Bibli-idolatry

[Thomas]

Ok, let me ask this then: Freedom to do, say, think or feel what?

To love God, and love one's neighbour ...

... in a closer context, the 'Freedom' offered by Scripture is to become one with God, not in the sense of personal annihilation or extinction, but Union. In Patristic parlance this is 'theosis' or 'divinisation' — and in the orthodox context it is to become one with the Father, in the Son, by the Holy Spirit.

And the way of it is Love.

My previous comments are in blue:
That highlights the issue we have with those who try and incorporate gnostic 'systems' and/or esoteric 'orders' that are fixed to a hierarchy of levels through which the person is obliged to ascend, step by step, be degree, etc ... all they're doing is putting invented barriers between man and God. In the end they all become elitist, as is only too evident if one examines their histories. These structures are external to the heart.
I think you agree with this bit.

The reason why there are so many systems is man's knowledge is not absolute, so he constructs according to the insight and capacity of the intellect. It's a left-brain thing, to render his experience and his reflections intelligible.

No, I cannot agree with this.

Why not? I am sure you would agree that man's knowledge is not absolute? So you seem to disagree with the working of the intellect. OK. But I would suggest it's sound science.

Actually, I think this is absolutely key to the discussion.

God cannot be comprehended absolutely, so we can only 'know' two things: The first is what we can assert philosophically of that which we would call 'God' were such to exist, and
The second is that which we can assert in faith, the content of which is what each tradition would call its 'revelation', with the proviso that even the data of Revelation needs necessarily be mediated to man according to his ability to comprehend what is being revealed.

So in both cases, man takes data received, through his physical or spiritual senses, and orders things accordingly, according to the intellect.

In the Christian tradition, it is axiomatic that is the self-revelation of God, what is made known to man is always in some sense, analogous to the actuality of the Divine, because the Divine in the fulness of Itself is utterly beyond all human comprehension — so as close as one gets to the truth of the matter, one can always get closer, and what was true before, is not relative and contingent ... and as Eckhart, the Prince of Mystics has said, where God and man meet in the urgrund — all distinction ceases to exist ...

So all orders, hierarchies, domains, levels, etc., are constructs according to the comprehension of truth, they are not true as such, they are ways we perceive the truth...

... the problem arises when one insists then that 'truth' is determined by the construct, which is putting the cart before the horse, and this is nowhere more evident than when the data of one tradition is interpreted, in effect systematised, to fit the other.

What I do agree with is that often enough, those who are too attached to hierarchies do certainly become elitist, their thinking becomes rigid, and this only sets up the ability to abuse our earthly power ...

That was the point I was making.

The Catholic Church throughout the centuries is one of the BEST examples of just this sort of abuse...

In some aspects, yes. Leadbetter and Krishnamurti is another classic example, so none are innocent, and none can throw stones ... I was hoping we could discuss this without insulting each other's faith and intelligence.

I would almost agree that such structures are external, but with the caveat that they are not external to the portions of God's Being in which and Whom we live, move and have our being.

I would reject that caveat. It's imposing a structure on the Divine which is, by nature and definition, free of all determinations. Nor is God 'apportioned out' amongst creatures and the Cosmos.

This is my very point. We start of with structures that help us understand the divine, and then somehow the divine is determined according to the structures, which is an inversion. That is ever the risk, and that is the error that the gnostics, and many esoterists, make regarding Christianity.

In the absence of structure, because Christianity in the first instance is not about structures, etc., people impose their own upon it. And when they come from without, they bring their own in with them. So you inform me that Jesus Christ of the fith of whatever according to this or that ... but that's all alien to what He said, what He taught, and what His apostles transmitted to their followers ... Irenaeus' critique of 2nd century gnosticism is an object lesson in just such an error.

You see, there is an overlap here. It is not that God is out there, somewhere, and in some magical yet inexplicable way we partake of that Divine Nature ... with a dozen complicated Greek words, or Sanskrit terms, needed to explain the relationship.

But that is my very point. It seems to me it is you who bring an inordinate amount of baggage to the doctrine: a scan through your post and there's:

'lesser' Kingdoms ... Teachers ... truly progressive, progressing Revelation ... a 5th ray mind ... 3rd eye or Ajna/brow center ... chakras ... ... Devas ... clairvoyant ... higher CENTERS of consciousness ...​

.
None of it is vital. Useful, for those inclined, but not necessary.

The Christian Tradition states it quite wonderfully, and simply, in the Parable of the Vine. "Abide in my love" John 15:6. Just love ... No need for all that other stuff.

And if our God is one of a truly progressive, progressing Revelation, wherein modern man CAN BE and IS expected to draw closer - closer even than during Christ's previous appearance among us - then we should remain open to the possibility that what I have just said is ... 'Gospel.'

Well here I would say you misunderstand my God, at least.

For a start, none can walk closer than Christ, because Christ is God. All can walk with God in Christ, but overtake Him? "He is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:17).

Nor do we hold to a post-modern view of 'progress' that assumes 'evolution' along a linear path. We believe in the cycle, and the order of the ages.

Within that, Christian esoterism holds that the Word of God is Absolute, so its potential to reveal the Speaker is absolute; the only limitation is man's ignorance and intransigence. Even exoteric Christian doctrine insists (as exoterism necessarily does) that 'the good man' can attain to Divine Union according to the Grace of God. Clement and Justin both preached 'Christians before Christ' ... so we do not in that sense depend on some future date, for us man can aspire to the highest right here, right now...

As for the intricate hierarchies and orders of being which many esotericists stress, I would encourage you to look at these as a form of learning which appeals to certain types of intellects, or minds (what esotericists call a 5th ray mind, especially)...

I'm sorry, but that's just a construct to confirm a construct.

Christian Hermeticism is one of my 'things', but it doesn't define what Christianity is, by a long shot, it's just one means of visualising certain concepts and dynamics.

I have delighted in such for many, many years, and will continue to do so, but there are other ways. I suppose the Eckhartian 'poverty' is calling me of late.

I have probably heard a lot more about left brain, right brain distinctions, and the need for learning to integrate these two modes of perception/experiencing ... from New Agers, than from Catholics, Christians, or any other group of religious folk.

Really? It's is in Scripture ... I think it's because you look at it in a left-brain way ...

What I'm getting at, is that the very ideas you might wish to reject out of hand, or wish to suggest as being too heavily laden with hierarchies and rigid structures, modes of thinking which do not seem necessary for you (or perhaps, I would say especially, for those with mystical inclinations) ... ARE quite useful, even necessary, for others ...

I agree, it takes all sorts ... but they do not define the truth.

(*how* many Songs of the Lord are there again, in this UNI-VERSE?), and our relationship to and with each other (and how many are there again, of me, or of you, or any, given individual?)...

Just the one in principle... I wonder if you see that? That is where I see the major difference. Christianity goes 'to the heart of the matter' always.

I think it's the NEED, the feeling that one MUST make these distinctions, and that one MUST - even if it is with our last, dying breath - emphasize our being somehow LESS THAN the Divine ... this insistence upon focusing on man's MEEKNESS as compared with God's Unboundedness ... to which I react the most negatively, or feel as being MY biggest turnoff.

So do you consider yourself God's equal, or better?

Yet I will not cast aside my mind's `crutches,'

No one is asking you to. Nor am I necessarily calling them crutches ... but I am saying that if you want to understand Christianity, then you will have to learn to walk without them, because you don't need them ... they'll just get in your way.

hey, let's face it - There is more UNDER Heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in some high falutin', fancy schmancy, super-cooked-up philosophy, ol' Horatio!

