Religion II

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And when Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is his, and unto God what is His", was he teaching the Jewish religious authorities to be fair to Caesar and to God? Or was he teaching them to be diligent in administering their duty to even two higher authorities than themselves?

When Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" he is saying the same thing as "love your enemies" or "turn the other cheek".

He is saying "do not resist". Resistance brings pain. By accepting what is, pain is minimized not maximized as when you don't accept what is and fight. That is ego and illusion because it is based on pride, another trap. Fighting solves nothing and results in all kinds of turmoil only to come back to the original place you started from before you got angry.

When you finally calm down, then there is a solution. But there was an unnecessary waste of time and pain. If you gave to Caesar and God, God will reward you. Maybe not monetarily but where it really counts and that's in your heart. Jesus was trying to teach people how to live in peace and in two worlds simultaneously. The material and the spiritual.

The problem with the Jews and why they stopped believing in Jesus after the destruction of the Holy Temple in 70 AD is because they were looking for material gain and Jesus was was not into the gains of "illusions" in this world as was proven when he said And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?

This is why you and the Jews of 70 AD who abandoned Christ, don't understand that what happens in this world of illusion is not as important as what happens in your heart and soul,reality. And if you want to learn that, in the here and now, Jesus is the best teacher you can find. You will find him within if you look. Not in a book that caters to your egoic master of illusions.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

Mr. Light


It's not fair of you to accuse boxcar of being senile because of the second sentence I just wrote.

You should try having an extended dialog with him before accusing me of that. He cannot remember who said what after a little while.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, now we're left with Einstein's model -- a finite universe. A universe that had a beginning and will one day end.

Einstein proposed several models of the universe and never claimed to have nailed it down to a particular one.

Space-time consists of the three classical dimensions x,y,z and the forth dimension t (time). There are three possibilities for x,y,z: either the universe is flat, closed or open. If we were discussing only two dimensions (x,y) then a flat universe would be like a map. This kind of universe would have to either be infinite or have edges. A closed universe in two dimensions would be like a globe, a finite surface with no edges. An open universe in two dimensions would be like a saddle, I won't go into that.

If the universe were flat then the big bang would have a location and we could say "this is where the big bang took place" (OK, that's an oversimplification). But we do not see this. Instead we see the cosmic microwave background radiation no matter which way we look, which means the universe has no center. If it has no center then it must be a closed universe.

But if the dimensions x,y,z are closed then the fourth dimension t = time must also be closed, i.e., eventually the future must also be the past and the past must also be the future.

It is mathematically possible for x,y,z to be closed while t is open. It violates no laws of logic but of course this does not prove it. Nevertheless a universe with three closed dimension and one flat dimension lacks elegance, ergo, I don't buy it but at the same time I admit I could be wrong.

But if time is closed then causal loops are possible and an infinite regress is not required. And Newton's Third Law demands causal loops. 'A' cannot move 'B' unless 'B' simultaneously moves 'A'. 'A' cannot cause 'B' unless 'B' simultaneously causes 'A'. There is no "ultimate cause" of the universe.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

When Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" he is saying the same thing as "love your enemies" or "turn the other cheek".

He is saying "do not resist". Resistance brings pain. By accepting what is, pain is minimized not maximized as when you don't accept what is and fight. That is ego and illusion because it is based on pride, another trap. Fighting solves nothing and results in all kinds of turmoil only to come back to the original place you started from before you got angry.

When you finally calm down, then there is a solution. But there was an unnecessary waste of time and pain. If you gave to Caesar and God, God will reward you. Maybe not monetarily but where it really counts and that's in your heart. Jesus was trying to teach people how to live in peace and in two worlds simultaneously. The material and the spiritual.

The problem with the Jews and why they stopped believing in Jesus after the destruction of the Holy Temple in 70 AD is because they were looking for material gain and Jesus was was not into the gains of "illusions" in this world as was proven when he said And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?

