Knowledge Instead Of Faith, Direct Experience Instead Of Dogma

[shawn]

"Person" is a very crude English translation of "persona", a Latin translation of the actual term used in the Ecumenical councils. The actual word is Greek. "Hypostasis" (to transliterate) does not mean "person". It is a rather complex term that can mean "existence", "expression", "specific form of existence", or even, in some sense "manifestation". It does not, however, mean "person" as the word is typically used in English. It should be noted that the Latin "persona" might include the meaning "person", but also ranges very far beyond that.

Persona means mask

Oddly enough, I have directly seen polytheism and pantheism be "express routes" to intolerance for quite a few people.

Religion divides.....Love unites.

 

[Raksha]

Because mercy is foreign to neopaganism? Or is mercy simply too Christian a concept for you to embrace it, yourself?

Dogbrain,

As a kabbalist I believe that justice and mercy always have to be kept in balance. As a fallible human being I fall short of that ideal often, but I never stop trying.

Your words cast you into the exact same mindset you claim you oppose. You are just another Crusader.

No I'm not, and I'm very tired of hearing that. Mine is simply a very harsh, cold and uncompromising sense of justice for massive wrongs already done and measured in body counts, NOT for imaginary "crimes against the faith" or whateverthehell theological justifications the Roman Catholic Church dreamed up for the murder and persecution of innocents. And even at that I have no desire to exact concrete physical revenge, meaning I have no desire to kill you. I simply don't forgive you, and I have no desire to forgive you...EVER!!!

So don't go telling me I'm "just another Crusader." I do not murder and torture for theological or patriotic reasons, nor do I support, defend or make excuses for those who do.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

That being said, one of the great battles regarding Gnostic trends within Christianity is something that would astonish very many people these days. The Gnostic position was that material reality is inherently evil, or at the very best "unreal".

Not necessarily. The dualistic and "world-hating" definition is somewhat dated, but I'm too tired now to get into the specifics. Just bear in mind that we have the actual texts now, and Iranaeus is NOT the last word on Gnosticism these days.

--Linda

 

[Dondi]

I could not participate in the poll because I believe that both faith and dogma (dogma has evolved into such a nasty word, hasn't it? all it means is "the established belief or doctrine held by a religion"(Wiki). For Christianity, it contains the basic beliefs as held by the scriptures), work together with knowledge and direct experience. I think that one backs the other and vice versa. They do not have to be diametrically opposed.

James speaks of this directly in the epistle marked by his name:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" - James 2:14-20


So it is this act of doing that establishes faith. By exercising you faith through action, you gain the experience and knowledge that the scriptures teaches. It is not merely believing in God that brings one into the Presence of God.

This is fundamental (if I may use that word) to the Christian faith. And it isn't just based on mindless action and obedience to some clergy. When one exercises faith in the above manner, one is agreeing with God on His ways. It is based on a relationship between God and the individual, and also between God and an assembly of people gathered into a congregation working together to accomplish the work of the Lord.

But I must stress that all that we do as Christians is understood in the context of a believer's relationship with God, where one loves God and loves his neighbor. Without that understanding, then all that we do is meaningless in regards to our works. Oh sure, we can do things, but if our motivation is wrong or we aren't seeking to know God through those actions called upon us to do, then we are doing it merely our of compulsion:

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." - Matthew 7:22-23

 

[Dondi]

There is the subject of fundamentalist christianity. Now to many outsiders, fundamentalist christians seems all the same. But if you examine them more closely, there is quite a polarizing difference between them. There are the scripturalists, who base their fundamentalism words in the bible only. Then there are experientialists....you know the speaking in tongues or the holy rollers crowd. These two sides of fundamentalism are deeply polarized, and the scripturalists often look at the speaking in tongues and hypnosis type techniques that they use as if it were some form demonic possession.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the fundamentalist experientialists have it all right....they are far from it. Many of them have the same problems that the scripturalists have, like irrational beliefs and denial of science. But at least it doesn't look like a big waste of time compared to the fundamentalists that just go to church ritually, hear what some pastor or priest has to say, and adopt the beliefs they are taught without question. Of course the experientialists do this too, but there is at least some form of genuine spirituality there. The spirit is nit ot just some immaterial concept, and if people want to treat as such they might as well abandon it. Where as if spirit actually means something more specific, like spirit having to do with your feelings, or religious awe, and the unnameable spiritual reality that cannot be described in words, then you are finally getting into something more specific. And more relevent.

