Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

What happens when I get pissed? I don't go on a rampage if that's what you mean. Maybe my so-called lower self is controlled enough not to need a god? I am usually quite calm and non-violent. Why would this god fellow care about me if I deny him? I've never hurt anyone on purpose no matter how mad I've been and I don't have some kind of inner voice telling me not to. Besides, why would this higher self only develop in humans? If this consciousness is everywhere, why is it that other animals have only that lower self? Are we somehow more deserving? I don't believe that.

And atheists don't break laws more than religious people do, in fact it is the other way around. I'll have to browse for statistics so I'll try to get them tomorrow or so. Also there was some survey about the average IQ on atheists and religious people, will try to locate that too.


Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

I'm not saying you go on a rampage, only that there is a part of you that doesn't advocate for the feeling of being pissed, and then there is the part that gets pissed. You do believe in something higher than your feelings/perceptions/emotions, because when you feel pissed, you don't go on a rampage. Let's start there. What is it? How can you disobey yourself? What is the nature of your higher self and what is the nature of your lower self? Which one is 'You'? Do you think they are conflicting biological phenomena? or someting more sophisticated than mere biology? Do you think that evolutionary imperatives give rise to the need for two, often differing aspects of the self which favour different responses to same stimuli?

Besides, why would this higher self only develop in humans? If this consciousness is everywhere, why is it that other animals have only that lower self? Are we somehow more deserving? I don't believe that.

Some animals are definitely more sophisticated than some humans. Humans have a greater potential to advance spiritually(we have a greater capacity to rationalize after all). It doesn't mean that animals can't. I've had pet dogs with a higher and lower nature...the only difference is that they lacked the capacity to tell that they had a higher and lower nature since they were fully immersed in their own perceptions and not concerned with the perceiver in the slightest. Only humans wonder about humanness. Why? I couldn't tell ya.

And atheists don't break laws more than religious people do, in fact it is the other way around. I'll have to browse for statistics so I'll try to get them tomorrow or so. Also there was some survey about the average IQ on atheists and religious people, will try to locate that too.

A lot of atheists and theists go to prison and actually realize their higher nature and experience subjective transformations that change the way they view life and their fellow humans. Being religious doesn't make a person behave better, but the fruits of spiritual realization do. Religion can facilitate spiritual realization, though the two are not synonymous.

-Rob(has a higher IQ than a lot of atheists, but doesn't see how that's relevant - spiritual and intellectual development are different things; a guy with an IQ of 70 who spends his life helping others is better off spiritually than someone with a high IQ who develops an andvanced technology that is used to kill people).


Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

This is turning into a LOT of speculative bullshit...

Religion is one of the more prominent foundations of our society, every society has their own norms and values, which can mostly be traced back to the religion in that area.
Our society as it is would probably be a lot different if there had been no religion to 'guide' it in the way it is now.
This doesn't mean THIS is the right way it's been guided into, but since we all grew up in this society and received information and seen interaction with and from other people, we think we're on the right path (to what? Enlightenment? Who knows...).

But still society is far from being a good one, just look at all the wars, poverty, etc etc.
It's still (and probably will be for a LONG time) driven by power hungry assholes. And with this I don't mean any government, but all the large companies who are making billions and effectively control this world. (Anyone who thinks otherwise really has his eyes closed or is somewhere on cloud nine high on something).

The funny thing about all this is that the church has always had plenty of money and still is one of the most profitable concepts today! And they've got a lot of followers, who in some cases, do everything for their church (or other building of worship...).

In the past gods were created to explain things for us that we didn't understand, f.e.: Thor God of Lightning.
Since there are still so many religions on this earth, saying that your belief is the right one, based on, well... A book, seems kinda selfish and ignorant to me...
Yes but my book has the right carbon dating!!! (f.e. bible) Well so does mine!!! (f.e. koran) Yes, but you're not white, so what do you know... Here take out book and you shall believe in this book! (crusades, missionaries in America when it was discovered, and now in Africa and who knows how many other countries)

The funny thing is, everybody nowadays knows how to get along with each other, thru interacting with each other, also with people who come from other societies, but somehow most just ignore that fact and pursue their own happiness above others. And if you don't feel the need to go to Africa and be a volunteer to hand out food, you're all working for money, because society demands it of us.
Which we all give into, because we want to belong. And, since I believe in evolution, we are all gene-drive to survive and procreate, so we need to fit in to better or chances.

So since I've stated society is pretty much fucked up as it is, do we still need religion? I don't know, I think we need some sort of belief, but I doubt it's any religion we're using right now...
From where I'm standing (useless at the sideline, since I can't change the world), I don't need religion and think all religions which make profits should be banished. I'll just keep on working my ass off, so the big companies get all their money and I can support my own family, so my genes can live on and I have a general happy feeling about my life. While trying to treat everyone as equals and having as much fun as I possibly can!

I generally hate everybody until they prove otherwise, I don't care what anyone thinks of me as long as I feel good about myself, my favourite hobby (next to watching series!) is shooting people online and cursing at them the same time (especially with my girlfriend, who does the same smile ), I like to go to house party's and totally loose control, not thinking about anything...
But that's just the surface yikes

No kitty that's a bad kitty!


Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

Yes I know, that's why I stated Actually... tongue
Luckily for me, feeling good about myself includes not hurting others...

Still, this is the society we live in, and since I'm not a tree-huggin'-hippie, I just make the best of it roll

(the cursing at people during gaming is actually more fun, also for the other people at the other end of the microphone tongue )

No kitty that's a bad kitty!


Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

“After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

We are led by those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing


Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

Nietzche thought he was Superman and had himself thrown in an asylum before he died, lol. He had a lot of emotional issues to say the least, and is never quoted for his reasoning ability - only for the shock value in some of the random nonsense that he spat out in his absinthe inspired writings.

Religion is one of the more prominent foundations of our society, every society has their own norms and values, which can mostly be traced back to the religion in that area.

There is a biological basis for morality too. There are many many experiments that show unsocialized monkeys act in a moral way under experimental conditions. Religions aren't just about values, but about the founders of particular teachings, and the unique ways that they advise us to live so as to facilitate universal values like kindness, wisdom, virtue, friendship, love etc.
Before any religions sprung into existence, love and peace and friendship and all of these were already valued. Religion, over the course of history has been misidentified by atheists (and theists) as an end, when it is in fact a means (God/Enlightenment/Nirvana/Heaven is the end).

But still society is far from being a good one, just look at all the wars, poverty, etc etc.
It's still (and probably will be for a LONG time) driven by power hungry assholes. And with this I don't mean any government, but all the large companies who are making billions and effectively control this world. (Anyone who thinks otherwise really has his eyes closed or is somewhere on cloud nine high on something).

Poverty will always be a reality. It's not a bad thing per se. It's good to feed the poor, but not anyone's responsibility to make them not poor. We'll never have a harmonious society unless people have personal responsibility for their own well being (and in Canada at least, social welfare was far more effective and appropriate than it is now, when it was run by the churches - each according to their need, not according to some arbitrary provincial mandate).
I say personal responsibility is essential, because where people have been given all the resources required to become self-sustaining, it doesn't work unless they have personal responsibility. The First Nations of Canada are a prime example...they keep getting more and more and more money, but keep accomplishing less and less with it.
Thinking that it's someone else's responsibility to provide for you is what teenagers are like...not adults. It's not just the greedy, power-hungry folks that interfere with us having a good society(in fact, those people often do a lot more than you or I would ever dream of for society - providing jobs, giving to charities, funding all sorts of political initiatives, etc.).