This is why you and the Jews of 70 AD who abandoned Christ, don't understand that what happens in this world of illusion is not as important as what happens in your heart and soul,reality. And if you want to learn that, in the here and now, Jesus is the best teacher you can find. You will find him within if you look. Not in a book that caters to your egoic master of illusions.

So, what does all that nonsense have to with the kingdom parable in Matthew 20? Again, do you agree with your "best friend" Jesus that the landowner in the parable treated all his laborers justly? Yes or no.

And the Jews, as a nation, didn't believe in Jesus BEFORE the destruction of the temple. This is precisely why God judged them and drove them from the land and destroyed their temple by the hands of the Romans. The Jews were severely punished for murdering the only begotten Son of God!

And you're so blinded with your extremely distorted, perverted view of the bible's message that you would see and interpret "love" in a pile of steaming horse manure, and if it were set on a plate try to con us to dig in and eat up so that we could be filled with love!

Jesus wasn't teaching non-resistance to the Christ-hating Pharisees and Herodians. They questioned Jesus, trying to trap him politically. They thought they could spring a catch-22 trap on him so that no matter how he answered they would have grounds to charge him either before the Roman governor or before the Jewish people as being anti-Mosaic Law.

Matt 22:15-22
15 Then the Pharisees went and counseled together how they might trap Him in what He said. 16 And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any. 17 "Tell us therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?" 18 But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, "Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? 19 "Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius. 20 And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21 They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." 22 And hearing this, they marveled, and leaving Him, they went away.
NASB


The Jews hated paying taxes to Rome, which is why they also, generally, despised their Jewish brethren who were tax gatherers for Rome. Those God-hating, unbelieving Pharisees thought to themselves that if Jesus spoke out against the tax (and, therefore, against the Roman authorities), they could bring him before the Roman governor and accuse him of treason -- of speaking against Caesar. On the other hand, if Jesus spoke in favor of the Roman taxes, his enemies could bring him before the Jewish People and accuse Jesus of breaking the Covenant Law of Moses which bound them to God in a theocratic form of government. But Jesus knowing the hearts of all men perceived their hatred for him and knew they were laying a trap.

Jesus' answer, of course, is just another example of his infinite wisdom -- wisdom that far exceeds all the Buddhas and wanna-be Buddhas of this world. He taught them that their duty towards God did not exempt them from their duty also towards the governing authorities that God had sovereignly set over them. The Jews were required to fulfill their duty to both divine authority and human authority, especially since all governing authorities are established by God, which the Jews should have known from their own OT scriptures. The Jews were required to submit to God's authority and to Roman authority, with the former taking precedence over the latter only when the latter authority attempts to get their subjects to violate God's law.

Paul reinforces Jesus' teaching also in Romans 13, as does Peter in 1Peter 2.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Einstein proposed several models of the universe and never claimed to have nailed it down to a particular one.

Space-time consists of the three classical dimensions x,y,z and the forth dimension t (time). There are three possibilities for x,y,z: either the universe is flat, closed or open. If we were discussing only two dimensions (x,y) then a flat universe would be like a map. This kind of universe would have to either be infinite or have edges. A closed universe in two dimensions would be like a globe, a finite surface with no edges. An open universe in two dimensions would be like a saddle, I won't go into that.

If the universe were flat then the big bang would have a location and we could say "this is where the big bang took place" (OK, that's an oversimplification). But we do not see this. Instead we see the cosmic microwave background radiation no matter which way we look, which means the universe has no center. If it has no center then it must be a closed universe.

But if the dimensions x,y,z are closed then the fourth dimension t = time must also be closed, i.e., eventually the future must also be the past and the past must also be the future.

It is mathematically possible for x,y,z to be closed while t is open. It violates no laws of logic but of course this does not prove it. Nevertheless a universe with three closed dimension and one flat dimension lacks elegance, ergo, I don't buy it but at the same time I admit I could be wrong.