And less in it ... if you could only see that

Horatio is you, and Horatio is me,

Actually, it's just you on this one, friend.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Or, we may find ourselves pondering the significance of the statement: The mind is the great slayer of the Real. What was the occult instruction which follows?

The significance of that stament, it seems to me, is exactly what I have been saying. The mind is the great slayer of the real when it accommodates the real to itself, and thus invents its own version of reality.

Let the disciple slay the slayer.​

Tragically, this is too often one of those glib sayings, another being 'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!'[/quote]
Context! Context! It's precisely because such statements are taken out of context that they are misunderstood, and their true meaning perverted.

The tragedy here is that the untutored disciple takes the words to heart, and slays the not the mind, but the real, precisely because the disciple is of the opinion that he or she knows best — in which case he or she was never a true disciple in the first place, but just another person seeking their own advantage.

For example, a Teacher of mine used to say, "Argue for your limitations - and they're yours!"

I would argue that it seems to be you arguing for a limitation where there need not be one.
And yet your 'no' seems to suggest that you accept your own limitation?

... because the moment we try to lock our picture of Creation into static, rigid states of being, we lose a picture of Creation which is fluidic, ever-moving, ever-stretching toward something greater, better or more developed.

That is my contention with human-imposed hierarchies.

Why are these things so hard to see? Perhaps because ... it takes several points of view?

Therein lies the error, I think.

The point of view ... the true vision of the Christian Mysteries ... was given thus:

At the heart of Christianity stand two mysteries: the Trinity and the Incarnation. The question for the metaphysician is this: do these two mysteries manifest some deeper reality or do they themselves comprise the ne plus ultra of metaphysics?

Now what I am saying is that there is a tendency to interpret these mysteries in the light of another, and alien, metaphysic. If you want to understand them, as they are, then you have to embrace the Christian metaphysic. To do otherwise is to 'fit' the mystery into a preconceived notion, and perhaps miss the essential point.

As a note to self, I may have to Wiki up a review of the `Problem of the One and Many,' ...

Then can I direct you to Maximus the Confessor, who has written extensively on this very issue?

I would add, that Maximus has written two 'Centuries on Knowledge" (each containing 100 paragraphs) which sum up his philosophy. He has also written four "Centuries on Love" ... which would suggest that live is worht twice the effort of knowledge.

As a lover of philosophy, I hope you will allow this extended quote:

As a philosophical movement, Neo-Platonism is rich and complicated in its doctrines, with no two thinkers agreeing on more than the fundamental presuppositions of the tradition...

First, and most importantly, Neo-Platonists shared a belief in a hyper-transcendent ‘deity’ (though surpassing all deity) known as “the One” (to hen, monad, henad). This entity is pure and impassible, beyond all efforts at contemplation and conceptualization. The infinite power and goodness of the One produces, or emanates, a second divine entity known as the Intellect (nous) or Dyad. This entity is the being of the One hypostatized, and is accordingly both at rest, insofar as it contemplates the One, and in motion, to the extent that it gives life to the forms or logoi that it contains within itself as thoughts. These thoughts, when given independent existence in actuality, result in the third and final divine entity (the second emanation from the One), the World-Soul. Like the Intellect, the World-Soul has two modes of being: at rest, insofar as it contemplates the Intellect as its principle and source, and in motion, since it is the productive principle of nature and life, i.e., of multiplicity (individual souls).

This general schema, which is actually that of the ‘founder’ of Neo-Platonism, Plotinus, underwent many revisions throughout the late Hellenistic and Byzantine eras, yet without ever losing its general structure. One very important revision we owe to Iamblichus of Apamea (d. ca. 330 A.D.), the student of Porphyry and the inspiration of Proclus. This consisted in the introduction of a ‘One-beyond-the-One,’ i.e., a One that is even more transcendent and primal than the Plotinian One. This revision had the important consequence of making the “One-Intellect-Soul” triad of Plotinus into a more concrete, cohesive, and dynamic productive power; for by thus removing the burden of absolute origin from this triad, Iamblichus and, to a greater extent his successor, Proclus, were able to focus on the triadic dynamism pervading, as they believed, all reality. This conception would have a decisive influence on Christian Trinitarian speculations, most notably in the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius.

The influence of Iamblichus and his ‘One-beyond-the-One’ is prevalent in Proclus (ca. 411-485 A.D.), who, according to G.W.F. Hegel, “differs ... from Plotinus in not making Being his principle or purely abstract moment, but by beginning from unity, and for the first time understanding Being or subsistence as the third; thus to him everything has a much more concrete form.” Indeed, in the philosophy of Proclus we encounter a triadic emanationism, in which a structure of unity, procession, and return (monê, proodos, epistrophê) is found at every level of reality. This sense of dynamism in existence, with the end result being a re-unification (or, in Hegelian terms, a conscious, reflective synthesis) with God, is the result of a renewed appreciation of Aristotelian metaphysics among later Neo-Platonic philosophers.

St. Maximus Confessor is an heir to this Aristotelianizing Platonism ... Maximus’ first principle, God, is described as beyond time and essence, and totally inaccessible to contemplation. Though God does not possess essence, which implies circumscription and limit, He is nevertheless the creator and source of all essence. Since God is the essence-less source of all essence, it follows for Maximus that He is also infinite, i.e., without the beginning, middle, and end characteristic of created, temporal beings. By reason of His capacity to create and give life, God is known to exist, yet the manner of His existence, being infinite and beyond time and essence, renders Him conceptually unknowable. Further, since God is the source of all motion and life, He is active, not passive like the beings who receive their essence from Him.

God is, by virtue of His generative activity, unaffected by motion, since He is the source of all motion. In this conception Maximus is adhering to standard Aristotelian-‘Pythagorean’ doctrine regarding the “unmoved mover.” According to Maximus, God is properly understood in terms of monad, existing in and for itself and requiring no prior cause. For the monad is the unmoveable source of motion, since it is the cause of all number, yet is itself not susceptible to numeration, for the monad is truly one and admits, as it is, of no other. However, if the monad, being infinite by virtue of its productive possibility, were to fail to produce duality – i.e., the dyad – then it would, paradoxically, prove itself to be finite, due to its inability to produce motion. Therefore, Maximus concludes, the monad is the infinite and unmoved source of all number, i.e., existence.

For Maximus, God remains hidden from the very beginning. Like the monad, which is the source of all multiplicity and motion, yet itself ever unmoved, so God is beyond all time and motion and is Himself infinite. This conclusion leads Maximus to view the soul as being in motion from its very inception, and in this he is opposed to the Origenist doctrine of pre-existent souls.

This philosophical position has a direct bearing on Maximus’ doctrine of the soul... Not only does this position completely rule out any form of Origenism, with its doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, but it also necessitates the rejection of a notion of a perfect state of Adam before the fall. By thus refusing to admit any sort of human-divine alliance before the fall, Maximus renders the course of human existence as a progression into ever-increasing states of sin. As Thunberg (A Lutheran theologian, by the way) explains: “man’s state of sinfulness is not a stable one, and the fall is not only a matter of fact given once and for all, for it grows successively worse.” Since motion, in and of itself, can never lead to God, Maximus finds in the Incarnation of the Logos the opportunity for humanity to reject motion, and enter into divine repose in and as the body of Christ.

For Maximus, the logical conclusion to all of this is that the goal of human existence must be repose with the divinity. In true Neo-Platonic fashion, Maximus views motion, which requires a mover or source, as ontologically inferior to rest (stasis), which is self-sufficient. In the next section of this paper, I will examine the manner in which this metaphysical doctrine of Maximus affects and informs his thought regarding the salvation of the human soul.

