Religious

[Show Me the Wire]

Quidquid recipitur est recipitur. St. Thomas Aquinas

The brilliance of this man cannot be underestimated.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

No, I don't care to explain anything to you. Why? See my signature quote of Thomas Aquinas.

I choose my own fate by electing not to have any discussions with you or do I?

Or has God hardened your heart as he did with Pharaoh and others in scripture?

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The brilliance of this man cannot be underestimated.

He had some brilliant ideas about Jews, as well.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Quidquid recipitur est recipitur. St. Thomas Aquinas

The brilliance of this man cannot be underestimated.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The spiritual principle of human beings, leads to the theme of unity. Traditional Christianity embraces the unity theme. The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature. (CCC 362-368)[emphasis added] Further, man's calling is to be united with the Divine nature.

Traditional Christianity recognizes, as Saint Augustine so eloquently stated that God is within. The tradition recognizes the need of a practical way to seek God within, when man cannot perceive the soul with his physical senses.

In contrast to understanding that we need the strength of our own "wildness" we carry within, symbolized by bulls and oxen, to move along the interior path, we rely on God to give us the enlightenment and strength to navigate the interior path. Christians believe we cannot ascend to unity with God on our own, but only through God's grace.

As Jesus taught we must deny (die to) ourselves. A basic teaching of the Christian mystics is detachment from wants, desires. love of created things and love of images of created things as the way to accomplish denial of self. There are many practical ways to obtain detachment. Mentally through meditation, contemplation, and physical asceticism, such as fasting or abstinence from a physical desire. This is such a rich subject in traditional Christianity, it would be impossible to cover everything in a posting.

I would like to conclude with the statement that traditional Christianity does not embrace dualism of body and soul, but unity and the reliance of God's grace and not on our own works (inner strength) to ascend to God and enlightenment.

I must admit your Christian "terminology" is too abstract for me to follow completely. The ox herding set of images I posted is more appropriately based upon self observation, not so much the intellectualization of "form" and the potential for actualization. I think that it begins closer to understanding "I" and not "I" as occurring in our normal state of affairs. At any moment if we are honest with ourselves, a quick non analytical picture of our shifting motivations may be observed. Practiced often enough, a collage of our fragmentation may be witnessed. The divisions within are more tangible than understanding body versus soul. We can at least know which direction we are facing internally. And if we are even looking within and not attached to passing external whims and desires and "windows in shopping malls."

Remembering the possibility of unification is very different than our normal state of affairs of our consciousness moving from one shifting small "I" to another in habitual patterns. We lose sight of the larger picture of at some point of all parts of ourselves working in unison. A larger more "whole" I. Or at least those parts that are worth retaining. The derivation of holy is whole. ....The word Holy (from Old English: hālig meaning "wholeness"). The divisive nature we carry around within allows the "wildness" of instinctive impulses and knee-jerk learned behaviors based on those desires to run unbalanced. There is nothing wrong with the appetites of the body if we do not lose ourselves and attach who we are TOTALLY to a momentary gratification. But we tend to throw away energies that are produced as a result of balanced instinctive functioning. (Not to mention wasteful psychic habits such as giving in to negative emotions)

In many eastern schools of thought the balancing of the natural vital energies is another starting point. The ancient Chinese called the ‘subtle’ free-flowing energy in the body Qi or Chi. Theory being that the proper flow of Chi is the root of bodily health and psychological and spiritual growth. Many accounts of mystical experiences sometimes compare rising to spiritual heights to climbing a mountain. Often energy and intense effort is needed. So the wildness of our often haphazard and unbalanced "Chi"must be harnessed.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Only from your fallible, finite, horizontal perspective.

i guess all your critics according to you are........

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

i guess all your critics according to you are........

A/K/A antichrists.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

A/K/A antichrists.

I just thought I would illustrate a fanatics' full blown paranoia and lunacy.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

I must admit your Christian "terminology" is too abstract for me to follow completely. The ox herding set of images I posted is more appropriately based upon self observation, not so much the intellectualization of "form" and the potential for actualization. I think that it begins closer to understanding "I" and not "I" as occurring in our normal state of affairs. At any moment if we are honest with ourselves, a quick non analytical picture of our shifting motivations may be observed. Practiced often enough, a collage of our fragmentation may be witnessed. The divisions within are more tangible than understanding body versus soul. We can at least know which direction we are facing internally. And if we are even looking within and not attached to passing external whims and desires and "windows in shopping malls."

Remembering the possibility of unification is very different than our normal state of affairs of our consciousness moving from one shifting small "I" to another in habitual patterns. We lose sight of the larger picture of at some point of all parts of ourselves working in unison. A larger more "whole" I. Or at least those parts that are worth retaining. The derivation of holy is whole. ....The word Holy (from Old English: hālig meaning "wholeness"). The divisive nature we carry around within allows the "wildness" of instinctive impulses and knee-jerk learned behaviors based on those desires to run unbalanced. There is nothing wrong with the appetites of the body if we do not lose ourselves and attach who we are TOTALLY to a momentary gratification. But we tend to throw away energies that are produced as a result of balanced instinctive functioning. (Not to mention wasteful psychic habits such as giving in to negative emotions)

In many eastern schools of thought the balancing of the natural vital energies is another starting point. The ancient Chinese called the ‘subtle’ free-flowing energy in the body Qi or Chi. Theory being that the proper flow of Chi is the root of bodily health and psychological and spiritual growth. Many accounts of mystical experiences sometimes compare rising to spiritual heights to climbing a mountain. Often energy and intense effort is needed. So the wildness of our often haphazard and unbalanced "Chi"must be harnessed.

