Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion) (Page 5 of 16)

I don't have that kind of time. It took me nearly 2 months to respond to Paisley's post! lol

I think it's time for a 500-characters-per-post limit.

singyourownkindofmusic
makeyourownspecialsong

...and a book!

c'mon! that post wasn't even 2 sentences long! I get it if you didn't read the mammoth essay...but damn.

-Rob

not sure, but I picture the cover like ... him, giving a thumbs up.

The book is about creativity and spirituality...not really religious at all, though there is reference to the wisdom of some historical spiritual/religious figures. It's fairly philosophical with a self-help sort of bent to it.

The screenplays aren't overtly religious either, though they are somewhat allegorical, and thus represent existential dillemmas that are predominant in both religious and secular culture. I'd say they're only slightly more spiritual than the Lord of the Rings, but in no way as heavy handed and overtly religious as the Narnia series.
Neither of them is set in a fantasy world though, so those parallels might be sort of weak.

-Rob

Hey paisley1, do you also work on a book or similar?

And tnx for posting

Okay, we're back at it! lol.

To me, Truth is the only authority for Truth. As they say, "the map is not the territory". A book about swimming simply could not contain all the truth there is about swimming. The only verification is experiential. As a map, the bible serves very well(especially when pared down to Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs, and the NT minus Revelation).

May I put forth a proposal here? that rather than attempting to defend belief systems, we ought to be pursuant of truth itself. I'm as much a Christian as I am a Buddhist, though if either makes claims to exclusivity as 'the one and only Truth', I don't buy it.

That's like saying that any attempt at reconciling Einsteins gross world of Gravity and Relativity ought not to be mixed with theories of Quantum Mechanics for the mere fact that we don't know how they really work together. Fact of the matter is that they both apply to reality...only in differing contexts(for instance, Buddhism deals with Enlightenment, and Christianity deals with Salvation; Gravity:Gross, Quantum Mechanics:Subatomic).

Actually, your explanation of how God can remain both loving and jealous, I can't say I've ever come across in the bible. Also, the explanation is contradictory to Christ where he said "forgive them for they know not what they do". It is not necessary to hate vanilla in order to like chocolate. A jealous God is not compatible with the idea of a truly loving God, for the mere fact that I can love without being jealous. If God can't, then God is too limited to be worthwhile. It places you in a situation where you have to forgive God for God's shortcomings, which is absolutely ridiculous.

Buddhism isn't so fundamentalist. Christianity is not threatening to the Buddhist world-view, because the nondualistic perspective advocated for by eastern religions holds that conflict is a quality in perception and not one of actual conditions of reality(this is true in both the Bhagavad Gita[Hindu] and the Dhammapada[Buddha's teachings]). "That which is real cannot be threatened" (fyi, that is a line from the teachings of 'A Course in Miracles', a Christian document that doesn't seem incompatible with eastern religions at all).

The error comes in thinking that exclusivity belongs to any religion. Be passionate for God, not for belief systems. In much of Christianity, Christianity as an institution is worshipped with greater passion than Christ himself.

I believe in a God that is both transcendent AND immanent...the Source of all that exists. This is a God that is 100% compatible with both religions, unless one believes that God can't be both.

No, God is the source of truth. Scripture is second hand truth, even if it is divinely inspired...because ALL inspiration is divinely inspired...that's what inspiration means - Indwelling of Spirit. If you've ever been inspired, you'll know that it doesn't make whatever you're doing perfect. We, being sinners, and having this sinful nature that you described, fail to literally 'be God's hands'. Unless of course, you think the scholars of the bible were as sinless as Christ, and not prone to error...in which case salvation would've been needless for them.

hardly. Historical books are never 100% accurate...though historians recognize that history is not contained in a book. Books are signposts that point there. This is not a battle of Christianity vs Buddhism....it is a discussion on matters of spirituality that can be pushed forward by honesty, discussion, logic, experiential understanding and more. It comes to a halt when it becomes some partisan thing where the foundations of belief can't be challenged.
On that note, I would still like an explanation on why God must be jealous, or at least where the error is in the explanation that loving chocolate does not require that one hate vanilla.

