Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I'd like to see a viable line of inquiry instead of almost random thoughts.
Christianity: An Integral Yoga?
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
Hi G2G —
Thomas
This was my point ... as far as I saw it, we both were ... since then, the only correspondence has been to argue that I know less about Hindu Tradition than I do about Catholic, apparently ... or is that vice versa?
Thomas
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Really? What evidence are you thinking of here, Bro. Thomas?
We are talking about the unity of body and soul as per the OP, yes?
GlorytoGod
There is a River
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
i was listening to someone speak the other day and they talked a bit about the need to be right, sometimes we have an overwhelming need to be right and its such a relief if we can let that go its really quite freeing.
I was following this thread and it seemed to be going that way and I was wondering who wanted to be right more you or netti, sorry if i have got this totally wrong BTW
Jiust to clarify for all concerned —
The initial point of the post was my inspiration at discovering in the writings of Sri Aurobindo a dimension 'hope' for the body that parallels a similar hope in Christianty.
That's all.
Thomas
The initial point of the post was my inspiration at discovering in the writings of Sri Aurobindo a dimension 'hope' for the body that parallels a similar hope in Christianty.
That's all.
Thomas
GlorytoGod
There is a River
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Openess to truth may also involve a willingness to examine evidence from obvious places. For example, what is Biblical evidence for the unity of body and soul ?its great when we can be open to the truth even from unexpected sources
According to Thomas, "the evidence of oneness in Christianity is overwhelming ..." I have yet to see any.
wil
UNeyeR1
To me the essential truths in many bodies of work are there for all to see.
What separates them is the nature and understanding of man. As all these are interpolated, written, and translated using our languages. The language of G!d is that knowing that surpasses understanding and is always beyond words or explanation.
hmmm maybe not beyond....explanation is just not required.
What separates them is the nature and understanding of man. As all these are interpolated, written, and translated using our languages. The language of G!d is that knowing that surpasses understanding and is always beyond words or explanation.
hmmm maybe not beyond....explanation is just not required.
GlorytoGod
There is a River
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
you want to be right all the time
you should try giving it up for Ramadan or something, go on I dare you, you might find that wow what a relief I dont have to be right all the time.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Thomas, I totally understand your wish to bow out of the discussion. However, i think this thread could still be redeemed at least partially with the presentation of what you refer to as overwhelming "evidence of (body/soul) oneness in Christianity." Just a couple of links would be fine.Thanks!
Hi Netti-Netti —
Check the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's a searchable site, so just pop body and soul in the search field, and there you go.
As you'll probably dispute the Catechism, there's hardly any point me referencing any scripture that might require a somewhat more esoteric insight into its meaning, like:
"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell."
Matthew 10:28
Thomas
Check the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's a searchable site, so just pop body and soul in the search field, and there you go.
As you'll probably dispute the Catechism, there's hardly any point me referencing any scripture that might require a somewhat more esoteric insight into its meaning, like:
"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell."
Matthew 10:28
Thomas
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Hi Thomas,
Consider this: Salvation as an aspect of the afterlife means not having to experience another physical death or another spiritual death. This can be reasonably inferred from the dualistic view we find in the NT. The dualistic distinction between a physical and spiritual body is referenced by Paul: "If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." (Corinthians: 15:44).
Sinners keep experiencing spiritual death as well as repeated physical death. That is hell. In contrast, the faithful will know know the Heaven of everlasting life, which is the continuation of their spiritual body. They will go on without a physical body, as Jesus in fact taught:
And again, Jesus emphasizes that in the afterlife we have a different form: "They will be like the angels in heaven." (Matthew 22:30)
Aurobindo has elaborated a theory of the progression of the individual soul through repeated incarnations (presumably involving new bodies). In a Christian view, the spiritual resurrection of G-d's children is once and for all. But the fact that they underwent a spiritual resurrection means they no longer have a physical body. There is no obvious way to reconcile this view to Aurobindo's position.
As an aside, I'm not sure why anyone would insist on the resurrection of the physical body since it is a relatively inefficient vehicle that needs various forms of fuel and ongoing maintenance. Do women get to keep their PMS problems after their body has been reconstituted?
It is ... for anyone interested in a Catholic point of view.
The above passage makes good sense if you would believe that sinners haven't gotten rid of their physical self. But this doesn't tells us anything about the faithful, does it?