More available here

- and even Jesus found himself wrestling with the last vestiges of the latter, for such is recorded in Scripture as characterizing the Gethsemane experience.

This is in fact an erroneous interpretation. The Gethsemane experience — and how do we know it, because only Jesus was there, the others were asleep, there were no witnesses — here we have John writing 'in the Spirit' of revelation — a clear example of an inspired text — that informs us that Jesus subjects his human gnomic (discriminating) nature, to His divine nature — "not my will but thy will be done" and this is the path through death to eternal life.

Maximus wrote on this too ... I can supply more if you're interested.

I still hope to respond to the rest of your post, Thomas, this one and the earlier. Meanwhile, I want to share a thought from a book entitled, Gifts of the Lotus: A Book of Daily Meditations, which presents a different theme each month, day by day. For today, during a month whose topic is Truth, there is the following:

A doctrine or truth, presenting itself without proof on the bare value of its own nobility, is as disturbing a factor to the majority of men as would be the stranger without name or country. We are afraid of it; it is to us an invasion from an unknown world. And such it is; it is an invasion from another world, from the only real world, the world of Reality.​

Bravo! So enter that world, Andrew, and leave the 'baggage' of other worlds behind.

Pax

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Just the one in principle... I wonder if you see that? That is where I see the major difference. Christianity goes 'to the heart of the matter' always.

Alright Thomas, then why can you not accept that today there are dozens of men - and women - who have attained to precisely the degree of spiritual unfoldment ... the heart of the matter ... to which Christed Jesus had attained 2000 years ago?

The esotericists in the Ageless Wisdom tradition - which welcomes those of a Christian background but does not insist on the acceptance of a laundry list of tenets, articles of faith and the weekly (or daily) taking of oaths, either in secret or before a larger body of believers - have no problem embracing the Christ as a Universal Principle, present within every human being as the Hope of Glory ... yet there is also plenty of room for understanding that as a Being, whether incarnate or `at the right hand of the Father,' Christ Himself evolves. He grows, he advances, he draws closer to God, and in turn He seeks to draw US closer, each and every one.

Once again, there is a logical fallacy, plain iand simple, in trying to affirm the ABSOLUTE in relation to a human being, you and me, Jane, Sue and Rosemary ... much less the rest of Creation, when the ABSOLUTE by very definition exists without qualification or condition, transcendent of all of manifest, created, or emanated Existence. You cannot have IT - the Absolute - in `two places at once.' Your argument that it is beyond all duality and distinctions is just a cop-out, because you cannot experience the Absolute, I cannot experience the Absolute, and Christ cannot experience ... the Absolute. Either just accept, and agree with ME, that there IS a `God in Manifestation' - the expression of this `Absolute' which we CAN and do come to know (and then we are discussing the subject on at least potentiallyequal footing) ... or else let's just agree that we CANNOT KNOW AUGHT of this `Transcendent God.'

Do not try to have your cake and eat it too; for I know something of the frosting, but it certainly does not match the cake to which you seem so determined to apply it.

We will never - get - ANYWHERE ... while there is refusal to observe that Hierarchy exists all around. The misunderstanding that this is a RIGID, inflexible, unyielding and ABSOLUTE scale or DIVISION of different modes and types, expressions and orders, of Being ... is what needs to be avoided. But an acorn is not a mighty Oak, and a DNA spiral is not a grown, mature human being. It is in understanding the relationship between these sets, knowing something of the Alpha and the Omega which comes from our REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE ... and not just from a divinity class ... which opens the door, or enables greater vistas on, Hierarchy.

And here I am not speaking of a specific teaching regarding the Masters, the Christ, and the Lord of the World (Siva, God, etc.) as being yet another hangup and opportunity for dissent. I mean that which both distinguishes the acorn from the oak, yet guarantees that - under Ideal conditions - the former BECOMES the latter. Moses was told that the name of the Lord should be presented to the people as something like: "He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists" ... and this, if you will compare notes with the first three verses of John, is saying the same thing as we also find in other religions. Why is this so difficult to acknowledge?

Not similar, Thomas - the very, SAME ... thing.

Thousands, MANY thousands of years prior to the Hebrew - let alone New Testament - Scriptures, the Vedas told and taught us this very same thing about the `name' and nature of God, and hence also about the true nature of this Cosmos within which we live (and move, and have our being), as well as everything and everyone within it, as this must naturally and logically follow from the first few verses of John (or from what God told Moses, or revealed to us in the Vedas).

You see? You wish to say that this is the difference, Christianity goes to "the heart of the matter always", yet to those of us outside your - apparently privileged, yet I would suggest very skewed, very biased, and very faulty - set of perceptions nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, sure, IDEALLY we would like for all Christians (or all Hindus, all Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, etc.) to go to the very heart of the matter, but in practice, and even in plenty of the theory - illogical, inconsistent and thoroughly patched-over - it is Christianity which makes the untenable, unsupportable, irrational and just plain UN-reasonable claims ... then tries to seal the door to further inquiry and reform of its own shortcomings by insisting that the believer must accept these things upon `FAITH,' and slapping the wrist of anyone who dares to press the issues!

No, I may have had a hand in it, but not in this particular incarnation. I think my fuse is growing a bit short here, and I am about tired of working on this old karmic hat ... since there's a New Call being sounded forth, and some of us still seem hellbent on patching up all the old problems, and fixing holes in the dike. Remember that story?

Well, YOU may not see the problems, but I think you're well aware that I am far, far from alone in my observations and - apologies my friend, but what can I say? Sometimes you just have to be looking from the outside in order to perceive what is `wrong.' And this, if you have the right intentions, is quite a helpful perspective, for if you do truly care about a thing - or person - then what you are after is not their acquiescence to your presumed authority, or their conformity to your belief system, or way of seeing the world. What you are seeking is either to improve upon a good thing, or to help bring about reform where this is - perhaps even sorely - needed.

Because we disagree on this last point, and perhaps also because you have mistrust, or distrust, and either do not recognize, or do not feel, that I have good intentions ... regarding Christianity, Christian theology, Christians, etc. ... we will be here, at this impasse, until some point in the future where one or both of us are prepared to make additional concessions, or perhaps simply take a fresh approach.

I will read on, and say a few words, because I do appreciate how much time you (and I) have put into this thread, dozens of other threads over the years, and the overall Labor in general. We come at the issues from different angles, yet unless we find at least SOME degree of agreement over just what it is we're about ... there's just no way we're going to be able to continue to communicate.

And, to be fair, I'm well out of my element. If ever I was any type of truly `great' evangelist, this was at a point far enough in my past ... that I cannot - and should not - pretend to walk in that same light, today. When a measure of it (for it is never lost, only stored up to be called upon, and perhaps afforded to and for others, where motive is pure) may find clear enough entry into my brain and mundane awareness, I would be glad to share this on the Christian or Abrahamic Religious forums. I enjoy a good philosophical discussion from time to time as well, yet in this capacity I'm afraid that, once again, I'm just too rusty to really keep up.

Some years ago, either while recapitulating past glory (and I do mean the glory of the greater, not some kind of puffed-up, ego-centered intellectualism), or maybe during my college/grad school days, I may have been a decent thinker in the Neo-Platonic or classical Greek sense, yet this phase also seems to have retreated into my past.

Where I find myself now is at such a crossroads, and encountering sufficient challenges that I really must stop trying to tackle anything karmic as relates to Christianity and the gradual reform of its theology (I openly admit to such a motivation, vain as that may seem, misplaced as you will no doubt find it to be). While I still nod in assent to Gandhi's reminder of the importance of DHARMA, regardless of our assumptions (correct or otherwise) regarding the likely impact of our actions ... what would perhaps be more prudent would be to confine my contributions to areas where I feel no need, and meet with no insistence, to constantly be on the defensive.