The funny thing about all this is that the church has always had plenty of money and still is one of the most profitable concepts today! And they've got a lot of followers, who in some cases, do everything for their church (or other building of worship...).

The Catholic church is probably the church you're talking about here. Note that they're not a 'for-profit' organization. All of what the church has is given by people who perceive it as their duty to maintain the prosperity that the church enjoys. The church doesn't have a huge investment portfolio going. Much of what is considered their financial assets are things like Cathedrals that are adorned with beautiful artwork and gold and such. Having grown up in the Catholic church, I've seen first hand that they have limited budgets for missions, for schools, etc. Perhaps they cycle a huge amount of money, though it mostly goes to charities.
Other christian churches actually struggle financially (in my girlfriend's church they actually have written in their newsletter how far short of their budget they've fallen, in hopes of getting more donations from the parishoners).
In Buddhism, it is customary(for some monasteries at least) that the monks actually sit on the street and beg for money/food, since attachments to material wealth are not encouraged. Buddhism is hardly profitable at all (aside from their statues and art - which really aren't financial assets, since they are considered priceless by those who care for them).

In the past gods were created to explain things for us that we didn't understand, f.e.: Thor God of Lightning.
Since there are still so many religions on this earth, saying that your belief is the right one, based on, well... A book, seems kinda selfish and ignorant to me...
Yes but my book has the right carbon dating!!! (f.e. bible) Well so does mine!!! (f.e. koran) Yes, but you're not white, so what do you know... Here take out book and you shall believe in this book! (crusades, missionaries in America when it was discovered, and now in Africa and who knows how many other countries)

The Roman, Greek and Germanic Gods have very different origins than the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian God. In fact, though the Hindu faith has a pantheon of over 300,000 'gods' they are monotheistic as well in the sense that every one of those gods is considered to be an expression of some aspect of Brahman, the unchanging, infinite reality of Divinity. There is a difference between Gods that were created (Germanic, Roman, Greek) and those that were simply recognized (Those of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and even to a small extent, to Buddhism). Much conflict arises due to not knowing the origins of these faiths - people actually think that the Islamic God is a different God from Christianity, when it is really just the same God taught about in a different way (religions are a means, not an end). Even the Brahman of Hinduism has the same qualities as the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam...it is just understood and broken down theologically in a different way. The highest Truth is unity, in Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.
The Germanic, Roman and Greek Gods are all subject to human fallibilities - it is clear that they are all a projection of the human mind, since they all reflect human limitation (jealousy, rage, limitation, anger, sadness, etc.) [note:with the exception of Genesis, Psalms, and Proverbs, most of the Old Testament teaches of such a God that is limited by human fallibilities - though these are the consequence of ignorant minds interpreting God by projecting their own fears and motivations on Him - that God has favourites, for example, due to their inability to comprehend at the depth of other prophets and teachers].



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

Unity of men and men, no...there's not really any religion that advocates for that. Unity of man and God however, is the unity I meant.
"All is One" - Buddhism
"I am the alpha and the omega" -Jesus
"Look within" -Buddha
"The Kingdom of God is inside you" -Jesus
"Brahman contains all of existence" -Hinduism
"I and the father are One" -Jesus
"All is one" -Buddha
"Everything is an expression of Divinity in some form" -Hinduism
"The Holy Trinity" -Christianity
"Advaita/Nonduality" -Hinduism
"Love your neighbor as yourself" -Christianity
"What you have done unto the least of your brothers you have done unto me" -Jesus
"Everyone and everything is a potential expression of Brahman" -Hinduism

Unity is the highest truth.
Division among men is a lower truth than unity in God. God is everywhere - even in the sheep and the goats - there is no division of God vs. Not-God...only of man vs. other men.

There are obviously those in this world who are going to be against doing those things, and therefore not united, especially in Hinduism, where the untouchables are the exact group that Christians are to be with and helping.

Krishna didn't recognize classes as being limiting in one's ability to experience Brahman. Class divisions in Hinduism are a cultural and social matter, but not really a spiritual one. After the Bhagavad Gita, this was clarified. Krishna advocated for a devotional aspect of spirituality, and considering that Brahman(God) is everywhere, and in everything, he most certainly was not against caring for the untouchables. He didn't set it apart as a mandate for the faith, but it wasn't looked down upon either.
No spiritual teacher in history has covered every point of a particular faith - Christ included. There's nothing in the bible about driving and talking on your cell phone, for example. Just because other faiths don't have a particular teaching at the center of their faith doesn't mean that it is incompatible with the essence of it.



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

God is simultaneously transcendent(God) and immanent(Christ/Man), manifest(Creation) and unmanifest(the Source of Creation), beyond existence and nonexistence, personal and impersonal.

On the one hand you have God as man(Saviour), and on the other you have God as Truth(Transcending appearances). Thus, the religions that have God as Saviour are not in conflict with those that have God as Truth, because all good religions profess that God is both manifest and unmanifest. Buddha arrived via a different path than Christ(Buddha took many lifetimes;Christ descended directly from God) though they were both of the same level of consciousness - that is to say that they were both at the peak of what man can aspire to in this form. Buddha recognized that Buddha and Nirvana were one and the same, just as Christ knew that he and God were one and the same.
The teacher enables salvation, the teaching enables enlightenment. Buddha claimed to be Absolute truth - he was disidentified with the limited body, and identified with the whole of existence....as was Christ.

And with unity I don't mean unity with the 'truth' of the religion, I mean Unity with Divinity as it is, beyond expression; ineffable.



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

Enlightenment is not personal attainment in Buddhism nor in Christianity, or any faith for that matter. There is 'The Gateless Gate' - where once one crosses the gate and looks back, no gate is there, because there was no 'one' who could have crossed the gate, only the unchanging reality of god/Divinity as it has always been - separation was illusion all along[how's that for personal?]).

There is a parable about two students in a monastery. They had spent their entire lives in the monastery, praying, meditating, doing all kinds of yoga, and finally the time was drawing near to when enlightenment would normally occur for them under such a regiment.
One day they both went to visit the master, and the master said to them: 'Suppose when you reached the final door to enlightenment, you were met by God, and were denied entry.'
The students were silent for a moment as they reflected upon the master's statement.
The first student replied: 'it would be terrible, because I could have been spending my life drinking alcohol, eating meat, sleeping with beautiful women and enjoying a life of indulgence.'
The second student thought a moment longer, and said: 'well, I suppose if it were not the will of God that I should become enlightened, then it would be best that i was turned away.'
Suddenly, the master sent the first student away from the door to enjoy that which he had been denying himself. To the second student, he revealed himself to be God, and opened the doors to enlightenment, and pushed the student in.
Nobody becomes enlightened except by the Grace and Will of God.

I understand nonduality, but it doesn't answer the experiential.

See, this is where it is important to understand the purposes of salvation vs. enlightenment. Salvation is not necessary for the enlightened, it is necessary for the unenlightened, because they are still identified with an individual self that is separate from God. Thus, a personal relationship with a saviour is essential(Lotus Land/Pure Land Buddhism covers this). Basically, this is manifest as the tradition of having a guru in eastern traditions. Sure, few were fully realized in the sense of Christ, Buddha, Krishna or any other great avatars, though many had enough spiritual energy to inspire the devotion and love of God/Truth that is necessary in order for a person to be 'saved'. Now, with being saved comes the opportunity to become enlightened; to transcend the individual ego and realize oneness in God(nonduality).