I'd done that extensively prior to any exposure to Buddhist philosophy. I'm curious what your claim to 'correct interpretation' is founded in. Certainly you're not all-knowing...so is your claim to understanding based in dogma, experience, belief that some peoples' interpretations are authoritative due to their theological backgrounds? Theology is little more than religious philosophy...the mere toying of the intellect with truths that it has not grasped experientially.

The uncaused first cause is compatible with emanationism, at least in a sort of pantheistic sense.
In any case, I'm curious what gives rise to the bolded part. Why would an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being require such a relationship? It seems to be an anthropomorphic/ego projection onto the quality of God which has relationship with us by virtue of the fact that we ARE God's essence expressed AS Creation; not separate from God any more than a drop is separate from the ocean. Thus, the relationship arises, not on the part of some lacking God that needed to have a relationship, but as a consequence of a perfect God being the perfect expression of what God is.

This, to put it in Buddhist terms, is the arising of duality...temptation to leave our union with God. The serpent(a characterization of poisonous/luciferic thinking) tempted Eve with the idea that she could have the power of God without the responsibility of God. The luciferic influence distorts truth such that even in complete union with the divine, Eve thought she was lacking...that God had withheld something from her. Poison/non-truth is infectious, and it spread to Adam for he thought that Eve had something that he didn't have...again, perception of lacking was his downfall. They were both convinced of a reality that extended beyond God(duality), and became ignorant(sinful).

See, intention is a strange word to a being that could simply will a massive flood to cover the earth. Perception of injustice is a consequence of pursuing something that is not God. There is no such thing as 'not God' except in perception. Thus, God's justice and mercy are forever satisfied because they are the only reality. In reality, God is already in relationship with us...every hair on our head is counted, after all. It is we who must bring ourselves back to relationship with God and stop pursuing nonexistence/nontruth.

I'm not sure if you take Genesis to be literal or an allegory actually...the above explanation serves to contextualize the implications of it as an allegory which is not incompatible with the views of other religions.

The sacrificial system was set up by man, was it not? Even if it were ordained by God, the sacrificial system would've been implemented and overseen by man. God never lost us(every hair on our heads is counted), it is we who lost God. Thus, it makes more sense that the sacrificial system was OUR attempt at reconciling with a God that WE falsely perceived as angry, vengeful, and jealous. If we had abandoned everything that was 'not-God', surely a loving God would've accepted us back into the garden, so to speak.

Seems to be a different God than Christ was. Christ required no tests. You may recall the 'do you love me?' parable, when the disciple finally says, 'Lord, you know better than I do!'. That God would 'test' us seems to be a rationalization by people that were ignorant to God's true nature.

It would seem that the sacrificial system was abolished in Christ's death, since God's unconditional love was demonstrated through Christ's forgiveness. No longer would we need to subscribe to something silly like sacrificial pennance or whatever, since God loved us! Here we were, fearing a vengeful God, and Christ came along and said, look at yourselves, killing me, and understand that the Father forgives you for your ignorance. Christ died for our sins, because he understood our collective ignorance/suffering, and in his self-sacrifice, he could forgive us for all the ignorance that ever accumulated and had become manifest in the killing of God-Immanent. (Remember, The Father, The Son, and the Spirit are one - Christ forgave us for killing God himself!).

Here, i think it's important to understand what heaven is...Luke 20:35, 36 depicts a heaven that is very much compatible with the consequence of enlightenment in Buddhism...the end of the birth/death cycle...unity with God and the angels, but not a place for individuality, for husbands and wives, or for roles and personalities. It goes on to say that God is not a God of the dead, but of the living. Thusly, those who would have considered themselves to have died(the hell of cartoons where dead people go) were not aligned with God.
However, hell as an experiential state of being, people could be freed from that through revelation. Perhaps Christ awakened people from their hells and offered them heaven?
I'm not sure that the ignorant can live in heaven, as the two terms are wholly incompatible.