I have no desire to become an apologist for esotericists or for the Ageless Wisdom Teachings and Tradition. What, after all, could there possibly be to apologize for? My own well-motivated, yet sometimes misguided contributions in this area are all that immediately come to mind ... and I could easily spend a lifetime just trying to `straighten out' the undesirable ripples and vibrations which I alone have sent out into the ethers, in a handful of years posting here at Interfaith.org/CR.

So, maybe with a word or two more I am going to retreat, safe in my own knowledge that what I have experienced, and known, and IN PART even become ... is neither lost, nor altogether misplaced, and certainly not purely in vain. There may be those, even just one or two over all the years, who will read even two words of what I have to say, who will recognize something familiar in my posts and in my accounts, and who will thus find some degree of reassurance that what they are going through is neither totally unique, nor insignificant ... for I have sought to come across as a Universalist of one sort or another from the very beginning, and my greatest mistake has perhaps been to try and put on the airs of a Christian (or follower of some other, exoteric tradition), when - by today's definitions - nothing could be further from the truth.

I believe in the Christ, and I have my own understanding(s) which I trace back several thousands of years. Already, we know that this is like bringing oil to a baptism ... and I should probably just stop trying to mix with this water, until such time as I can better relate as an Aquarian, and not - as a Piscean, immersed in the old ways, clinging to old patterns of thought and being.

So you inform me that Jesus Christ of the fith of whatever according to this or that ... but that's all alien to what He said, what He taught, and what His apostles transmitted to their followers

Jesus spoke in the words appropriate for his day and for his particular audience. This applied to the multitudes, and also to situations where certain pearls could be revealed without fear of reprisal. Do you not remember?

As for `how close' we can walk to the Christ, we are pretty much in agreement. I perhaps did not communicate very clearly. I would never suggest that we can outstrip the Christ in our own spiritual progress, or at least, not any time soon. That's - just absurd. Yet I do have great faith, and hope, that at some point in our future, even it is many aeons hence, Humanity may - indeed - be able to make progress on the spiritual Path even in excess of the Christ's own progress ... via those same stages. The present Christ, by then, would likely be such an advanced Initiate in the Cosmic Sirian Lodge - that we can scarcely imagine the implications for Him, or for us ... for it is to Sirius which the majority of Humanity will eventually `go.'

Since I believe in a Christ Who, as a Soul, once stood where we stand, and that we too shall one day stand where the Christ stands, the question of how rapidly one progresses can actually be entertained. I have pondered this subject enough to have gained insights into my own rate of spiritual progress - potential, average, and perhaps least - as well as that of other individuals, groups, maybe even Humanity at large. Because I believe in World Teachers, and that the present holder of that office is not the first, nor the last in this world cycle, I find no issues whatsoever with the idea that Christ will move beyond His present office - attaining to a higher Initiation, and leaving that office for a new occupant, the Master KH.

While I'm sure I could find hints (even plain teaching) along these lines in Scripture ... I see no point. I would rather agree with Nick on a matter such as this, and do so on a different thread and forum, than try to bend and find agreement with you. Only if you can accept that Christ exists in capacities OTHER than simply the current World Teacher ... might we have some chance of agreeing. I find no problems there, as I believe in Christ as a Principle, found upon EVERY scale of being, from the very small to the very great. But, I do not think we see eye to eye. Logos for you, seems to mean something very different than Logos for me. Indeed, maybe it's time to just agree to disagree, and dwell upon some differences.

So do you consider yourself God's equal, or better?

I do. On both counts. It just depends on what SCALE we're speaking of Thomas. It all comes back to hierarchies ...

I will not try to explain that, for if you cannot work out what I mean, it's just as well. God, like Man, is relative.

I am saying that if you want to understand Christianity, then you will have to learn to walk without them, because you don't need them ... they'll just get in your way.

I might well say to you the same thing. But I would be cruel to do so, and presumptuous. I do not fault you for saying this, however, because - Thomas - you simply do not know any better.

 

[taijasi]

Horatio is you, and Horatio is me

Actually, it's just you on this one, friend

As I said, you simply do not know any better.

The mind is the great slayer of the real when it accommodates the real to itself, and thus invents its own version of reality.

Precisely. Couldn't have said it better. Now we just have to get on with the slaying of the slayer bit. So easy to quip, "Oh but I am," or "Been there, done that," or even "Leave me to that, and mind your own business."

We may be tempted to say any of these. I am pretty sure we can still help each other (and Humanity, our animal friends, the Angels, etc.) ... but I think it's time I chose a bit of a different approach, or at least shifted gears a bit - and withdrew from so much dancing about on the Christian forums.

The end result, for our planet, of the disciple slaying the slayer, is either arhatship (the Crucifixion or Renunciation of a Jesus or a Paul), or the greater attainment of Asekha Adeptship, leading to an even higher Initiation - and it is this 6th Initiation which is now required of all Sons of men before they are `graduated' from what this ... lowly, humble planet (!) has to Teach us along Life's Sacred Pathway. But then, all of this is just some kind of baggage and non-vital fluff, so we can surely discard it, do away with our masters, as did Krishnaji, for awhile ... and go "straight to the heart of the matter."

Jiddu K. was an arhat; was he liberated?

YouTube - Arlo Guthrie - The Garden Song - 1987

Then can I direct you to Maximus the Confessor

Thank you! I will pursue this ...

... and I will also read the lengthy quote after an evening appointment. Thank you.

Jesus subjects his human gnomic (discriminating) nature, to His divine nature

Why yes, I quite agree! And thus we all must do ...

Tell me something though, if the Christian Revelation (as presented and characterized today, regardless as to which specific tradition, or which light you cast it in) is so perfect, so flawless, so complete and so without need of reform, correction or aught but blind allegiance ... then why are YOU not LONG ages ago ... PERFECT, even as Jesus became perfect, thus by "subjecting one nature to the other?"

Or, if I may be blunt, what the hell is God waiting for? Why hasn't he zapped you - and all the other believers - yet? Why the holdup? Where's your apokastakatakanakatosis?

In the worlds of my past, I have met Masters, Teachers, fellow travelers and more ... and I love them, every one.

The greatest challenge some of us face, is how to love the `self' - and thus open to transformation - knowing that in one sense this is a complete paradox, and seemingly absurd ... in another sense, a potential doorway to all manner and type of challenge ... while from perhaps a wiser perspective, an inevitable, necessary and worthwhile INVITATION, issued by our Inner God, held in place for us by that Power and Presence (as in `Angel of the ~') called `the Soul' - and only guaranteed, in the last analysis, by MAN HIMSELF, laboring Joyously, in earnest, for the One Work.

Namaskar, Brother Pilgrim

 

[Thomas]

Alright Thomas, then why can you not accept that today there are dozens of men - and women - who have attained to precisely the degree of spiritual unfoldment ... the heart of the matter ... to which Christed Jesus had attained 2000 years ago?

Because I don't accept your reductive version of Christ.

The esotericists in the Ageless Wisdom tradition ... have no problem embracing the Christ as a Universal Principle, present within every human being as the Hope of Glory ...

But they do seem to have a problem with accepting Revelation (rather than their own speculation) in accepting that the Universal Principle became flesh, as Scripture clearly states, and to which the testimony of the Disciples points, and as the mystics and sages proclaim.