Buddha was absolute truth just as I am absolute truth in knowing his precepts, as the cat's out of the bag.

There is a huge difference between knowing and knowing about. you can know 'about' being a cat, but you cannot know what it means to be a cat unless you are a cat. "Truth is verifiable only by identity with it, not by knowing about it"(see my collection of statements of absolute truth). So long as you see yourself ass anything less than the Absolute, you only know 'about' the absolute, and have not found the source of existence within. Cat's still in the bag wink

You are still defining the absolute rather than describing yourself, your relationship to the divine, your personal walk to nirvana.

Devotional Nonduality - Devotion to God/Truth as expressed in manifestation whilst understanding that neither is God alone. God is the Allnes of Creation.

To claim he was absolute I would need some evidence anyway, just to set him apart from the natural order. Why didn't he heal the sick, raise the dead, make the lame to walk and the blind to see?  If he reached Bodhi where is his divine nature?  Shouldn't he be above and beyond our earthly understanding of the absolute?

Healing the sick, raising the dead, and the like are things that appeal to people who need to be saved (they understand themselves as limited, isolated, and in danger of losing their existence, at risk of suffering) so it's normal that someone who came to teach about salvation would do this (The apostles performed miracles too, in Jesus' name). Buddha taught enlightenment (salvation = getting to heaven, enlightenment = getting to the highest levels of heaven). In enlightenment, sickness and suffering, and death are all illusions, and one is guided so as to avoid becoming entrained with those belief systems. With salvation, caring for the sick and hungry and so on helps one to identify the nature of sickness and hunger and poverty and so on. It's not something to fix, nor is it something to remain purposefully ignorant of.

The goal of Christianity is attained by belief in Christ, which is followed by a personal walk with Christ throughout your life, already having attained the goal, or in terms of Buddhism, already having reached Bodhi.

Salvation is different than enlightenment. And if you take away the name 'Jesus', then you're left with the energy field that the name represents. If Buddha is one with God, and Jesus is one with God, then they are one and the same, whether you give God the name Jesus or Buddha or whatever, it doesn't matter, you're having a personal relationship with God up to the point where you transcend the duality of you and God and realize experientially that there can be no separation.

In both our faiths there is a huge divide between you and the absolute, in yours there is a tight rope walk between the sides with your Karma threatening to off set your balance as you walk(Buddhism), whereas mine bridges the gap immediately(Christianity).

Salvation undoes a lot of personal karma. Beyond salvation, on the path to enlightenment, one deals with a lot of collective karma(Jesus encountered the negative karma of the entirety of mankind when he was killed). With the guidance of a teacher however, one is able to avoid the pitfalls of temptation so that collective karma does not accumulate as personal karma. In believing in Christ, you are saved, but you are not enlightened. Buddhism isn't about saving you. If you're interested in being enlightened, youd better be saved first. You are saved through devotion, love and surrender to God/Absolute Truth, which often requires the inspiration/guidance of an enlightened teacher(such as Christ or the Buddha of Pure Land Buddhism for example).

Buddhism paints a grim view of a hostile world in which suffering is caused by attachment, and attachment has to be blown out, as opposed to Christianity that focus's on love as the remedy to the problem, and then describes the reason for the problem, sin.  Like I said earlier, because I find Buddhism so impersonal, it's just way too hard core for me.

Buddha and Christ and Socrates and anyone with half an ounce of spiritual understanding knew that sin was due to ignorance. The human mind lacks the capacity to tell the difference between what is true and what the mind thinks is true. In Buddhism, love and devotion to Truth are the remedy as well. However, one needn't be attached to love, as love is the nature of the Divine, and it is thus, ever present and available. Buddhism actually advocates for what you might call 'nonattachment' since detachment so often becomes confused with aversion. there is no aversion to love in pure Buddhism...just no attachment either. It's like a drop in the ocean being attached to its identity with another drop, and how thatt limits its ability to identify with the whole of the ocean.

Buddhism is way more hardcore than Christianity...though it is not in conflict with it at all. It teaches enlightenment, not salvation. Salvation is neccesary for enlightenment though.



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

Your first parable is moot, as you are still discussing an impersonal undefined concept of absolute truth with no attachment to that which it created.  How can it be loving if it's character is that of disinterest in that which it created.  Dissociation, Non-attached, Not Interested, Not Loving.  A loving creator cares deeply and would be associated.  Also, it doesn't answer why we were created, it just argues around it, to describe something that refuses to describe itself.  Impersonal.

God is Love. God is everything. The dualistic view (i.e. pre-enlightenment) has God(the Loving entity) and everything else(that which is loved). The nondualistic view (post-enlightenment) says God is Love, and is content with that.
In any case, the parable reads on a dualistic level, where God's will is different from man's will, and then on the nondualistic level, where there is merely the 'is-ness' of existence that is beauty itself(God's will alone). In true nonduality, there is nothing to be detached from. Love IS. There is no need to be attached or detached, because attachment or detachment does not have anything to do with the reality of Love, which is inescapable.

Your second point is not true.  Salvation is the fullfillment of the absolute, putting us in right relation before the absolute, having to do nothing to attain oneness with the divine when we die.

You say this, and yet you describe it dualistically, as though there is the divine/absolute that relates to us/nondivine/not absolute. Experiencing the absolute, and having a relationship with it are two different things. For example, you might have a relationship with me via our conversations, but that is nothing like a union. In union, two become one. You become one with the absolute. Due to the fact that you are saved, and yet remain ignorant in some degree to the full nature of God(not being enlightened), obviously salvation and enlightenment(oneness with the absolute) are different.

Salvation may be a different concept than enlightenment, but as far as your goal, you never answered whether you've achieved enlightenment.

I've been 'saved'. Enlightenment is much more hardcore. It occurs via surrender and alignment with God, in combination with Grace. The Grace component means that it is not an achievement, but a gift. It is a different gift from salvation...one to aspire to if you're saved.

There is more rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner than there is for the other's who aren't in need of repentance.  As the goal is to be with Christ and united with him. Again, one is a gift, one is not.  One is personal, one is not.  One is non attached, and one is attached.

Enlightenment is a gift. It does not occur except by the Grace of God. What Buddha taught is what we can do in order to prepare ourselves...in order to be good candidates for Grace, so to speak. Also, what matter is it whether heaven doesn't rejoice over someone who is not in need of repentance? Is it not its own reward to experience purity of character and oneness with one's creator?
How much do we need to milk the idea of being repentant? Are you sinning and repenting in endless cycle, just so heaven can cheer? We ought to repent, and then do as Jesus advised: "Go and sin no more" (i.e. pursue enlightenment!).

To say our current sufferings are only illusory or that the personal and impersonal is illusory, can only be understood from the reality opposite the illusion, some sort of truer reality, so again, you can't make a claim that reality is opposite of what it is, without going to the opposite place to testify about it.  You'd have to go to the real world outside of the Matrix, if you will.  If it's all illusory, we'd be constantly questioning things we take as self evident truths, and we'd have no reliable basis to even make a suggestion.  We live in a real world, not in some fictitious one. (Unless you're crazy)  lol...