See, this is completely analogous to Lotus Land/Pure Land Buddhism, where one commits that the gravity of sin is too great here to transcend, and that by commitment to the Saviour(in this case Christ), he becomes your advocate for going to a heavenly domain where the gravity isn't so strong, and growth/union in God can be attained more easily experientially.
Let's remember that heaven itself has experiential qualities, and is not the sort of physical domain that's analogous to being in a nice house....it is a transformative domain.

I'm not sure that death begets righteousness...forgiveness entails that your sins are no longer held against you, but if you can be magically made into a righteous non-sinner, it really undermines all the time we spend here as ignorant, sinful people. Why wouldn't a loving God just make us righteous right away if that was his perogative? Makes more sense to me that righteousness in God is an experiential condition that requires surrender of the will to God.

there's nothing wrong with trying to live a life of sanctification and edification...Buddhists simply believe that the perfect states are attainable. You've insisted previously that they aren't...in which case, effort is undermined by pseudo-humility as "I'll never be good enough to be perfect", which itself is a block to further growth. How can one be truly sanctified and edified when he does good only for the reward of glorification? The sanctified and edified do good for the sake of doing good. When one aims to get reward in the afterlife, they are not slaves to spirit, but to their own desires. When one does it for God/in spirit, reward is of no consequence, since service to God is its own reward.

My interest is in truth, not in stories. Relevant as they may be, the conclusions we draw must hold up to the conditions of qualifiers. Love ought not to be equated with non-love, for example.

actually, 'in me, and I am in Him' infers quite gracefully that what Christ is/was was not the body or the personality...."the words I say are not just my own" means that it is not Christ saying me me me me me, but the Truth speaking itself through Christ. Christ was saying right there that if you think you know me as a man, and not as God, then you do not know me. This speaks more clearly to Christ as Truth than to Christ as a 'personality'.

"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" implies that it is not in the name, but in recognition of the indwelling of God that one can understand Christ. If they do not recognize God in him, then they won't recognize God, for they still think that God is somewhere 'out there', and not 'in here'.
Also, what of the command that those who have faith in Christ will do even greater things than he? Is that not saying that we can be JUST AS HOLY as Christ?

What loss is it to me that my friend spends more time with someone else? Getting jealous is egotistical. Not necessary, unless one perceives it as a sort of loss. To God, there can be no loss, since God is no less God under any condition. God is not defined by you, or me, or anyone else.
What on earth is 'intolerance of unfaithfulness'? Unfaithfulness doesn't give you a choice...you HAVE to tolerate it, because you can't change it. Getting upset, angry or jealous is not necessary in order that one be loving. I can give my friend affection and try to win him back for the sake of loving him alone. Jealousy is not required, and it's silly to think so.

Actually, moral relativism is different from relative morals. There is only the absolute, and perfect morality appears when one is in union with the absolute. However, due to ignorance, we stray in varying degrees from alignment with the absolute, and thus, our moral fortitude is relative to that degree of varyance from the absolute. In buddhism, life is recognized as being sacred, but attachment to things is seen as the root of suffering. Thus, I can go about honoring life, but not view it as a loss when a loved one dies. There's nothing morally relativistic about that...I simply do not have to hate sin in order to love purity...there's no need to hate loss in order to love abundance. The command to 'store one's treasures in heaven' is an order to relinquish attachments too.

Good no more implies bad than light implies dark. Bad is not the opposite of good, but the absence of good, just as darkness is not the opposite of light but the absence of it. There is no opposite to truth or to God, but there is the perception of the absence of these things.
What we call good and bad are relative(not relativism) to our perception. We might say that drinking too much alcohol is bad, but then, eventually, drinking too much alcohol makes a guy finally hit bottom, and he makes a huge spiritual leap in awareness and dignity and he turns his whole life around. So you can see, it is completely a matter of perception whether we call something good or bad. Ultimately, what is good is based in Truth, and what is bad is based in falsity, HOWEVER, our minds are inherently limited in the sense that we cannot tell the difference between what we THINK IS RIGHT and what is ACTUALLY RIGHT. You can reflect on this and try to find a situation where you thought you were right and knew you were actually wrong....no such instance exists. Your morality occurs relative to your perception. Your perception is shaped by your attachments. In order to live a more morally righteous life, you must therefore refine your perceptions and transcend attachments. There's nothing about my view or the buddhist view that advocates for moral relativism, there is simply a recognition that so long as we're not enlightened, our morality can be expressed relative only to our attachments.