Christianity happily accepts, and proclaims, that Christ is the Universal Principle: "en arche en logos" (John 1:1), the Logos of God, "... In him was life, and the life was the light of men." (John 1:4)

So, to put it simply, to accept what you think, I am obliged to deny what Scritpture, what He, what the Apostles and Disciples taught, and what the saints, sages, mystics and masters, of countless number down through the generations, have all born witness to.

yet there is also plenty of room for understanding ...

There is equally plenty of room for misunderstanding too, so I always try to find the core source materials, and work from that.

that as a Being, whether incarnate or `at the right hand of the Father,' Christ Himself evolves.

Again, we do not worship a spatiotemporal deity, Christianity is not a nature religion. Thus the Deity of whom we speak transcends space and time, and thus movement and change.

If you find the Christian idea of a deity unacceptable, then perhaps you can accept the Platonic and later Neoplatonic idea ... but a deity subject to time and space is not a deity in our book.

Once again, there is a logical fallacy, plain and simple, in trying to affirm the ABSOLUTE in relation to a human being

In which case there is an unbridgeable chasm between the Absolute and man? We don't accept that as a logical fallacy at all.

... when the ABSOLUTE by very definition exists without qualification or condition, transcendent of all of manifest, created, or emanated Existence. You cannot have IT - the Absolute - in `two places at once.'

Then the fallacy of this argument is, if the Absolute cannot be in two places at once, it is not absolute, is it?

So again, the reason why I cannot accept your doctrine, is because it founders in its own ideas of speaking of a deity 'without qualification or condition', and then subjecting it to all manner of terms and conditions.

Your argument that it is beyond all duality and distinctions is just a cop-out, because you cannot experience the Absolute, I cannot experience the Absolute, and Christ cannot experience ... the Absolute.

Well Eckhart says the opposite, and as your metaphysic of the absolute seems somewhat befuddled, I'll stick with him.

Either just accept, and agree with ME, that there IS a `God in Manifestation' - the expression of this `Absolute' which we CAN and do come to know (and then we are discussing the subject on at least potentiallyequal footing) ... or else let's just agree that we CANNOT KNOW AUGHT of this `Transcendent God.'

OK
"If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also." (John 14:7)
What I will accept is that you know nought of my God.

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Because I don't accept your reductive version of Christ.

Funny, Thomas, I don't see my version of Christ as reductive at all. God incarnating among Humanity without losing Godliness, and Humanity ascending to Godhood/Godhead without losing who and what we essentially are. In my view, it is you who are the blasphemer. But as it has been pointed out, you do not know any better ...

But they do seem to have a problem with accepting Revelation (rather than their own speculation) in accepting that the Universal Principle became flesh, as Scripture clearly states, and to which the testimony of the Disciples points, and as the mystics and sages proclaim.

Thomas, oh Thomas, come off your high horse; it may prance about merrily, but you are many miles off course.

Your scriptures are doctored, your creeds quite distorted; even that poor horse you're riding just shook his head and snorted.

the Deity of whom we speak transcends space and time, and thus movement and change

Every Mahatma and high initiate functions transcendent of space and time. For brief moments, perhaps longer, even I am thus capable. Thinking of getting with the program anytime soon, or shall we wait a few more centuries and see what else DAWNS?
{*Andrew rolls his eyes and says, What a shame!*}

a deity subject to time and space is not a deity in our book

And yet you accept that Christ Himself took form and flesh, for some short years ... and boldly, gladly proclaim this man as the 2nd Aspect of God. Let's try to at least be consistent, my good man.

In which case there is an unbridgeable chasm between the Absolute and man?

Indeed! This will ever be the case until you realize or at least consider that yea, your GOD has chosen to manifest `Itself' ... and be a part of the Cosmos just like the rest of us. On the first plane of manifestation, this God is so relatively unbounded and unlimited in Its expressions and capacities ... that we are not amiss to call It the Absolute, *if we wish and must*! But if we do, then we must always distinguish between this EXPRESSION of the ONE, and the Unbounded, Unmanifested GODHEAD.

As the Lord tells us in the Upanishad:

Having permeated this WHOLE COSMOS with a fragment of Myself, I REMAIN​

What this means is, the UNMANIFEST is in NO WISE diminshed, even by `doling out' this fragment - as you insist on putting it ... first to Create (of Emanate, we prefer to say) a particular Cosmos (this Creative Act being cycle and INFINITE), then to express Itself IN that Cosmos in all means & manners.

We may again apply the same Wisdom and Idea to the relationship which the ONE has, from the First Plane of manifestation, relative to {Its Presence upon and throughout} the Second Plane, from the 2nd to the 3rd Plane, and so forth.

We arrive, finally, at the 7th COSMIC Plane, and here the pattern of Seven is repeated. Human evolution occurs primarily upon the 3 lowest sub-planes of the Cosmic physical plane ... and these we call the physical, astral/emotional and mental worlds, counting from below upward. Upon the spiritual path Humanity begins to actively evolve its Presence and Consciousness within two additional worlds, those of Intuition and Spirit (or Buddhi and Atma, considered as Principles) ...

... and this is where your `holy' institution - and certainly its precursors - has entered into anathema and committed some of the most grievous errors in the name of the lord ... for IT has dared to pronounce anathema upon any who dared QUESTION its high and mighty authority. Knowing that it is easier to rule sheep than to try and corral an unruly group of individuals who can DISCOVER the Truth for themselves, you have sought to tell people what they can and can't believe. You are doing so this very minute by cooking up some way to discredit all that I have said here.

And my friend, let's give it a rest. You are as slippery as owl- ... err, as an eel, and you love to scream and yell when anyone darns to impugn your GOOD NAME (ahem) and Mother Church, yet you have no issues whatsoever turning right around and doing the same to ME, or Nick, or whomever you may please, if we have dared to question your high & holy AUTHORITY. You trot out your list of saints and holy doctors (oh they have doctored things, I will say that!), the various popes with all that bull ... and you act so INNOCENT (goooood god) and play wounded dignity.

If you're going to dole it out, be ready to receive it in return. You tell me I know "nought of God," and hey, you arrogant, self-righteous, presumptuous old fool ... I think you have a stick shoved so far up your ass that you really can't realize what comfort you'd get if you took a damn laxative and SHAT IT OUT.

So, GET WITH IT, get off that high horse of yours, and stop the stupid parading around like you are 1) God's gift to mankind, 2) God's gift to Roman Catholics and Christianity at large ... and 3) anything other than an ordinary, simple JOE.

I met a Father Joe one time, stopping by as I passed through his diocese. I was in need, and this man was kind to me. He showed me a splinter of the true cross, and I couldn't care less at the time what it really was, although in the moment I was rather intrigued. At any rate, he was a very kind man, and he sought in NO WISE to preach to me, even though he did pretty much have me as a captive audience, and could certainly have done so.

I also have Roman Catholics as neighbors. NOT ONCE have they felt the need to preach or become moralistic, and I'm fairly certain that they are capable of disagreeing without being so DAMN disagreeable. I sure wish you could take a lesson.

I am DONE with this ****. No friggin wonder your Church is having such troubles. ONE MAN can create all sorts of problems, even when he means well, and it takes your JESUS all sorts of effort to undo - or at least try to mend - the wrongdoing. Thank Goodness all that mumbo jumbo you guys have cooked up about confessions is just a crock; your GOD (Jesus, etc.) forgives you regardless.

The new SIN is separativeness, and if that doesn't give you a pretty good hint regarding its opposite, corresponding VIRTUE - and what it increasingly means to FOLLOW THE GOOD LAW - then I don't know what will.

You are a very mean man, and I do MEAN that. Brian, you can take your reminders, your kind words about avoiding AD HOMINEMS, and dole them out to your braggart here as freely as you dole them out to me ... as I'm tired of having this idiot on my back all the time, and quite done trying to be polite with, and to him. READ his post(s).