I've seen through the illusion of my own suffering on many occasions; seen that it was the body that was experiencing pain and not 'me' (There are plenty of Yogas which enable people to realize this experientially). We have eternal life, so no suffering is anything more than a temporary discomfort. There is no death to fear, for life is not extinguishable. Is it not obvious that suffering is illusion? that the loss of love is illusion? that death is illusion? It is not that we live in a fictitious world, only that we do not see that the essence of this world is God alone. If God is with you always, is it not illusion that any suffering is not bearable, temporary, and insignificant?

With regards to healing the sick, I don't speak for other religions, but it is something to fix and it is something that the Holy Spirit convicts the Christian to do, to take care of those people.  The highest command is to take care of widows and orphans in their distress.

Christ healed via miracles, not medicine. Miracles reveal the true nature of God, and that suffering is illusion. When this is realized, the karma that results in illness is transcended. It is important to note the difference between 'healing' and 'treating'. Treating is caring for; addressing symptoms; etc. Healing is addressing the source of illness, which is ignorance and the ego's separation of itself from God. Once unity with God is established, how can there be illness?
If you want to fix it, fix it. Treating is not fixing.

I think all should be permanently attached to love, it's always patient, always kind, it always forgives, it always hopes and it never fails.  A world without war, is one that adheres and attaches itself to love.

Love is patient(not attached to time) and kind(not attached to resentment); love does not envy or boast(not atached to pride); it is not arrogant or rude(not attached to spite). It does not insist on its own way(not attached to ITSELF); it is not irritable or resentful(not attached to conditions); it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth(not attached to right & wrong, but favours the good). Love bears all things(not attached to limits), believes all things(not attached to belief systems/religions), hopes all things(not attached to outcomes, though it anticipates them), endures all things(can't be threatened). Love never ends(is eternal).
There is no need to be attached to Love, for it is inescapable. God is Love. Detachment from God is impossible. Attachment is purely sentimental, and wholly unnecessary, for Love IS, and requires no attachment in order that it Be.

Again, sin is not due to ignorance, even if we know the absolute truth fully, there is no way to exemplify that knowledge by our actions on our own.

One cannot know God and yet remain separate. Sin IS due to ignorance. So long as we are not One with God, we're ignorant, limited, sinful, and in need of forgiveness. If we weren't ignorant, we wouldn't do things that were not God's will, right? It's kind of obvious that it's better to do God's will than to serve the will of our egos, so naturally, we must be ignorant to God's will if we keep sinning.

We are corrupt, and our abilities to live up to the standard of absolute truth are compromised by the sin within us.

If we knew unity with God, there could not possibly be sin in us. Ignorance is sin.

Knowledge of both good and evil simply allows for both, not right action towards the state of being good.

Man can only choose what he believes to be the good, the only problem is that we can't tell the difference between what we think is good and what is actually good. ("Forgive them for they know not what they do" = Forgive them for their ignorance). Knowledge of good and evil is not the same as knowing the Absolute Good.
With perfect knowledge, one could not make a bad decision, for there would be no advantage. Ignorance is the only reason we ever do anything bad. Things that are sinister only tempt us when they appeal to our ignorance.

You can go ahead and try to live a highly moral life because you're still under the constant threat of Karma, but I'd rather take my pass, thanking God for it, live according to the Spirit and then on to automatic assimilation with the divine without having to work for it while I'm alive.

Karma is not a threat; It is a blessing...like the walls on a bobsled track. It does nothing to undermine God's forgiveness. Salvation is necessary, but if you accept it, only to trample on it by neglecting to live the best possible life that you can, you will find yourself facing karma.
I see a parallel with the parable of the talents. You've been given a tremendous gift in having been offered salvation. If you bury it only to turn it in when you leave this earthly plane, so be it. If you invest the gift so that you can make something more for your master, your master shall be well pleased.

Unfortunately you believe you have to work for enlightenment and not only for enlightenment, but the opportunity to be enlightened, I don't.  I believe God did that once for all on the cross.

So you think you're enlightened? Enlightenment is being the completely realized perfection of the potential that God has placed in you. Forgiveness is different. I've been forgiven, now i'm going further.

Your trying to say that belief in Buddhism is your salvation.  Saved from what?  Saved from Suffering?  You're still going to suffer?  What agent saved you, good teaching?

Belief in Absolute Truth is salvation. Absolute truth cannot be threatened. My ignorance can be threatened. In submitting to the Absolute; in having faith and devotion to it, I am saved from my ignorance.
In passively being saved, you keep your ignorance, so you are saved from nothing...you still sin, you're still ignorant. So what if you go to heaven, if you're still a sinner, you're in a hell of sorts anyway.
In experiencing oneness with the Absolute, yes, suffering is transcended...ignorance is transcended...lovelessness is transcended...the Truth is what sets us free...
If it does not free us from suffering, it is not truth. If it does not free us from ignorance, it is not truth.
You may have salvation, but if you are still with sin inside you, you are not free.

I can't find the agent in Buddhism that requires you to be saved, so it's not really salvation, so much as a plan towards the possibility of being enlightened about an impersonal truth through following Buddha's teaching, which isn't salvation at all but a make work plan.

How is it a make work plan? Unless oneness with God is an impossibility, it is an objective that aims at transcending 'work'.
In the same vein of thought, it would make the salvation scenario you're advocating some sort of divine procrastination. What's the point in you being here, when you're guaranteed access to heaven? Don't you think there might be a purpose/opportunity in being here that you might want to seize? If all it takes is believing in Jesus, then another 40-60 years seems really unnecessary. If it is meant to be a test, what is it testing? certainly not any kind of growth, since that might be too Buddhist for ya, lol.

I can see the similarities between the religions, but I can not equate the divine to be consistent with teachings that are contradictory.  The absolute would be united against itself, which would preclude it's own existence.  One is right and one is wrong.  Christianity and Buddhism are mutually exclusive.

The teachings are not contradictory. They are complimentary. It's like saying that instructions on how to build a car are contradictory as some steps require using a wrench, and others require you to use a screwdriver. Different is not the same as contradictory. Christianity is about salvation, Buddhism is about enlightenment. Enlightenment is made possible by the unconditional forgiveness of God/Buddha/Jesus/Krishna/Zoroaster or whatever you want to call it(by Salvation). Without forgiveness, karma cannot be undone...merit could not undo debt.

Christ would not have said that I AM the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE and no man comes to father except through ME, if he wanted us to follow the teachings of Buddha.

You keep thinking that Christ and the Buddha are something different from one another. If Jesus is the Absolute, and Buddha is the Absolute, then you can only come to the father THROUGH the absolute. Not according to teachings, but by complete and total unity with that which Christ was (the Absolute). The teachings point the way to the Absolute, but if you don't come to the absolute, experientially, you don't get there. Hearing the teachings doesn't get you there...being the Absolute is all.

Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.  Fairly absolutist statement made by Christ.

I bow and confess that Christ is Lord. It doesn't mean that Christ is not Buddha, or Krishna, or Zoroaster...they are all God.

The object of the story, Christ, is of utmost importance to redemption and salvation

And it is on this point that you must be insisting that Christ was something different from God/Absolute Truth...because you do not treat them as synonyms.

Buddhism denies the personal object and replaces it with a relatively similar subject making the two religions at odds as the person of Christ is the purpose for believing and the reason for the season altogether, through whom communication with the divine is only allowed, and therefore mutually exclusive.  One defines itself clearly apart from the other.  One views the other as idolatry.