But if time is closed then causal loops are possible and an infinite regress is not required. And Newton's Third Law demands causal loops. 'A' cannot move 'B' unless 'B' simultaneously moves 'A'. 'A' cannot cause 'B' unless 'B' simultaneously causes 'A'. There is no "ultimate cause" of the universe.

So, if no ultimate cause, the only reason the universe exists is circular. The universe is because it is.

Nice job. Thanks for playing.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

You are absolutely senile. I was referring to YOUR definitions of "good" and "bad". I was asking YOU what YOUR standards are for "good" and "bad".

Once again for the comprehensively challenged. Illusion 101.

WHO ARE YOU? You are not your body or your mind or your job title or your age or your family role, or your egoic identity. etc. All this is illusion. It is here today,gone tomorrow. That is the definition of illusion.

As Shakespeare said

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts

Reality 101

Reality is YOUR ESSENCE within, beyond thought and ego, which is in this dimension and the next and all other dimensions. It is connected to God and love. Only what springs from that source is REAL and will not disappear as illusions do. Your job on this planet is to connect to it, which is your true self and once connected to it, to follow its path.

But don't fret over what my objective standards are for right and wrong; rather be concerned over your own self-defeating moral relativism.

Now...as for "your essence within...", then why do you fret and rant and rave like a lunatic about what Trump does outside your reality. What Trump does is simply an illusion, according to your own definition of reality. He's really NOT bringing harm to anyone. Any harm he's bringing is strictly the product of your own non-existent mind. His "harm" is an illusion in your own head.

Plus you have already said that good and evil are illusions, themselves. (Well, at least you did before you contradicted yourself and said his actions were immoral in nature.) So, why do you get so upset with someone's amoral actions? It seems to me you should really be upset with all your own internal conflicts and the Chronic Cognitive Dissonance Disorder from which you suffer.

In other words, you need to get some real help. Quit paying attention to this external, non-existent physical world and get in touch with your "essence" within. Quit looking out the window. In fact, if you were to stick your head where the sun never shines, that would really put you in touch with your INNER self and essence, in a way you never thought imaginable, and you'd never see the outside world of illusion. You'd be illusion-free forever. Guaranteed.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Albert Camus Edit

Though the notion of the 'absurd' pervades all Albert Camus's writing, The Myth of Sisyphus is his chief work on the subject. In it, Camus considers absurdity as a confrontation, an opposition, a conflict or a "divorce" between two ideals. Specifically, he defines the human condition as absurd, as the confrontation between man's desire for significance, meaning and clarity on the one hand – and the silent, cold universe on the other. He continues that there are specific human experiences evoking notions of absurdity. Such a realization or encounter with the absurd leaves the individual with a choice: suicide, a leap of faith, or recognition. He concludes that recognition is the only defensible option.[1]

For Camus, suicide is a "confession" that life is not worth living; it is a choice that implicitly declares that life is "too much." Suicide offers the most basic "way out" of absurdity: the immediate termination of the self and its place in the universe.

The absurd encounter can also arouse a "leap of faith," a term derived from one of Kierkegaard's early pseudonyms, Johannes de Silentio (although the term was not used by Kierkegaard himself),[16] where one believes that there is more than the rational life (aesthetic or ethical). To take a "leap of faith," one must act with the "virtue of the absurd" (as Johannes de Silentio put it), where a suspension of the ethical may need to exist. This faith has no expectations, but is a flexible power initiated by a recognition of the absurd. (Although at some point, one recognizes or encounters the existence of the Absurd and, in response, actively ignores it.) However, Camus states that because the leap of faith escapes rationality and defers to abstraction over personal experience, the leap of faith is not absurd. Camus considers the leap of faith as "philosophical suicide," rejecting both this and physical suicide.[16][17]

Lastly, a person can choose to embrace the absurd condition. According to Camus, one's freedom – and the opportunity to give life meaning – lies in the recognition of absurdity. If the absurd experience is truly the realization that the universe is fundamentally devoid of absolutes, then we as individuals are truly free. "To live without appeal,"[18] as he puts it, is a philosophical move to define absolutes and universals subjectively, rather than objectively. The freedom of humans is thus established in a human's natural ability and opportunity to create their own meaning and purpose; to decide (or think) for him- or herself. The individual becomes the most precious unit of existence, representing a set of unique ideals that can be characterized as an entire universe in its own right. In acknowledging the absurdity of seeking any inherent meaning, but continuing this search regardless, one can be happy, gradually developing meaning from the search alone.