Thomas, YOU do not know God; word one of your posts are evidence of that. For God does not condone what you engage upon almost every time you sit down at keyboard to type ... with ANYONE who happens to disagree with YOU. And I am only about the 500th person on this website to state that plainly, even if I am one of those 500 who has consistently called you at your game from DAY ONE.

I am IN THE WRONG, certainly, and I acknowledge that. I'm just GOD DAMN TIRED of you getting away with highway robbery here and trying to hang that **** on "Oh, but I'm just quoting the good Catholic doctors" or some other such horse ****. Tell me, do those good doctors instruct you to INSULT the other man if his argument is more sound than yours, if he raises difficulties for you, or if he tries to insist that there's more than one way to skin a cat?

I have said from the very beginning, TRUTH IS ONE, PATHS ARE MANY ... and usually, folks can settle with that. You, with your puffy ego and ivory tower, over-educated yet oh-so-limiting intellect, dare to sit there and tell ME that I'm crippled by my mental CONSTRUCTS ... then have no problem whatsoever playing the same-old, same-old games, insulting the other man's faith, and so on.

Friend (I use this expression FIGURATIVELY), go sit in the mirror.
If that doesn't work, then just plain sit on it!

 

[taijasi]

My apologies to the Interfaith.org community at large, and especially to the rest of the folks reading the Christianity forums ... and this thread. In retrospect, as it is Palm Sunday today, I wish I'd waited to post that last post (word for word), until perhaps tomorrow.

As for Thomas, I can't figure out why I waited all this time to add him to my ignore list, where he belongs.

GOOD RIDDANCE

 

[Thomas]

Funny, Thomas, I don't see my version of Christ as reductive at all.

That's because as your syncretic approach to the wisdom of the world 'cherrypicks' its content from various Spiritual Traditions, inevitably this process strips their content of both context and particularity, to attain a generic schemata by which 'one size fits all', a process that can only be reductionist.

In this instance, your definition of 'incarnation' is of the manifold logoi according to the one Logos, which is axiomatic to the JudeoChristian Tradition (ie Genesis 1:26-27), whereas the New Testament Scriptures specifically present Christ as the Incarnation of the one Logos who illuminates all cosmic and metacosmic logoi — the Pantocrator in the terminology of the Orthodox Traditions.

Thomas, oh Thomas, come off your high horse; it may prance about merrily, but you are many miles off course.

I was hoping you could refrain from offering insult in place of argument. Not my high horse either, I'm just referencing two millennia of philosophy, theology, metaphysics, esoterism, hermeticism, mysticism ... two millennia of a living stream of grace and wisdom from saints and sages beyond number.

Your scriptures are doctored, your creeds quite distorted; even that poor horse you're riding just shook his head and snorted.

Oh dear ... that's rather a cop-out argument when unable to offer any reasoned response. Especially since you can offer no evidence to support that claim. And especially more amusing when previously you've quoted the same 'doctored' text as an authoritative source!

It amuses me that it's authentic when it suits, doctored when it doesn't.

Every Mahatma and high initiate functions transcendent of space and time. For brief moments, perhaps longer, even I am thus capable.

Goodness ... Sorry, but I didn't realise you are a god, or a mahatma, or whatever you choose to style yourself ... or is this your version of high-horsing?

In our tradition, as a matter of interest, we hold that one can be drawn into the higher, indeed that is what theosis is all about ... but by one's own powers? No, that is a promethean egoism in our book.

The other difference is my tradition desires that all participate in the beatific vision of the divine, not just some elite ... I know you find the idea of the 'widow' and the 'publican' being numbered among the beloved of God as offensive to your esoteric sensibility, but that's Christianity for you.

And yet you accept that Christ Himself took form and flesh, for some short years ... and boldly, gladly proclaim this man as the 2nd Aspect of God. Let's try to at least be consistent, my good man.

How rude! I am utterly consistent, but here, again, you demonstrate your ignorance of basic Christian doctrine, on which you assume to sit in judgement. If you understood the idea of hypostatic union, you would see the inhering consistency of the doctrine.

... This will ever be the case until you realize or at least consider that yea, your GOD has chosen to manifest `Itself' ... and be a part of the Cosmos just like the rest of us.

That is precisely what we preach — God become man — whereas you cannot bring yourself to make that 'quantum' step.

St Athanasius said "God became man, He did not come into a man" — pointing out the very distinction between our doctrine and your syncretic reading of it.

On the first plane of manifestation...

Here we go again with human intellectual constructs ... I keep pointing you that an aspect of the Christian Mysteries is that they point higher than any doctrine of forms ... 'love knows no bounds' ...

As the Lord tells us in the Upanishad:

But we're not discussing the Upanishad, we're discussing Christianity. And to be honest, based on your understanding of my sacra doctrina, I've no great faith in your interpretation of anyone else's.

We may again apply the same Wisdom and Idea to the relationship which the ONE has, from the First Plane of manifestation, relative to {Its Presence upon and throughout} the Second Plane, from the 2nd to the 3rd Plane, and so forth.

Please see above.

We arrive, finally, at the 7th COSMIC Plane...

And we bypass them all, and go straight to the Source. If you can't see that as plain as day in Scripture at the literal level, then I could point you to the Hermetic interpretation of Scripture: (Meditations on the Tarot).

... has entered into anathema and committed some of the most grievous errors in the name of the lord ... for IT has dared to pronounce anathema upon any who dared QUESTION its high and mighty authority.

I am doing no more than defending a doctrine preached for two thousand years ... it seems to me throughout that you take the line with me that I dare to question your authority when it comes to knowing what my Scriptures mean?

As for the rest of your post, I shall not engage in your vitriolic tirade against me, my faith, and Christians who dare to speak up for what they believe. As I understand from Nick and others, everyone is entitled to believe in what they will, so I wonder who's doctrine you actually follow here, and, more important I would have thought to the esotericist, what spirits you give voice, when you fall into this welter of bile and furious abuse.

Please note, by the way, I have never said you do not know God, all I have said, and indeed have evidenced by your own words, is that you do not know mine.

Pax

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Refreshing! I still have the last word ...

 

[Marsh]

Why, then, did the New Testament use words that did distinguish these "divisions"?

Did Jesus ever make such a distinction? Was such a distinction ever made in the Old Testament?

The letters of the NT were written to convince Greeks to come to Christ. The original language was intended for a specific audience for a specific purpose. The use of such distinctions is therefore a case of relating to an audience on its own terms. But for thousands of years before, there was only one God, and God was love.

 

[Thomas]

Hello both —

Did Jesus ever make such a distinction? Was such a distinction ever made in the Old Testament?

Jesus made a telling distinction:
"And again he said: Thou canst not see my face: for man shall not see me and live." Exodus 33:20.

"Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, shew us the Father?" John 14:9.
This was the whole thrust of the Johannine literature:
"That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship may be with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3.

+++

The letters of the NT were written to convince Greeks to come to Christ. The original language was intended for a specific audience for a specific purpose. The use of such distinctions is therefore a case of relating to an audience on its own terms. But for thousands of years before, there was only one God, and God was love.

True. The point then is, what distinction is made?

The translators of the Septuagint chose the rarely-used Greek term agape to translate love, as opposed to the more common eros.

The audience/context then is 'eros' was seen and understood as a divine intoxication, the overthrow of the intellect by a “divine madness” which tears man away from his finite existence and enables him, in the very process of being overwhelmed by divine power, to experience supreme happiness.