The Truth of God is reason enough to believe in God. How does Christ having existed change that one way or the other? Before Christ, the fact that God is God was enough reason to believe, and so it is now that Christ has come and gone. If Christ never came, would you say that we'd have no reason to believe in God? It seems obvious enough that we do it for the sake of believing in Reality.
I fail to see what it at odds between the two faiths. God and Buddha and Jesus are one, and the gifts they offered are the opportunity to ascend to such heights of unity with Divinity ourselves.



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

"You reap what you sow"
"To whom much is given, much is expected"

These are just a few references to Karma that might be of note to this discussion. Most significantly, the Galatians quote...that's basically the essence of Karma.
Salvation or not, you're subject to Karma.
The enlightened sow perfection, and that is what they reap.



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

ou are making a CATEGORICAL mistake in that you confuse the objective God, that defines Himself as, I AM THAT I AM, with a subjective ideology of the Absolute which replaces the WHO with a WHAT.

I am that I am is redundant. Basically, it means that the Absolute cannot be defined in terms of anything but its ISness. Also, God is simultaneously both a WHO and a WHAT, just as you are. It is not a matter of either/or. It is Both/And.

as they are contradictory not complimentary

I repeatedly fail to see the contradictions.

The only complimentary thing I can think of is that understanding Buddhism can lead you to understanding there is no way to reach God or remove the sin within you by yourself

Depending on one's level of advancement this is true for different reasons.
Firstly, in recognizing the limitation of one's ego/personality, one understands that it is essential to have a teacher.
Secondly, one realizes that they are not the body/personality - that they do not have true self-knowledge.
Thirdly, one realizes that one is not the doer behind the deeds.
Fourthly, one identifies with the Source of existence(context) as opposed to existence itself(content).
Finally, one realizes that the Absolute is the only reality, and that all else, including the passage of time, the transformation of form, and the appearance of space, is illusory.
In all of these cases, it is not an individual that is accomplishing anything...these are merely states of realization which are in accord with the fact that one cannot 'become' enlightened, since ultimately, nothing but the Absolute has ever existed to begin with.

and that you need Christ to put you in right relation with God, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I'd be interested in what you define the holy Spirit to be.

If the Spirit of God is not in you, you can not please God.

God is never displeased. God is Love. Love does not rejoice or act up in the face of wrongdoing, but does rejoice in truth. God cannot suffer, for God cannot be threatened. God is all powerful...and everywhere. God is not a block of Swiss cheese where mankind fits in the holes(The Absolute, by virtue of being Absolute, can have no holes). If you are not desiring to be holy(if you don't have the holy spirit in you) you aren't trying to please God anyway. If you do aspire to please God, you've got the holy spirit in you. God's got no grounds for disappointment, for God is God(He Is That He Is)

The Spirit of God is a Spirit of sonship, and by him we cry Abba, Father. God himself refers to us as sons, and him as our father. It is personal and objective and clear and sensical.

Devotion to Truth could not be more objective and clear and sensical. So do you simply not acknowledge the devotional aspects of other religions(being servants of God/the Absolute), or do you think they are something else?
A rose smells just as sweet by any other name...and whether one calls God 'Brahman' or 'Jesus' or whatever, God remains God. Devotion IS sonship. The father is not fallible(the father is Truth/Absolute).
Devotion to Truth could not be more objective and clear and sensical.

Again, the words, I AM the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the father except through ME, are absolutist and refer to Himself alone, and no one else, not Buddha, not Krishna, not Zoroaster.

Unless Christ was something other than God, you can read the statement as follows: "God IS the way, the truth and the life and no man comes to God but through God".
Now, if Christ and God were something different from one another, I might follow what you're saying, that Jesus meant that we could only get to God via the personality of Jesus...but then you'd have to clarify what Jesus is...what the holy trinity is...that God as man isn't God as God. It has been my understanding that God the Father(transcendent), the Holy Spirit and Christ(immanent) are Three forms of the One God.
If you can explain how Christ is different from God, we might be able to take this in a different direction.

The foundation of Christianity is in an objective God, the foundation of Buddhism is in a concept of the absolute.  One openly refutes the other.

You seem to be flip flopping around here. Perhaps this is because of my understandings of subjective and objective. To me, a personal relationship with God is subjective, and God as unchanging Truth; as the Absolute is objective. Buddhism accepts both of these views and holds them to both be qualities of Reality. I'm not sure how you conclude that the Buddhist interpretation is any more conceptual than the Christian one, as Buddhism actively advocates for the transcendence of the intellect and its limitation to the conceptual(that is, to go beyond the intellect, but not to abandon it).

Let's define the word ignorance as lack of understanding, knowledge, education.  Ignorance of what? God's will.  Even if I know the character of God and know his will, I am still unable to live according to his will all the time here on earth, because the knowledge of both good and evil, causes evil to dwell within me, and knowledge only intensifies both and illuminates both.

Can you substantiate this further? Knowledge of murder does not compel me either to fantasize about murder, nor to commit murder. Ignorance is lack of understanding...and if we find some manner of justification for doing evil, then it is obvious that we are ignorant and that we do not understand. If we can be comelled randomly to choose evil, then there's some underlying ignorance which makes that possible, because we can rationalize simply enough, that given enlightened awareness, we'd always choose good.

In God's eyes, he still considers us guilty of sin even if we think about sinful things.  You can not measure up to the standard God had instituted in the beginning.  He says "there is no one who does good, there is no one righteous, all have fallen short of the glory of God".

Well why would he say that? Perhaps because only God is perfectly good. Buddha and Christ and Zoroaster and Krishna were God, thus this does not refer to them....it refers to anyone who would aspire to have the power of God with anything less than the full responsibility of God. A perfectly good person is in perfect nondualistic union with God...all who are otherwise obviously fall short.

Ignorance is not sin.

Yes it is.

The payment of Christ on the cross and the belief in HIM removes all sin within me, as far as the east is from the west, that's how far he's removed our transgressions from us, and so unites me with the divine.

So belief in Christ removes the knowledge of good and evil from you? Or is being sinful different from having evil dwelling in you?

"7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[a] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good."

So, duality(good vs. evil, having vs. not having, lawful vs. nonlawful) gives rise to sin(ignorance of God's true Nature). Realizing that the commandment is not a good vs. evil, but rather a call to the highest good, eliminates the duality, and allows for true righteousness...without opposition.

Salvation means you no longer face the consequences of Karma.  You can still go on and do bad things and your Karma is not held against you, as that's the point of Salvation altogether.

So what does "you reap what you sow" mean? Karma still exists, though forgiveness allows us to repeatedly undo it.

Absolutely I am one with God in that Christ is in me.

Christ is in you? Or you are through Christ? If you are One with Christ, does that mean that you forgive my sins unconditionally as well? Or are you actually NOT enlightened, and in fact just letting Christ be Christ and being happy that he accepts you even if you insist on not trying to live in complete sinlessness?

than through being one with Christ and now living under him

How can you be one with something that you're under? Please elaborate.

Yes, in your terms, I have reached enlightenment.  When I go to heaven I will be perfect, fully restored into the likeness of Christ.

Enlightenment isn't a promise of a condition, it is the condition. In my terms, you are not enlightened.