Camus states in The Myth of Sisyphus: "Thus I draw from the absurd three consequences, which are my revolt, my freedom, and my passion. By the mere activity of consciousness I transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death, and I refuse suicide."[19] "Revolt" here refers to the refusal of suicide and search for meaning despite the revelation of the Absurd; "Freedom" refers to the lack of imprisonment by religious devotion or others' moral codes; "Passion" refers to the most wholehearted experiencing of life, since hope has been rejected, and so he concludes that every moment must be lived fully.
Wikipedia

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Albert Camus Edit

Though the notion of the 'absurd' pervades all Albert Camus's writing, The Myth of Sisyphus is his chief work on the subject. In it, Camus considers absurdity as a confrontation, an opposition, a conflict or a "divorce" between two ideals. Specifically, he defines the human condition as absurd, as the confrontation between man's desire for significance, meaning and clarity on the one hand – and the silent, cold universe on the other. He continues that there are specific human experiences evoking notions of absurdity. Such a realization or encounter with the absurd leaves the individual with a choice: suicide, a leap of faith, or recognition. He concludes that recognition is the only defensible option.[1]

For Camus, suicide is a "confession" that life is not worth living; it is a choice that implicitly declares that life is "too much." Suicide offers the most basic "way out" of absurdity: the immediate termination of the self and its place in the universe.

The absurd encounter can also arouse a "leap of faith," a term derived from one of Kierkegaard's early pseudonyms, Johannes de Silentio (although the term was not used by Kierkegaard himself),[16] where one believes that there is more than the rational life (aesthetic or ethical). To take a "leap of faith," one must act with the "virtue of the absurd" (as Johannes de Silentio put it), where a suspension of the ethical may need to exist. This faith has no expectations, but is a flexible power initiated by a recognition of the absurd. (Although at some point, one recognizes or encounters the existence of the Absurd and, in response, actively ignores it.) However, Camus states that because the leap of faith escapes rationality and defers to abstraction over personal experience, the leap of faith is not absurd. Camus considers the leap of faith as "philosophical suicide," rejecting both this and physical suicide.[16][17]

Lastly, a person can choose to embrace the absurd condition. According to Camus, one's freedom – and the opportunity to give life meaning – lies in the recognition of absurdity. If the absurd experience is truly the realization that the universe is fundamentally devoid of absolutes, then we as individuals are truly free. "To live without appeal,"[18] as he puts it, is a philosophical move to define absolutes and universals subjectively, rather than objectively. The freedom of humans is thus established in a human's natural ability and opportunity to create their own meaning and purpose; to decide (or think) for him- or herself. The individual becomes the most precious unit of existence, representing a set of unique ideals that can be characterized as an entire universe in its own right. In acknowledging the absurdity of seeking any inherent meaning, but continuing this search regardless, one can be happy, gradually developing meaning from the search alone.

Camus states in The Myth of Sisyphus: "Thus I draw from the absurd three consequences, which are my revolt, my freedom, and my passion. By the mere activity of consciousness I transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death, and I refuse suicide."[19] "Revolt" here refers to the refusal of suicide and search for meaning despite the revelation of the Absurd; "Freedom" refers to the lack of imprisonment by religious devotion or others' moral codes; "Passion" refers to the most wholehearted experiencing of life, since hope has been rejected, and so he concludes that every moment must be lived fully.
Wikipedia

I bet you embrace lots of absurdities, most especially contradictions.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I bet you embrace lots of absurdities, most especially contradictions.