-Rob

Okay, to start:

Truth vs. Belief Systems
Basically, the map is not the territory. Understanding a map of Canada is not the same as understanding Canada. Also, understanding the bible and having true spiritual knowledge are not the same either. The map may be accurate, but when I'm looking at a road in front of me and the map is in disagreement with the fact that there is a road there, obviously it's the map that is mistaken. This is my argument against the bible as an authority on Truth. Only Truth is an authority on Truth...the road is evidence of the road, and God is evidence of God. Everything else, including what we might call 'proof' is a construct of what Truth might be hypothetically. Even objectivity (though valuable), is a subjective construct. This is why I hold experiential knowledge to be higher than theoretical, theological, philosophical, intellectual knowledge.
Now, certainly I'm aware that delusion is possible, so experiential knowledge isn't exactly passable to others without a certain degree of risk. We can't share experiential knowledge - only theoretical knowledge...we're thus responsible to keep oil in our own lamps as per the parable of the ten virgins...giving theoretical knowledge doesn't save everyone(the 5 who came without oil couldn't be saved by the knowledge & foresight of the 5 who had oil...though via experience, they would then know better).
Knowing that you need oil and having oil then is the difference between a belief system and truth. An authentic state vs. a theoretical state...enlightenment vs. what is presumably one's entitlement through an agreement.

The bible as the inspired word of God...or not
I do not trust in the authority of the entire bible, because different parts speak about different Gods...some of the time, God is jealous, angry, spiteful, egotistical, etc. Other times, God is loving, benign, forgiving, and peaceful. The one version is subject to the limitations of a teen going through puberty...moody, reactionary, rebellious, intolerant....and the other is balanced, calm, understanding, tolerant.
Also, the inspired word of God was spoken by Christ, not by Matt, Mark, Luke or John...these (although they are the greatest in the collection) are accounts of the inspired word of God. If they were the true inspired word, they would have at least been penned or dictated by Christ...but instead, they were written much later. Also, the bibles that we're referring to are filtered by translators...translators that are in disagreement over greek vs. aramaic primacy in the origins of scripture. Now, you're not only saying that the bible is the inspired word of God, but that whichever translation you choose to follow is subject to the same infallibility that you ascribe to the original authors.
Also, the bible as we know it today wasn't assembled until approximately 325AD...thus, the origins of Christianity weren't mired in the authority of some collection of literary texts, but in the authenticity of the spiritual transformations of followers of the teachings of Christ, which were predominantly passed on orally and by what we might refer to as mystics, who had experiential understanding of authentic spiritual states.
In fact, the earliest expression of Christianity was dubbed 'The Way' (of which 'Tao' is a synonym).
Clearly, the influence of politicians affected the assembly of the bible as is evidenced by the exclusion of particular books from it, namely the Gospel of Thomas.
It ought to be noted that there are no accounts of the council of Nicea that portray it as an enlightened coming together of minds. There was extensive debate as to what should be included in the bible....how the book of Revelation ever made its way in there, I'll never know...but surely there were some at the council that were aware of its astral origin due to the nature not only of its imagery, but due to the fact that it was apocalyptic and about the furthest portrait of a loving, powerful God that one could imagine...a God who would actually have to wage battle against the forces of evil as though evil could pose a threat to a real God...

Now, the Timothy quote brings up an issue as well. I would agree with it if it said "All God-breathed scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work," However, it says 'All scripture is God breathed". This is OBVIOUSLY false...as there is a lot of so-called 'scripture' out there in the world, including a lot that was not included in the bible, and scripture of other religions...

As for the John quote, it ought to be recognized that the bible was assembled AFTER John wrote this...thus, the bible could not have been the 'Word' that he was speaking of here. "In the beginning" most certainly refers to something before John was writing...you can't ignore something like that. [as an aside, the word OM is often dubbed 'the name of God' in eastern religion/philosophy and is considered to be a primordial/perennial sound].