Consider this: Salvation as an aspect of the afterlife means not having to experience another physical death or another spiritual death. This can be reasonably inferred from the dualistic view we find in the NT. The dualistic distinction between a physical and spiritual body is referenced by Paul: "If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." (Corinthians: 15:44).
Sinners keep experiencing spiritual death as well as repeated physical death. That is hell. In contrast, the faithful will know know the Heaven of everlasting life, which is the continuation of their spiritual body. They will go on without a physical body, as Jesus in fact taught:
"they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection." (Luke 20:36)
Aurobindo has elaborated a theory of the progression of the individual soul through repeated incarnations (presumably involving new bodies). In a Christian view, the spiritual resurrection of G-d's children is once and for all. But the fact that they underwent a spiritual resurrection means they no longer have a physical body. There is no obvious way to reconcile this view to Aurobindo's position.
As an aside, I'm not sure why anyone would insist on the resurrection of the physical body since it is a relatively inefficient vehicle that needs various forms of fuel and ongoing maintenance. Do women get to keep their PMS problems after their body has been reconstituted?
Well, as an aside, the assumption here is the body, resurrected 'incorruptible' and 'immortal', will be the same as the corruptible and mortal body we currently are ... re your comment, 'inefficient', 'fuel' and 'maintenance' — the same can be said of the soul, so I don't see the problem.
Thomas
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Hi Thomas,
It depend on your view of the soul. I see the soul as G-d in matter. Therefore, what can be said about G-d would apply to the soul.
I'll go with Aquinas (Summa Theologica) here. G-d is not a body: "(I)t is impossible that matter should exist in G-d." With that, we rule out all the complexities related to material existence in one fell swoop. Those issues simply do not obtain for G-d.
Further, with Aquinas, we should be able to agree that "G-d is not only His own essence... but also His own existence."
For Aquinas. G-d is understood as ipsum esse subsistens. I can't imagine that there is anything more efficient than fully self-subsistent, self-originating Being. This would have to be different from a dependent creature in ways we can't even imagine.
In short, hat can be said about the body cannot be said of the soul. Closer examination of your point confirms the dualism I have been maintaining all along.
OK. But orthodox Christianity doesn't, and nor does Sri Aurobindo, so it's a moot point.
Thomas
wil
UNeyeR1
Namaste Thomas,
Is it? A moot point? I see your point, since this a discussion of the similarities of between the two since neither agrees with this than it must be wrong. But since we are looking at similarities the differences are also glaring indicating at least one and probably both are wrong.
Therefor the supposition proposed may be correct.
no?
Or is it moot because the possibility of it having value has nothing to do with this discussion?
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Hi Thomas. I was responding to your previous assertion that
Is your position in this regard the orthodox Christian view or is that Sri Aurobindo's thinking?
Thank you for staying on track, Thomas.
nativeastral
fluffy future
Hi Wil —
Whether one thinks either or both are wrong is immaterial. I was just pointing out the correspondence, for anyone who might be interested, I'm not defending either of them. If you don't agree with one or both, then fine.
I was also saying that such is fertile ground for meaningful ecumenical discourse between traditions, but as ever, what actually happens here is one gets the 'no, you're wrong' response, which kills any discourse stone dead.
Thomas
I'm not discussing them, I was just trying to share in a rash moment of inspiration ... it was a 'take it or leave it' kind of thing.
Whether one thinks either or both are wrong is immaterial. I was just pointing out the correspondence, for anyone who might be interested, I'm not defending either of them. If you don't agree with one or both, then fine.
I was also saying that such is fertile ground for meaningful ecumenical discourse between traditions, but as ever, what actually happens here is one gets the 'no, you're wrong' response, which kills any discourse stone dead.
Thomas
wil
UNeyeR1
golly Thomas, I guess I can't even ask a question.
You made a statement, I contemplated.... never gave you the 'no you're wrong response which kills any discourse stone dead... ' however that is exactly where you and I have been at loggerheads before... quite interesting.
I'll once again back off and let you continue the discussion you are not having.
You made a statement, I contemplated.... never gave you the 'no you're wrong response which kills any discourse stone dead... ' however that is exactly where you and I have been at loggerheads before... quite interesting.
I'll once again back off and let you continue the discussion you are not having.