The difference is that while you are embarked on a "leap of faith", I continue along the third path, of recognition and accommodation to the absurdity of the universe and our individual places within it...

While the "leap of faith" is a response to this absurdity, and not absurd itself and understandable, it is, as Camus says, "philosophical suicide"...

...and Christians and other faith leapers are philosophical zombies, who have exchanged this world for "the other"... Have vacated their authentic self to make room for the " ChristPersona" or some other visionary to inhabit what they view as their hopelessly corrupted body and mind.

That is why it is so very unsatisfying to attempt to philosophize with them...they are literally dead to philosophy, but alive to Christ, and so and so...this vacancy of the authentic self is the sine-qua-non of the true believer...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

The difference is that while you are embarked on a "leap of faith", I continue along the third path, of recognition and accommodation to the absurdity of the universe and our individual places within it...

While the "leap of faith" is a response to this absurdity, and not absurd itself and understandable, it is, as Camus says, "philosophical suicide"...

...and Christians and other faith leapers are philosophical zombies, who have exchanged this world for "the other"... Have vacated their authentic self to make room for the " ChristPersona" or some other visionary to inhabit what they view as their hopelessly corrupted body and mind.

That is why it is so very unsatisfying to attempt to philosophize with them...they are literally dead to philosophy, but alive to Christ, and so and so...this vacancy of the authentic self is the sine-qua-non of the true believer...

Well...you got something almost right. Christians are "alive to Christ" and dead to the world and dead to our "old man" (sinful nature). But that doesn't mean necessarily that no Christian subscribes to a philosophy that is grounded at least in some biblical truth.

And for your info, the universe is not absurd. It actually makes quite a bit of sense within the framework of biblical theology. Just sayin'...

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, if no ultimate cause, the only reason the universe exists is circular.

The word "cyclical" is more accurate than "circular" because we are describing a process. Examples of cyclical phenomena are plentiful.

Does the universe need a reason to exist? Or is it just you who needs a reason?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Jesus' answer, of course, is just another example of his infinite wisdom -- wisdom that far exceeds all the Buddhas and wanna-be Buddhas of this world.

That's a matter of opinion. And my own opinion is that the Buddha's teaching runs circles around that of Jesus.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

That's a matter of opinion. And my own opinion is that the Buddha's teaching runs circles around that of Jesus

Originally Posted by Actor

Does the universe need a reason to exist? Or is it just you who needs a reason?

It is boxcar's need for a purpose from "on high" that befuddles him.

Tathata, which means "suchness" or "thusness," is a word sometimes used primarily in Mahayana Buddhism to mean "reality," or the way things really are. ... Tathata is the root of Tathagata, which is an alternate term for "Buddha."

Box, it is not necessary or perhaps not understandable by ordinary mind to intellectually "find" the why you are searching for.

In Zen experiencing reality fully, and being present or to be here now is much preferable. The mind is distracted frequently by problems not meant for your kind of word heavy incessant analysis.

A centipede was happy – quite!
Until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg moves after which?"

This raised her doubts to such a pitch,
She fell exhausted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

It is boxcar's need for a purpose from "on high" that befuddles him.

Tathata, which means "suchness" or "thusness," is a word sometimes used primarily in Mahayana Buddhism to mean "reality," or the way things really are. ... Tathata is the root of Tathagata, which is an alternate term for "Buddha."

Box, it is not necessary or perhaps not understandable by ordinary mind to intellectually "find" the why you are searching for.

In Zen experiencing reality fully, and being present or to be here now is much preferable. The mind is distracted frequently by problems not meant for your kind of word heavy incessant analysis.

A centipede was happy – quite!
Until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg moves after which?"

This raised her doubts to such a pitch,
She fell exhausted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.

I'm just curious "why" the practical scientism on display throughout these discussions gets a pass from Eastern mysticism.

[Buckeye]

Nobody gets a pass dnlgfnk.

Everything we write for that matter.