And Romans simply renders all your previous argument inert as well, since if every man is a liar, then all men are fallible, even those inspired by God. There is no evidence anywhere that indicates that the bible was written by God.

Biblical hermeneutics exist because people have a hard time understanding what the bible means...they do not make for an authority except by their own proclamation...in fact, if you refer to the Romans quote...lol
Theology is limited because it entails an intellectual dissection of something that is so clearly beyond the grasp of the intellect....it's an issue of 'the tooth can't bite itself', whereby the nature of God cannot be grasped according to the limitation of something that is less than God.

as for the other Romans quote: “The sinful mind is hostile to God.  It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.” I'm curious why you interpret me as being hostile to God...? I propose that God is not limited and jealous...you propose that God is. I propose that God does not need to hate in order to love. You propose that God does. I propose that one can be as enlightened as Christ and that we can submit to God's law in the exact same way as Christ. You propose that we remain sinful until the day we die. I propose that perfect enlightenment is possible. You do not.
So who is hostile to God?
Who submits to God's perfection?
Who believes it is possible to do so?

As for having a personal relationship with Jesus, I beg you the question, 'Do you know Jesus, or do you simply know about Jesus?'
When one knows the land, he can discard his map. One relies on the map when they do not know.
It's like a book about what vanilla tastes like...and just like any book, it lacks the experience within itself. So long as you view the bible as authority(a belief system) and not God Himself(Truth), you don't really know God/Christ. The bible is a finger pointing at God, and you are more fascinated by the finger than by what it is pointing at. If you knew Him, you would know me...because Jesus knows me. Every hair on my head is counted.

There is only one truth to pursue...thus, we are talking about the same thing. The different religions are akin to a path up the north face of a mountain and a path up the south face of a mountain. While you are on one path, the other does not appear to exist or have any foundation in reality...however, once you reach the top, you can look down and see paths in many directions. We are talking about opposing paths...paths that aren't in fact so opposing as you're inferring.

The God I believe in is the source of Creation, ongoing(Every moment is a new creation, God is Creator of All). I believe that man is the reflection of God's essence as Creation manifest(made in His image). I believe that fellowship with God is akin to recognizing the unity of oneself as a drop in the ocean(nonduality)...I do not believe that God is like a block of Swiss cheese where mankind fits in the holes; God has no holes.
I believe in the Will of God, though I do not believe that it is subject to being refused. I believe that God is omnipotent, which would make His Will analogous to the Absolute. I believe suffering arises in the incongruity of alignment between the individual will and God's will.
I do not believe that God's will is a will of intention or goals, because I do not believe that God, being God, could ever have a sense of lacking.

This next part, I must quote:

The absolute is inescapable, and needn't be grasped.
Also, Jesus made himself NOTHING...it doesn't say humble, or lesser, or a submissive personality...it says NOTHING. This is very eastern, where the self is ultimately found to be illusion, and that God/the Absolute is all that ever was, and thus, requires no grasping.

Made in human likeness, but not made human. Wow.

In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was God. Could there be any name higher than 'God'?

Jesus was named Jesus by Mary. We confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, though 'Jesus' is not the name that is above every other name, 'God' is. Jesus is not best known as a man, but as God. He made himself Nothing...he even gave up his body! Why do you insist on worshipping him as a personality that is separate from God? If he and God are one, then it is not the appearance in human likeness that is of importance - it is His Divine Essence.

remember what the word 'Christ' means? note that it doesn't say Jesus. 'Christ' is a synonym for the Hebrew word 'Messiah' or 'Salvation'. We must believe in Grace/Salvation in order to be righteous before God.

it's probably more accurate to say 'the gift' than 'the son', and of course jealousy is a terrible word for describing God...

See, a loving God wouldn't use the killing of a creature as a sign in this manner...it's purposeless...as though the angel of death, under God's authority, would be too dumb to know righteousness from unrighteousness. Another reason why I don't take the whole bible as authority...superstition was common in those times, and this is a classic example that ought to be considered in the context of the time. What would have made this any different from the other sacrificial superstitions that were common in every other religion? Is God so immature that he'd join in a fad, or is it possible that something else gave rise to this happening?