“Omnia vincit amor” says Virgil in the Bucolics, 'love conquers all' and he adds: “et nos cedamus amori”, 'let us, too, yield to love.' This attitude found expression in the fertility cults of antiquity, in which 'anything goes' and thus led, for example, to the 'sacred prostitution' which flourished in many temples.

The Old Testament opposed this form of religion as a perversion of religiosity, in that eros of this order strips humanity of its dignity and dehumanizes it — the temple prostitutes were not treated as human beings, as persons in their own right, but simply as a means of arousing this “divine madness” — they were human persons being exploited.

An intoxicated eros is not an ascent in “ecstasy” towards the Divine, but a descent into 'divine madness'.

In the Song of Songs, an Old Testament book well known to the mystics, love is presented as a discovery of the other, no longer the self-seeking intoxication of happiness; instead it seeks the beloved through renunciation and sacrifice.

This Christian vision of love, of growth in love towards an inward purification that is twofold — it is exclusive, (this particular person is loved utterly and absolutely) — and collectively — love embraces the whole of existence.

It is infinite, it is eternal.

Love is indeed an “ecstasy” still, but no longer a fleeting and momentary intoxication, but a journey, an exodus out of the self towards its liberation through self-giving, and thus towards authentic self-discovery, in which one discovers God: “Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it” (Luke 17:33).


The two fundamental human aspects are indicated by eros, the “worldly” love and agape, a love shaped by an eschatalogical faith. The two notions are often contrasted as “ascending” love and “descending” love.

Yet eros and agape, descending love and ascending love, can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. This was the whole impetus of courtly love of the Arthurian romances.

In the account of Jacob's ladder, the Fathers of the Church saw this inseparable connection between ascending and descending love, between eros which seeks God and agape which passes on the gift received, symbolized in various ways.

Saint Gregory speaks in this context of Saint Paul, who was borne aloft to the most exalted mysteries of God, and hence, having descended once more, he was able to become all things to all men (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:2-4; 1 Corinthians 9:22). He also points to the example of Moses, who entered the tabernacle time and again, remaining in dialogue with God, so that when he emerged he could be at the service of his people. “Within [the tent] he is borne aloft through contemplation, while without he is completely engaged in helping those who suffer: intus in contemplationem rapitur, foris infirmantium negotiis urgetur.”

Love is a single reality, but with different dimensions

At different times, one or other dimension may emerge more clearly. Yet when the two dimensions are totally cut off from one another, the result is a caricature or at least an impoverished form of love.

The point of Biblical faith is that it does not set up a Platonic parallel universe, but rather accepts the whole man, ascetic struggle in the search for love purifies it and reveals new dimensions of it.

The prayer fundamental to Israel, the Shema, became increasingly clear and unequivocal: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). His creation is dear to him, for it was willed by him and “made” by him — and He loves it.

The one God in whom Israel believes loves with a personal love. We must love God "with all our heart, with all our mind, with all our strength' because that is how He loves us, and love is the only common ground between creature and Creator — and it is a most intimate common ground — in which each party gives itself and Itself totally to the other.

The Prophets, particularly Hosea and Ezekiel, describe this personal love in boldly erotic images. God's relationship with Israel uses the metaphors of betrothal and marriage, man's failure is presented as idolatry, adultery and prostitution.

"How can I give you up, O Ephraim! How can I hand you over, O Israel! ... My heart recoils within me, my compassion grows warm and tender. I will not execute my fierce anger, I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst” (Hosea 11:8-9).
God's passionate love for humanity is a forgiving love, as opposed to the worst orders of eros that will destroy what it cannot have.

The Bible is, from the standpoint of the history of religion, a book in which we find ourselves before a strictly metaphysical image of God: God is the absolute and ultimate source of all being; the universal principle of creation, the Logos, primordial reason ... and at the same time is a lover with all the passion of a true love.

Thus the Song of Songs became, both in Christian and Jewish literature, a source of mystical knowledge and experience, an expression of the essence of biblical faith — that man can indeed enter into union with God — no mere fusion, nor annihilation, but in a unity which creates love, a unity in which both God and man remain themselves and yet become fully one. As Saint Paul says: “He who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him” (1 Corinthians 6:17).

This divine activity takes on dramatic form when, in Christ, it is God himself who goes in search of the "stray sheep", a suffering and lost humanity. In the parables of the shepherd who goes after his sheep, of the woman who looks for the lost coin, of the father who goes to meet and embrace his prodigal son, these are no mere words: they constitute an explanation of his very being and activity.

Death on the Cross is the culmination of that turning of God against himself in which he gives himself in order to raise man up and save him. This is love in its most radical form. It is there that this truth can be contemplated. It is from there that our definition of love must begin. In this contemplation the Christian discovers the path along which his life and love must move.

Jesus anticipated his death and resurrection by giving his disciples, in the bread and wine, his very self, his body and blood as the new manna (cf. John 6:31-33). The Eucharist draws us into Jesus' act of self-oblation. More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the dynamic of this self-giving love. The imagery of marriage between God and Israel is now realized in a union with God through sharing in the self-gift, sharing in the body and blood of the Incarnate Son.

Lastly, this sacramental “mysticism” is social in character, for in sacramental communion I become one with the Lord, and one with all other communicants. As Saint Paul says, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17). Union with Christ is also union with all those to whom He gives Himself: We cannot possess Christ just for ourselves; I can belong to Him only in union with all those who are His.

The Eucharist draws us out of ourselves into Him, and thus towards unity with all those who love Him.

Thus the Eucharist was known as the 'agape meal', God's own agape comes to us bodily, in order to continue his work in us and through us.

Eucharistic communion includes the reality both of being loved and of loving others in turn. A Eucharist which does not pass over into the concrete practice of love is intrinsically fragmented. The “commandment” of love is only possible because it is more than a requirement — love can only be “commanded” because it had first been given.

The Eucharist is the Word of Love, and the Book of Life.

He who loves the book, and not what the book says ... "This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me."
Matthew 15:8

Thomas
(Inspired by, and drawing from Deus Caritas Est)

 

[Marsh]

Love is a single reality, but with different dimensions

No, it is not. This is a myth, or rather a misunderstanding based upon the philosophy of the unenlightened Greeks. And I use this term on purpose-- unenlightened Greeks-- knowing that I am walking into a hornets nest, but the fact of the matter is that a society with no knowledge of the LORD is an unenlightened society, no matter what branding secular historians might place on them afterwards.

All of what you have said about the ascending and the descending, it is all conjecture, based on symbolism, based on interpretation, based on the preconceived bias of a member of western civilization, which is based on Greek philosophy. It is not based on the word of the LORD.

The concept of "erotic love" is an abomination and perversion of the most profound emotion accessible by the human mind. Erotic love is lust, and lust is the key component of pornography, adultery, prostitution, etc, etc. The concept of erotic love was probably invented as a rationalization for the buggery of young children in Greek society, and has somehow made the transition from unenlightened, pre-Jesus Greek society to enlightened, post-Jesus western society. But just because it's there doesn't mean it belongs.

When Jesus said, "Love one another," he didn't specify how, because there was no specification to make. If there was, wouldn't he have said, "Love each other with agape and philea, but please confine your erotic love to the bedroom"?

 

[Thomas]

No, it is not. This is a myth, or rather a misunderstanding based upon the philosophy of the unenlightened Greeks.

Actually I was basing my understanding on Scripture.

All of what you have said about the ascending and the descending, it is all conjecture, based on symbolism, based on interpretation, based on the preconceived bias of a member of western civilization, which is based on Greek philosophy. It is not based on the word of the LORD.

Cf Genesis 28:12. John 1:51 ... then there's St John Climacus, St Bonaventure ...