Sorry about the abstract terminology. Let me address Holiness (wholeness). True holiness (wholeness) is being united with the Divine nature. The divisive nature is not about body and soul.

Another stumbling block, in our discussion, is the concept of duality. The term duality is used in many ways and has different meanings. In traditional Christianity duality does not arise from a conflict between body and soul. Yes, some have misunderstood and have taught the physical body is evil as it is part of the material world creating a conflict between body and soul.

The divisive nature arises through the self, by which we separate ourselves from the Divine nature. The self allows the "wildness" of instinctive impulses and knee-jerk learned behaviors based on those desires to run unbalanced, as a result of the separation from the Divine nature, communion with God.

The self does not cause duality between the body and soul. Why? The soul is passive, it is a receptacle containing what it is given and or nourished with.

The self effects the intangible aspects of man, the mind, including imagination, pride, desires regarding love of people and objects as well as the body.

The Christian path is to union with the Divine nature through Christ. A path which is traveled inwardly and outwardly.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I just thought I would illustrate a fanatics' full blown paranoia and lunacy.

Anyone who thinks our yesterdays become our todays or that five minutes ago have become this present moment should stay out of the illustratin' business.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by SMTW

True holiness (wholeness) is being united with the Divine nature. The divisive nature is not about body and soul.

There are traditions where the abrahamic God does not exist. I use the word "divine" to mean similar experiences as the Christian, Jewish and Islamic mystics use to describe a dramatic and world changing change of mind and being. Transformation to wholeness is at the root of all spiritual teachings no matter if we call it "God" satori or enlightenment. What is common among all is heart, compassion and love. IMHO words mean less as we move closer to the center of the wheel.



..each of us following our usual closest cultural path. The spokes of the "wheel of Buddha" become closer as the central hub is approached by different spiritual travelers. I can understand one of the major themes--transformation, or metanoia of the abrahamic religions without feeling differences over phraseology.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

There are traditions where the abrahamic God does not exist. I use the word "divine" to mean similar experiences as the Christian, Jewish and Islamic mystics use to describe a dramatic and world changing change of mind and being. Transformation to wholeness is at the root of all spiritual teachings no matter if we call it "God" satori or enlightenment. What is common among all is heart, compassion and love. IMHO words mean less as we move closer to the center of the wheel.



..each of us following our usual closest cultural path. The spokes of the "wheel of Buddha" become closer as the central hub is approached by different spiritual travelers. I can understand one of the major themes--transformation, or metanoia of the abrahamic religions without feeling differences over phraseology.

Can donut holes be substituted central hubs?

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap,

Of course, I acknowledge there are traditions where the Abrahamic God does not exist. However, as we discuss the common spiritual teachings, I feel we need to acknowledge the differences of the traditions and the different meanings, if any, to the words within the tradition. IMHO without acknowledging the differences and the meaning of the words used confusion will arise. Acknowledging differences is not judging, only discussion to help us relate to each other.

Yes, transformation to wholeness is at the root of all spiritual teachings. Also, I agree what is common among all spiritual teachings is heart, compassion and love.

As we move closer to the Divine nature words mean less, as there really are no words to describe the experience.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Can donut holes be substituted central hubs?

Yes. But donuts with radial spokes is as unlikely as a successful professional horse player who does not believe in cause and effect, probability, the tote and actuarial tables.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

hcap,

Of course, I acknowledge there are traditions where the Abrahamic God does not exist. However, as we discuss the common spiritual teachings, I feel we need to acknowledge the differences of the traditions and the different meanings, if any, to the words within the tradition. IMHO without acknowledging the differences and the meaning of the words used confusion will arise. Acknowledging differences is not judging, only discussion to help us relate to each other.

Yes, transformation to wholeness is at the root of all spiritual teachings. Also, I agree what is common among all spiritual teachings is heart, compassion and love.

As we move closer to the Divine nature words mean less, as there really are no words to describe the experience.

All of civilization's cultural development has moved to words representing ideas. An amazing shorthand conceived to expedite humans sharing common concerns. Yes differences exist but commonalities are the central axis, and are often unfortunately put aside in favor of the differences. We can hold onto our individual preferences without denying other s preferences. Ironically a connection with fewer words is needed.

The personal abrahamic God however is sometimes a jealous God. I can accept a certain degree of "personal" in other beliefs as long as personal is not mindlessly exclusive. Even in my own beliefs a personal "God" sometimes shows up when I least expect it. But I do not define "God" as the ruler of the external universe and the writer and director of everyone's personal play.