Great question, glad you asked.  Before Christ God only made his specific will known to the Jews, as God made a covenant with them because they were the only people group on the planet who believed in him.  God is a jealous God, and wants us to worship Him alone.  No other version or way of understanding himself is acceptable.

I don't believe in a jealous God. Much of the OT describes a God that is no different than the Germanic, Roman and Greek Gods that were moody, and subject to human fallibilities. God is not Jealous. What would God possibly be jealous of? He's God! there's nothing more desirable than to be the Perfection of the Absolute. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever...nor does it make sense that God would have been a secret that only the Jews were in on, since depictions of Divinity had been around since the dawn of time. Even if others had it wrong, that God was God was no secret.

I'll leave it there, as my concerns thus far should address the problems in the last paragraph too.



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

This thread is a drag.... you write way to much... it's annoying! big_smile


Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

Just keep on writing. Maybe someday this gets published big_smile



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

paisley1 wrote:

Mxyzptlk, how are things from the 5th dimension?  Sorry if you're totally lost, my entries have been intended for Rob, but have fun reading our little debate.

It's nice and quiet... me and Gsptlsnz had a nice day on the beach smile


Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)


Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

nice ... got one too:



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

Woot big_smile

No kitty that's a bad kitty!

94 (edited by z1rra 2009-01-06 07:52:44)

Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

http://www.4shared.com/file/79206324/91 … oiler.html


Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)


...where did I put that rat's ass I could give?

Daemons are benevolent or benign nature spirits, beings of the same nature as both mortals and gods, similar to ghosts, chthonic heroes, spirit guides, forces of nature or the gods themselves.

96 (edited by kaibren 2009-01-08 19:59:59)

Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

paisley1 wrote:

I think I scared Robcore away.  Sorry man.

your avatar is too terrifying maybe?

edit: seems not. Robcore is back. big_smile

                             \   /
                              \ /


Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

Aloha! I've returned!
I ended up leaving for Christmas vacation a few days earlier than expected and didn't get a chance to notify you guys. I just got back last night.
I should've stopped in to say hi at some point in the last 3 weeks I suppose, but good times were being had, and internetting didn't seem a high priority.
Now I'm back and I have a lot to do(accidentally left utorrent on with the rss feed over the break and ate up all my tvtorrents GCreds, lol, so I've got to figure out how to remove & assign trackers now, lol), but I'll be sure to drop in and get the ball rolling again soon.
Sorry if any of you were worried that you'd offended me!



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

Okay, sorry for the uber-mega delay...life gets busy and then sometimes you feel like epic internet debates aren't as high a priority as you'd hoped, lol. In any case, the pending rebuttal shall follow:

Removing the object of devotion and replacing it with the subjective is idolatry to Christ.

The object of devotion is Truth, which Christ is one with. It does not get removed. Subjective experience of Truth is necessary in order that one have objective knowledge of Truth. To the Absolute, the subjective and objective are one and the same. Do you not think that Christ saw the world 'as it was'? There could be no difference between subjective and objective whilst remaining completely divine.

When speaking of Christ, he is both a WHO and a What, but the WHO or person of Christ is not symbolic and can not be any other teacher who taught similar yet ultimately different teachings.  You rightfully place God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, correct, but then consider God the Son as anyone similar to Christ like Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, etc, when it is only Christ. Do you see how much of a huge contradiction that is?

Historically in Christianity, the validity of the concept of God as Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), has led to a lot of argumentation, essentially splitting the Catholic church in half...The concept confirms that God, the Father/Creator is the transcendent reality, and it also recognizes that the Ultimate Reality is capable of incarnation and, therefore, God is immanent in human consciousness as God, the Son/Christ-Consciousness. Not only is God transcendent and immanent but also available to the human soul as the Presence of Self, or Consciousness (the Holy Spirit).
Now, the 'who' of Christ that you speak of is not defined as a person. In fact, the term 'Christ' is not a name as much as it is a title, synonymous with the hebrew term, 'Messiah'. The who you're speaking of is the personality of Jesus...and that personality is completely lost in time as it is not described in the bible. The bible records what jesus said and did, but not his personality, as one who is fully enlightened has transcended the personality. The personality consists of positionalities and ego programs that artificially imbue value and worth upon things that are of same value under God, by virtue of their divine creator.
When you take away the name, Jesus, it's just an energy field that one passes through. Christ was not a name...if it were, then we'd have significant arguments whether Jesus, Yeshua, Jehova, Yaweh or whatever else was his correct name. The name is not important because you don't get to heaven through a name, or through a physical body...the Who that you talk about is nonexistent. It is a what. a subjective what. an objective what.

"Devotion to Truth could not be more objective and clear and sensical".....but not personal hey?  Figured.  Yes, God is both personal and impersonal, but your understanding of God, removes the personal altogether during our time on earth.  Doesn't sound like God, who's whole purpose for creating us was communion.

God doesn't have a 'purpose'. God's isness as the spontaneous appearance in the manifest is, without need of purpose, for it is perfect not as the fulfillment of some lack, but rather for the fact of its divine source. Devotion, by virtue of being devotional, is personal. It is important to differentiate between 'personal' and 'personality'. By virtue of being a journeyer, one is on a personal journey...but that is a journey of Self discovery. The journeyer may have a personality, but even that must be surrendered to give way to revelation of the true Self which is both personal and impersonal/subjective and objective.
A personality cannot know anything - it is limited...self-knowledge is not a quality of the personality any more than knowledge of what it means to be a cat is something the personality can know. The personality knows 'about'. The Self on the other hand (as differentiated from the personality) knows itself in the same sense as a cat knows its cat-ness. Personally and impersonally. There is no thought 'about' itself, though there is silence and stillness in the completion of one's essence as Self.

Foundationally it's backwards, as you've said that you only realize the personal at the end, that it was always personal, although never manifest.  Totally not the intention of the God of love that I know.  Removing the personal, removes the foundation of God's core character.  God starts with himself first, and then the understanding after, otherwise you'd be doing a lot of needless work before reaching the understanding he longs to live within you while you live out your life.

You ARE doimg a lot of needless work! The bible tells us that repeatedly. Don't worry about things, for God has you covered! (You're worth more than sparrows! store treasures in heaven(don't sweat the material world!)). The understanding that God longs for you to have is one that is LESS personal! It's not about you and how you get along with your wife, or how well you do financially, or how much people like you, or what sort of work you do...all that is meaningless personal crap. All these things matter to personalities, but not to God. You do not have a truly personal relationship with God until you shed your personality (Die unto yourself!). It's this personality that gets in the way and anthropomorphizes the divine into a personality...it sees Jesus but completely misses the Christ.

God's personal relationship with us is objective, and ours towards him is objective, as there is only one God the Father, One Holy Spirit, and One God the Son that calls himself by no other name than Christ.

relationships are subjective isolations of an infinite context. The dresser in this room has a so-called objective relationship to the bedside table by virtue of their arrangement in space and time, but that relationship is just an isolation of the relationships that those things have to the totality of existence, and the isolated relationship is sustained by the impersonal totality of existence. What makes the relationship personal is the amount of ignorance that it is founded on...seeing things as separate and isolated, and more or less important than the rest of existence. God doesn't love me more than someone else, or more than the worm wiggling on the sidewalk...it's not personal because the Love is complete.

Christ doesn't remove the knowledge of good and evil, he sets you in a right relationship before God by his sacrifice on the cross, dying and rising again, and when a Christian believes, than Christ sits on the throne of that persons life.  Not that he controls you, but you live THROUGH him.