The concept of "erotic love" is an abomination and perversion of the most profound emotion accessible by the human mind. Erotic love is lust, and lust is the key component of pornography, adultery, prostitution, etc, etc. The concept of erotic love was probably invented as a rationalization for the buggery of young children in Greek society, and has somehow made the transition from unenlightened, pre-Jesus Greek society to enlightened, post-Jesus western society. But just because it's there doesn't mean it belongs.

Sorry Marsh, but I think that in itself is the "preconceived bias of a member of western civilization" and refers only to the perverse and corrupt aspect of the term, rather than to the totality of what the term actually signifies.

Eros does not have to be sexual in nature. Eros can be interpreted as a love for someone whom you love more than inferred by the term philia (friendship).

Eros can signify an appreciation of the beauty of a person, even the appreciation of beauty itself. Plato also said eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth. Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth by eros. The most famous ancient work on the subject of eros is Plato's Symposium, which is a discussion among the students of Socrates on the nature of eros.

When the philosphers spoke of eros, they did not necessarily mean rutting.

When Jesus said, "Love one another," he didn't specify how, because there was no specification to make.

I bet he did ... as man understands and has always understood love in many ways.

Eros can be quite chaste, and indeed the ideal of Courtly Love expressed by the Romance of Chivalry is eros.

Thomas

 

[Marsh]

I bet [Jesus] did [make distinctions in types of love]... as man understands and has always understood love in many ways.

Conjecture, conjecture, conjecture, Thomas. Your reasoning is that Jesus said suchandsuch because there's no evidence to say that he didn't, yeah?

Your references to Genesis (Jacob's ladder) and John (Jesus' explanation of Jacob's ladder)... where is the connection to there being two kinds of love, guy? Those references have nothing to do with love.

And your references to St. John Whatsisname and St. Bonawhoever... these guys are theologists, and the business of theologists is... wait for it... CONJECTURE! So you can add a hundred St. Bob Loblaws to your list, but they won't add any authority to an assertion that must be arrived at by stretching.

Eros isn't love. Admiration of beauty? That isn't love, and claiming that it is is the exact abomination I was talking about. Here's an illustration that a speaker who came to our school yesterday gave us: You see a beautiful woman, and instantly become attracted to her, even though you have no idea what kind of person she is. The next week you see her again, only this time her face is disfigured because she was in a car wreck. Do you still love her? Do you still feel that attraction? NO WAY! Don't even kid yourself. But if your relationship had been built on mutual understanding (so-called philea love), would you turn your back on her so easily? If she was your child (so-called agape love) would you turn your back on her so easily?

EROS IS A SHALLOW AND SELF-CENTRED PERSON'S WAY OF PRETENDING THAT THEY KNOW WHAT LOVE IS! IT'S THE EMOTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A TWO-YEAR-OLD SCREAMING, "GIMME, GIMME, GIMME! I WANT, I WANT, I WANT!"

And what's with your equation of the authority of Christian theologians to Plato? Yes, Plato said that eros helps the soul recall the knowledge of beauty, but he probably thought that up while he was in the midst of buggering a twelve year old boy. How's that for erotic love?

Please... to equate animal attraction with intellectual or spiritual attraction is ridiculous.

 

[bob x]

When Jesus said, "Love one another," he didn't specify how, because there was no specification to make.

You are quite mistaken if you think only Greek had multiple words for different kinds of "love": Hebrew likewise had three different verbal roots:
d-w-d, the physical attraction (the name "David" is best translated "the hunk"), very much eros used in the explicitly erotic Song of Songs ("my beloved" is dowd-i), and also in several passages in the prophets;
a-h-b, a more generic term, could be used for a happy couple or for a pair of good friends, more or less like Greek philea but if anything even broader in possible usages;
ch-s-d, best rendered "devotion", often with overtones of a wish to fulfill duties, as of a loyal servant to his master, and used for Ruth's feelings about Naomi and her family; not quite the same overtones as agape but most commonly used for man's "love" of God, though God's "love" of man is, to the surprise of those unfamiliar with how earthy Hebrew can be, d-w-d

 

[Marsh]

You are quite mistaken if you think only Greek had multiple words for different kinds of "love": Hebrew likewise had three different verbal roots:

Vietnamese has different words for love, too. Why are we talking about this again?

My argument is not that the idea that love can be divided and categorized is specifically a Greek thing. My argument is that Greek philosophy (which accepts the division of love into Eros, Philea, and Agape) has pervaded Christian theology, turning love into something it was not intended to be. Thus, when Christians in the 20th century think about love, their thoughts are influenced by a Greek bias. For example, I've heard lots of preachers equate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with the three aspects of Greek love, and as far as I can see, it's nonsense.

Even a parrot can be taught how to say the word, "love." That doesn't mean that the parrot understands what it means.

 

[bob x]

The way of thought that you are calling "Greek bias" appears to be, instead, generic-human.

 

[Saltmeister]

My argument is that Greek philosophy (which accepts the division of love into Eros, Philea, and Agape) has pervaded Christian theology, turning love into something it was not intended to be.

To say that the meaning we give the word "love" is a deviation from its original meaning, you're assuming that the word actually had an exact definition.

The word "love" is an English word. The New Testament was written long before English evolved into its modern form. The word "love" would have been distorted over and over again in the last 1,000 years as English/British culture and the English language matured. The meaning of the word was never set in stone.

 

[Quahom1]

To say that the meaning we give the word "love" is a deviation from its original meaning, you're assuming that the word actually had an exact definition.

The word "love" is an English word. The New Testament was written long before English evolved into its modern form. The word "love" would have been distorted over and over again in the last 1,000 years as English/British culture and the English language matured. The meaning of the word was never set in stone.

Astute point. One can hate and work to kill the enemy, but in the heat of battle, protect the enemy's family from hostile fire (protection from collateral damage). What kind of "love" is that?

Or how about this? A medic doesn't care who is wounded, he/she just is focussed on patching the injured. They carry no weapon but a side arm for personal protection, but a big ass back pack with all kinds of medical stuff to treat just about anything in "triage" mode, and it doesn't matter who is injured...what kind of love is that?

 

[Saltmeister]

Astute point. One can hate and work to kill the enemy, but in the heat of battle, protect the enemy's family from hostile fire (protection from collateral damage). What kind of "love" is that?

Or how about this? A medic doesn't care who is wounded, he/she just is focussed on patching the injured. They carry no weapon but a side arm for personal protection, but a big ass back pack with all kinds of medical stuff to treat just about anything in "triage" mode, and it doesn't matter who is injured...what kind of love is that?

Does the medic have a good bed-side manner? If so, the question of being/feeling loved is a question of how comforting or irritable/antagonistic/insensitive/insincere/selfish/uncaring the medic's words are when I hear them.

"Oh no! I'm so scared! People are shooting at each other all around me. I don't really want to be here. I hate this job. I want to go home!"

"Yuk! So much blood! No, I don't want to touch his intestines. Oh man, there are holes in his intestines and there's brown stuff leaking out. Arrrgggghhhhh!!!!!! Oh my . . . he just farted. Luckily I have gloves on." (Diarrhea starts spewing out the back end. The fluid/solid mixture covers the bed/stretcher and spills over onto the surgical instruments. Some of it even ends up on the medic's lunch.)

. . . continuation of the story . . .

Hey, someone says, let's use this guy's body as a weapon! They load the guy's body into the barrel of a forty centimetre gun and fire him into the enemy camp. The soldier transforms into a huge diarrhea monster and starts eating everyone alive, spoiling the food and poisoning the water, turning them into diarrhea as well.

This is a job for . . . the Medic! Only love can stop the diarrhea monster.