Thank goodness, Christ came and set the people straight, abolishing the need for superstition and instating a spirituality that was authentic.

That doesn't stand up to logic. Intolerance of unfaithfulness is not a reality...you can tell by th fact that there are atheists all over, and there have always been. God is very tolerant of unfaithfulness, because God, being God, can be threatened by nothing.

As for Hell as a reincarnation...that is not consistent with my worldview. Hell is a quality or state of existence. It is a quality that people on earth experience all the time...a sense of eternal despair and suffering...look at Africa...that's hell...the absence of God/Love/Truth...and I don't mean atheism....I mean, there is no God experienced in someone that abuses religion to get children to fight holy wars.
As for reincarnations, they are but a limited perspective on a single eternal life...death happens only to the body, which is not you. The cycle of 'reincarnation' ends when one realizes the state of nonduality...where the concept of separate lives would seem silly...no need for further incarnation, because one is nit separate from God. No different from the eternal life promised by Christ.

As for God needing a reason to be loving....that's another absurdity. God IS Love. As though a cat needs a reason to be a cat? Love is the Nature of God. It is not something that we need to bargain for...it is unconditional. Jealousy though...you need a reason for that...and there are no loving reasons for jealousy.
In the parable of the prodigal son, the father was not 'intolerant of unfaithfulness'...he just loved his son and welcomed him back.

I tell you this, there is more Christ in some Buddhists than in a lot of Christians...surely a loving God would'nt banish them to hell and keep the sinning Christians.
As for reincarnation, you've got a very very basic idea of what it is. To take up some form in heaven would be considered a(n) (re)incarnation...the belief is that the soul is not confined to this physical domain.
The bible doesn't specifically teach against reincarnation either...it is dogmatic that it is not taught in Christian traditions, but not explicitly taught as a falsity. Interestingly, there is a bit of vagueness to Matt 11:13-14 that may or may not indicate that John the Baptist is the reincarnation of Elijah.
Luke 9:19 even alludes that it wasn't uncommon to consider at the time. Jesus didn't take that opportunity to say that reincarnation was threatening or false...he just focused on transcending identification with the self....it's where he commanded that we must die unto ourselves...which, by chance is also the necessary ingredient to transcending the cycle of reincarnation in Buddhism.

As for 'eternity in hell', I would like to put forward that eternity has no beginning or end...and since you don't consider hell on earth to be a possibility, how could it be possible that anyone spend eternity in hell if they began anywhere other than hell? It'd be 'the rest' of eternity. Personally, I believe that eternity is experiential, not temporal...hell itself is an experience of eternity as suffering.

i'd like to know why you don't consider the bible to be a created thing. Here I am, talking about God, and you're saying that this created thing is greater authority than God...or that this created thing is God or something. God is much much bigger than the Bible.

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute truth/morality...that truth is subjective and arbitrary (I think it is subjective, but not arbitrary or 'whatever we want it to be').
The idea that morality as it is expressed in you and I is relative to an absolute is not moral relativism. The 'ism' is very important. One is a condition of reality, and the other is an ideology. You are not perfectly moral all the time, are you? If so, you abide by a moral standard that strays from the absolute at times...and I wouldn't go calling you a moral relativist.
Also, there is no need to defend my right to exist...I exist by virtue of the fact that God exists. Truth needs no defense because truth is not subject to non-truth.

Whew.

-Rob

on what?

rob kinda wore me out with that discussion last night...i get dragged into these too easy

Religion has way too much power...it's dangerous to leave so much power to nuts like that..

Why do people, who has seen god, get money and power? If someone who's seen something equivalent of god, but not god, he would go to a mental institution...

People who are religious are able to hide behind the religion and follow, words from the higher powers, with no hesitation.. this is what makes it so dangerous.. It's like, otherwise intelligent, people just put their brains on the shelve when it comes to religion..
We don't like gay-people because god says so.
We don't like people with other believes because god says so.

Hell, there are a lot of things that's not even in the fracking bible, but that religious people still follow, and hide behind they're religion..