How do you live through Christ? Does your brain go in his body? or his in yours? make some sense of this please.
Christ could die for our sins only because he could recognize and feel the totality of human suffering. He could forgive us, because he knew that we did not know what we were doing. We don't become sinless, nor enlightened, nor wise by Christ's sacrifice. Christ merely dissolved a massive part of the collective karmic burden (by his unconditional forgiveness) and gave us tools that we could use to reach heaven.

That is how evil is removed and the Christian is considered righteous and good.  When he says you will "know the truth and the truth will set you free" he's talking about himself.  Christ is what sets you free.  Knowledge of Christ.  Being sinful is not different from having evil in you, it's that you have the capacity to be good and to be bad, and can not always be good, you will fall short from time to time, and Christ will lift you up and put you back on track, that's why it's so personal.  We are sinful towards God, we are lawbreakers/lawless, and again, because God is just, we need to pay the penalty, and because God is merciful, he came to pay it for us if we believe in his son.

Socrates taught that the unexamined life was not worth living, meaning that one ought to try to live the best life possible. Christ gave us instruction on just how to do that when he said 'die unto yourself that you may truly live'. The personality is unable to live perfectly, because it insists unconsciously that it is God, and that it ought to be the author of one's existence. For this reason, forgiveness is totally necessary...because ignorance prevails. The personality must be surrendered in order that one can live sinlessly...Christ did it, and thus could not be differentiated from God...God's personality and Christ's personality were one and the same. When God is running the show, you don't need to be set on track over and over and over again. Enlightenment is available, but you must die unto yourself...quit seeing your personality as important. Quit thinking that you're special and that your unique qualities set you apart before God. It's an ego mechanism for perpetuating duality between man and Christ/God...a luciferic deception...an intellectual error.

How can a loving God, not be angered by things that threaten the ones he loves?  If God is not angered, he is not just. Why you may ask?  If God is not angered, he does not care about right behaviour, and so he does not care about good people doing his will or living according to truth, and so if he is not angered we could live anyway we wanted, and god would be indifferent towards us, and have no interest in that which he created.

Anger is not necessary for right action. If a dog attacks a baby, it is not necessary to be angry at the dog in order to take action against it. Was Christ angry at those who were hanging him? no! he forgave them for they knew not what they were doing. God needn't have anger in order to be loving. I can stop the dog while forgiving it for being overcome by its animal instincts. Believing in an angry God is yet another consequence of luciferic/intellectual deception; it is a projection of one's own ego/personality onto God. If there are cases where one feels their own anger is justified, they naturally will believe then that God could get angry too. However, anger is negative and not necessary.

However, we are built in his image, and this is a very clear characteristic of God.  He was so angered by humanity, that he wiped out the planet, spare Noah and his family.

So incest isn't bad to God, but what happened in Soddom and Gommorah was? Again, I'll repeat that there is just waaaay to much false representation of God in the OT.

As God's nature is Love, He can not enjoy evil, therefore he must feel anger towards our evil actions, and therefore he can be, and must be displeased.  If he doesn't feel anger, he is not just.  The God you're describing, sounds like one that is just randomly screwing with us, mine is not, he is just, and is angered by immorality and truthlessness.

To love chocolate, I do not need to hate or feel angry towards vanilla. It is not necessary to be angered by that which one does not love...it is not necessary to feel displeased that vanilla exists in order that I love chocolate. A God that gets angry is really screwing with us if he thinks i'll believe he's a purely loving God.

Also, there would be no point in good behaviour because we could do anything we wanted without it being held against us, and also, that not only works for the Christian view, but the Buddhist view of reincarnation as well, throwing karma out, leaving us with chaos and self interest.

It is a mistaken view to think of things in terms of good vs. bad. When so-called punishing consequences occur, they are bad if one views them in the context of the personality getting what it wants, but good if one views them in the context of the soul's opportunity to grow in righteousness and learn from the consequences. Bad for ego freedom, good for spiritual freedom. Ultimately everything is good, because everything is an opportunity to advance one's spiritual freedom. Karma is not good vs. bad, it is the mechanism of a loving God that is aware of our immortality and of a God that will afford us infinite circumstances to learn and choose spiritual freedom.

I guess I have a question for you, what agent reincarnates someone in Buddhism?  What is it that happens to that which exists to move it from one form of existence to another?  What scale of justice does the moving?

Karma/God. Everyone is born into circumstances that are of maximum karmic benefit. It is our limited view of good and bad which precludes our ability to accept that. Our egos do not see so called 'bad' circumstances for the blessings that they can be.

Christians no longer are under the old covenant of "you reap what you sow", although it is a true statement about living, but as far as a Christians position before God we are under grace, and so we reap what we haven't sowed.  You're still thinking of the old covenant, not the new one under Christ.  We no longer live by an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but we live by the Spirit, which compels the Christian to turn the other cheek and to go the extra mile.

You reap what you sow is from Paul's letter to the Galatians...written after Christ had died, at the time of the new covenant(between 40-50AD). Gal 6:7 "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Gal 6:8 "For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."
Sounds a lot like buddhism to me...(note that in buddhism, the cycle of reincarnation ends when one dissolves their karma. The attachment to form[the flesh] is transcended, and one ascends into a purely spiritual domain for true life everlasting[they have died unto themselves that they may truly live]).

God is one, and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are unique characteristics of the one.  Yes, Christ is a different characteristic of the Trinity.  He came to earth as fully God and fully human.  Christ the Son of God however would never call himself God the Father.  Christ went to the Father and prayed to Him and communed with Him.  That is why I wrote that you took that passage out of context.  Christ was speaking about Himself as, "I am the way the truth and the life, and no man comes to the Father except through me."  It does not make sense contextually to replace the who in the sentence and say, "God is the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father except through God"....????  It's totally ridiculous in that it makes no sense apart from the unique characteristic of Christ, and on top of that it's eisegesis.  Christ (Son) is the way the truth and the life, and no man comes to the Father, except through Christ.  Christ alone.  Not some version of God, not even God the Father or God the Holy Spirit, but Christ.  Christ is the only agent through which salvation and right relation with the Father is accessed at all.

Christ was not a personality. Even as 'through me' it means the same thing...Christ consciousness is an energy field, so to speak. At the last supper, Christ said "This is my body, which shall be given up for you". 'my body' just like 'my car' implies that Christ did not see himself as a body...he had a body, but the body has nothing to do whith the so called 'who' that Christ was. Christ was complete and total enlightenment.

"There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God", was stated because God's standard is so high, that we are incapable of meeting the requirements of his standard.

No personality that is separate from God can be righteous or knowledgable as God. Duh. One must die unto themselves, and become one with God...not one apart from God. Christ was righteous. Christ understood. Christ sought God. It didn't refer to Christ though, because Christ IS God. Via enlightenment this is possible for us too. In buddhism it is taught that there is no 'one/person/individual' who achieves enlightenment...because enlightenment is the dissolution of the separate self. Die unto thyself so as to truly live.

Why?  Due to sin, and God says that if we break one law, we are guilty of them all.  Not even in our mortal bodies can we ever meet that standard because of the sin nature within us.

If you break one law, you break them all, because separation from God/ignorance is all that sin is. If you are not One with God, you're a sinner, because you remain ignorant of the union between God and man.

