcap]

Judaism maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come. This has been the majority rule since the days of the Talmud. Judaism generally recognizes that Christians and Muslems worship the same G-d that we do and those who follow the tenets of their religions can be considered righteous in the eyes of G-d.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Buddhism, Taoism and Hindu philosophy in many cases are older than Abrahamic philosophy, and only "trendy" in your popularized understanding. In many cases these older teachings do provide in your own terms "competing polemics" But just because you think they are in opposition, doesn't mean they are. Nor are they only "chic" or fashionable or trendy. Which you use in a silly attempt to devalue other "opposing myths" and other religions

Sorry you buy into the exclusivity of
You have severely limited your horizons.
You use spirit as a dirty word. Jesus's exclusivity derives from what I think is a poorly understood interpretation

A more inclusive view was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church itself during the 1960s. They may have believed that the only fully true religion is their own particular branch of Christianity, but that it was still possible for some non-Christians to be saved and attain Heaven even though they have never heard of Yeshua or have never heard of Christianity.

C.S. Lewis:

Jews and Muslims obviously reject this exclusivity.

When Jesus claimed he was the only way, he was speaking mostly in the context of the inner spiritual journey, warning against adhering blindly to Jewish law which had had become only a shell, of what was once.

The choice is always between the spiritual, and only the rules. Almost like a comic book on "Law" versus the deeper understanding of the Supreme Court.

The "map" had become and was confused literally for "the territory"

...The map–territory relation describes the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it.

While I have the utmost respect for Lewis' works, generally, and his profound spiritual insights he has offered the world, I cannot agree with him here. The bible does in fact address "saving knowledge", that is to say, the requirement to know God -- to have a real, albeit imperfect, knowledge of him. The warp 'n' woof of God's gift of eternal life to his chosen people is knowing Him (Jn 17:3). The divine purpose to the gift of eternal life is to abolish spiritual death which resulted in the estrangement and enmity that separates all fallen sinners from God. And Jesus very clearly taught that only those who believe Him who sent Jesus and those who believe in Jesus have eternal life (Jn 5:24; 6:47). The only exception to this teaching, as best I can tell from my knowledge of the scriptures, is with the young who die not having the knowledge of good and evil, as discussed previously.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Judaism maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come.

So does Christianity.

This has been the majority rule since the days of the Talmud. Judaism generally recognizes that Christians and Muslems worship the same G-d that we do and those who follow the tenets of their religions can be considered righteous in the eyes of G-d.

Christianity does not.

1 John 2:23
23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.
NASB

Or to express a very similar sentiment from the Law of Moses:

Deut 18:18-19
18 'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 'And it shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him.
NASB

Nothing worse than a half truth masquerading as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by hcap

Buddhism, Taoism and Hindu philosophy in many cases are older than Abrahamic philosophy, and only "trendy" in your popularized understanding. In many cases these older teachings do provide in your own terms "competing polemics" But just because you think they are in opposition, doesn't mean they are. Nor are they only "chic" or fashionable or trendy. Which you use in a silly attempt to devalue other "opposing myths" and other religions

Sorry you buy into the exclusivity of
You have severely limited your horizons.
You use spirit as a dirty word. Jesus's exclusivity derives from what I think is a poorly understood interpretation

A more inclusive view was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church itself during the 1960s. They may have believed that the only fully true religion is their own particular branch of Christianity, but that it was still possible for some non-Christians to be saved and attain Heaven even though they have never heard of Yeshua or have never heard of Christianity.

C.S. Lewis:

Jews and Muslims obviously reject this exclusivity.

When Jesus claimed he was the only way, he was speaking mostly in the context of the inner spiritual journey, warning against adhering blindly to Jewish law which had had become only a shell, of what was once.

The choice is always between the spiritual, and only the rules. Almost like a comic book on "Law" versus the deeper understanding of the Supreme Court.

The "map" had become and was confused literally for "the territory"

...The map–territory relation describes the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it.

Excellent post Cap. It will be lost on your interlocutor,buy many others can appreciate it. Note the Pavlovian rejection of the beautiful CS Lewis quote.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Dnlgfnk, let me ask a more specific question. You said Ok, but other than competing myths, how would you interpret the tree of the knowledge of good and evil versus the tree of life?

If I may. The traditional interpretation of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is: [T]hey who owing to some act of treachery have taken poison, allay its deadly influence by means of some other drug—for it is necessary that the antidote should enter the human vitals in the same way as the deadly poison, in order to secure, through them, that the effect of the remedy may be distributed through the entire system (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechism, 37).

This is the effect of the poison. 1) Disorder was introduced in human nature, in which the soul was ruled by the body rather than the other way around, 2) disorder in our relationships with others, and 3) separation from God. As a result of these disorders there is physical death, which is the separation of the soul from the body.

To clarify there is no traditional teaching that the body itself is evil or that man became evil. The teaching is man became disordered in that the body leads the soul, in relationships with each other and with God, separation.

[thaskalos]

When Jesus asks us to "follow him, in order to be saved"...is he asking us to embrace the Christian religion? Was Jesus a "Christian"...or Buddha a "Buddhist"?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When Jesus asks us to "follow him, in order to be saved"...is he asking us to embrace the Christian religion? Was Jesus a "Christian"...or Buddha a "Buddhist"?

By "following" Jesus, one is "embracing" Judaism in its fullness; therefore, Christianity is Judaism fulfilled. Jesus is the very embodiment of Judaism.

Matt 5:17-18
17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
NASB

Jesus has fulfilled all the OT (i.e. Law and Prophets), save for the eschatological aspects of his salvation.

[Show Me the Wire]

The tree of life is the remedy for the poison of disorder, which entered the human race.

[T]hey who owing to some act of treachery have taken poison, allay its deadly influence by means of some other drug—for it is necessary that the antidote should enter the human vitals in the same way as the deadly poison, in order to secure, through them, that the effect of the remedy may be distributed through the entire system (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechism, 37).

Sin was introduced to mankind through the act of eating, thus it is necessary that that the antidote enter the body in the same manner. The antidote is the Eucharist. The Eucharist restores order to the disorder by partaking in the body and blood of Christ.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

By "following" Jesus, one is "embracing" Judaism in its fullness; therefore, Christianity is Judaism fulfilled. Jesus is the very embodiment of Judaism.

Matt 5:17-18
17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
NASB

Jesus has fulfilled all the OT (i.e. Law and Prophets), save for the eschatological aspects of his salvation.

Which "Christianity" are you talking about, though?