I say I am completely one with Christ, only because the Holy Spirit dwells within me accessed only through Christ, the Son of God, which is attained only by faith and asking for forgiveness.  Christ puts himself on the throne of my life, and my life is lived out through the Holy Spirit.  I am one with Christ and under Him in that I am created, I am not everlasting, without beginning or end, like God, but only eternal.  I had a beginning, God did not.

You believe you are a body. You believe you are temporal/subject to time. You believe you are separate from God. Christ was Christ even after his body was given up. Christ was the alpha and the omega. Christ was one with God.
If you don't aspire to that, you're not aspiring to true unity with Christ.

Being one with Christ is to be under his Lordship

That's not oneness and you know it.

to have communion with him, like a father and son, like a family and so we are one in that sense, as I am one with the family of believers, like the lyrics to the U2 song.

That's community, but not unity.

To be jealous, is to be intolerant of unfaithfulness, as the websters dictionary describes it.  The jealousy that is spoken of is used in relation to the problem humanity has by continually refusing to acknowledge God and worshipping false gods and idols.

You mean, like thinking that their own personalities are important? It's easy to see that we idolize others...but we also idolize ourselves...thinking that we can be one with God/Christ without being God/Christ.

What's God's character, his commandments, and what is the very first commandment?  You shall have no other god's before me.  What's the second one?  You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

So, commandment #2 says that you aren't allowed to worship Christ as a 'who'. There. He's not some icon/idol...he's God as God, incarnate as man, but the incarnation is not what we are to worship...

The jealousy is that of right relation, communion with the right God, communion with the only Divine source.  All other forms of God, apart from Himself, are false, therefore he is jealous in that he wants us to worship Him not other versions of him or idols.  His very nature is jealous for our worship, in that he says again in Exodus 34:14 "Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."  God's very character is faithfulness, therefore he is intolerant of unfaithfulness.

Again, as someone who is faithful to my girlfriend, I do not have to hate those who have not been faithful to her. To love chocolate, one does not have to hate vanilla. God is not jealous. The OT is full of erroneous depictions of God which are projections of the human ego upon the perfection of the Divine.

This is no petty form of unrighteous jealousy, like wanting something that doesn't belong to you, but the jealousy of wanting what is true and intended between God and man, that sin divided.  A righteous jealousy.  This is the personal nature of God, wanting to be with us from day one, it's God's whole modus operendi with what he created.  If that isn't clear as mud, then put this in human terms.  Picture a very righteous and loving father giving every blessing and act of kindness towards his children and his children end up hating him and loving a horrible man more than him.  The father is going to be jealous of the love his children are giving towards this other man, and hate the falsity of it, and how undeserving it is, and he would be right in thinking so.

That's a sickening view of a loving father and of a loving God. To be intolerant, the Father would have to act out against the unfaithfulness. Love and violence do not, and cannot have the same source. God faces no loss of pride or status as the father does anyway. The father's ego gets bruised, but God has no ego.

"If you are One with Christ, does that mean that you forgive my sins unconditionally as well? Or are you actually NOT enlightened, and in fact just letting Christ be Christ and being happy that he accepts you even if you insist on not trying to live in complete sinlessness?"

I can forgive you if you sin against me, but Christ alone forgives us when we sin against God.  One is between man, one is between us and God.  The point is exactly that, we CAN NOT live a sinless life, as God has made that abundantly clear.

so we have to die unto ourSelves...sinlessness and separateness from God are synonyms. God wouldn't give that advice to God's Self...he gives that teaching to all who see themselves as separate from God.

The second part is answered in Romans 6, "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!  We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?  Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."  The Christian no longer chooses to live according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit and what the Spirit desires.   I am no longer a slave to sin, but a slave to Christ and to the Spirit of truth if you will.  By faith I put to death the misdeeds of the body, which is a lifelong process.  I live in the Spirit of God to be made into the likeness of Christ, when I die.

I was with you until the part where you say 'when I die'. If you no longer live according to the flesh, then you CAN live a sinless life. If the commandment of Christ is to 'Go and sin no more', then you should be able to go and sin no more. Christ wouldn't send people on fools' errands, would he? So long as you're a sinner, you're not one with Christ.

There is effort, but it's done only out of love for God, for sending his son to die on the cross.  That love, coupled with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is what motivates the Christian towards sinlessness, although they will continue to fall short even until their final day.

There is effort so long as one's will is separate from God's will. There has not been a dying unto one's self if the individual will persists. If one has died unto himself, no motivation is necessary to live sinlessly...it is the natural consequence of truly surrendering oneself to God. What would sin, if one had truly let God be the captain of one's life?

There is no forced behaviour, we have free will to choose our position before God.  All Christians fail to live according to the Spirit, and will feed their flesh, they still sin, but are sanctified, not yet glorified.  If you mean glory is enlightenment, then I am not enlightened, in that sense.  That is something God does after judgement. The apostle Paul goes on and on about this, and I again, encourage you to read Romans 1-8 as posted on the link before.

Enlightenment is sinlessness as per Christ and Buddha and Krishna and Zoroaster's states of being.

"Can you substantiate this further? Knowledge of murder does not compel me either to fantasize about murder, nor to commit murder. Ignorance is lack of understanding...and if we find some manner of justification for doing evil, then it is obvious that we are ignorant and that we do not understand. If we can be compelled randomly to choose evil, then there's some underlying ignorance which makes that possible, because we can rationalize simply enough, that given enlightened awareness, we'd always choose good."

With this, I would argue that good has to be defined and objective, and evil has to be defined and objective.  There has to be a clear differentiation before we can continue.  Going with the moral character of God, I will forever argue that knowing the absolute truth will never make us always able to do it.  It is an impossibility to act perfect always, as our own sinfulness wages war against our will to do what is right.  If you think you can be perfect on your own will and volition, I wish you the best of luck, I've been down that road, too many times to know that it is an impossibility.  You can not be good all the time, because your sinful body will always fail you.  If you are eventually united with the truths of God, you will know the difference between right and wrong, but not have the agency to live according to that truth.  The agency is of utmost importance.  Without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we are hopeless in our efforts to live according to the God.  The Christian questions are, how will you face God's justice and does it make sense that by simply being good in what you think is good is enough to satisfy the holiness of an uncreated everlasting God?  Even the most rational people, have done horrendous things, that they believe can save them from the justice of God.

If you believe that knowing the absolute truth does not also entail having the agency to follow it, I would argue that you do not believe in a truth that is absolute. You say that there has to be a definition of good and bad...and an absolute truth would explain that...and it would also explain why the good is ALWAYS better than the bad. There could be nothing which could compel one to act against what he knew to be true. Man always chooses what he believes to be the good...the only problem is that we can't tell the difference between what we think is good and what is actually good. If we could tell that difference, we would only do good.

"So do you simply not acknowledge the devotional aspects of other religions(being servants of God/the Absolute), or do you think they are something else?"

I confirm or reject the teachings of every other religion against scripture and through the Holy Spirit's conviction, and I debate for or against everything, presuppositionally, ie, what is the foundation of the other religion?

Do you think being devoted to Truth is different than being devoted to God?



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

Seriously.. if you like to write so damn much, would you write my essay? It's about all the likeness in the abrahamitic religions... It's supposed to be in swedish, but I can translate smile


Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

Sorry Mxy', I'm currently writing a book and 2 screenplays of my own that I'm behind on...and by golly, how would the internet survive without my commentaries?