Well, see now, this is a gross mischaracterization of what you term as experientialism. It's not about speaking in tongues and flipping out on the carpet between the pews (see I cor. 13:1-3). It's about living the Christians life to prove to oneself of goodness and faithfulness of God. It is within the confines of our relationship with God, our trusting in God that allows us to experience God in a deep and meanful way as we believe God to work and enrich our lives.

You can meditate all day and see visions through the night, but what does that do for you on a daily basis? How does that affect your relationships with others, the people around you that you come into contact? Does it help you love people more, with patience and understanding? Do you allow the love of God to flow through you so that you develop compassion to those you might otherwise pass by? Do you draw stength from the Spirit of God to enable you to express the love as described in Paul's first letter to the church of Corinth, chapter 13? That's where the crux of any religion must lie if one is to bring the kingdom of heaven to fruition.

 

[Thomas]

Strictly your opinion!

Not really, strictly Christian doctrine. Although there are some, like the Russian Orthodox theologians Sergei Bulgakov and Vladimir Solovyov, for example, who present Sophia as the Divine Feminine ... but they're hardly mainstream, and the doctrine is not without problems.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is really, really tricky if you try and get into it ... you must remember that you can only ever talk in analogies. If you want the metaphysics, then I could recommend no better than Maximus the Confessor's Centuries on Knowledge; second century ... but really, the gnostic syzergies don't figure in pure Trinitarian theology, as the syzergies / aeons are essentially cosmological speculations.

For one thing, you used the masculine gender, and the Gnostics would emphatically disagree with you on that point.

Yes, but then the Gnostics are dualists (with the possible exception of Valentinus), something which Christian doctrine emphatically disagrees with — their cosmology is fundamentally different from Trinitarian cosmology, let alone their metaphysics of creation ... they have a demiurge, and we don't ... so they would never comprehend the Holy Trinity as we do anyway.

If you accept my definition of the Holy Spirit as equivalent to or identical with the Shekhina (which you probably don't)...

Equivalent but no identical. I'm not sure if the Shekhina is understood in the sense of a paraclete as the Holy Spirit is? I probably don't though ...

Anyway, here's what the Gnostic Gospel of Philip has to say on that subject...

Sorry, but for reasons outlined above, I am inclined to think the Gnostics never really got the point.

I find their metaphysics fundamentally flawed for the same reasons that Plato rejected Greek polytheism: the hierarchy of gnostic deities seem to suffer every human vice, and little of their virtues — I am open to discussion on this matter (the same argument can be made against the Hebrew Scriptures) — but it does seem as if gnostic cosmology depends upon anthropomorphic polytheism.

The concept of Gnosticism as "Christian heresy" is obsolete, BTW.

Well I would have thought that depends whether one is talking about 'gnosis', which is a component of every spiritual tradition (eg a jnani yoga), or whether one is talking about the emergence of a certain stream of Christian heresies in the 1st and 2nd century. 'The Gnostics' or 'Gnosticism' which was a term deployed by 19th century German theologians to act as a kind of catch-all of those heretical doctrines which sought to 'fit' Christian teachings into dualist, multi-compartmentalised cosmological systems, the earliest I can see being the refutation of Cerinthus' cosmology in the Johannine corpus ... or St Paul's reference to 'gnosis so-called' in his letter to Timothy.

Remember also there must be orthodoxy for there to be heresy ... so it's not dualist cosmology per se I worry about, it's the misrepresentation of Christian doctrine that I resist.

Then again, there is what I would call 'an authentic Christian gnosis', which depends upon a holistic paradigm and not a dualist one, and an intimate and immanent 'one-to-one' relation between creature and Creator without the need for a hierarchy of intermediate barrier states — my biggest issue is that the material realm is regarded as intrinsically evil in Gnostic cosmology, which I do refute — the gnosis taught by the Apostles and their successors is a gnosis of being, or a gnosis of the heart, not a gnosis of knowledge, such as the 'Gnostic' systems were largely dependent, and something which persists in the esoteric orders of today.

I'm talking about Christ as the ground of being, such as in John and the Pauline corpus (especially Colossians); the Nuptial Mystery (Ephesians), the Mystical Body (Romans and Corinthians) the Veil (Hebrews) and not the least Divine Union (in St Peter, a phenomenally under-appreciated mystical teacher, even by Christians, I'm sad to say).

Gnosticism seems to have originated in pre-Christian Jewish Alexandria...

I view 'gnosis' from a wider perspective, as a way of knowledge, as above, present all times and everywhere.

And that all started several hundred years before anyone had ever heard of Christianity.

Fine ... then why did they not stick with that and leave Christianity out of it?

Christianity is either right, or wrong. If it's wrong, ignore it (as Gamaliel suggested the Jews should do) and it will fizzle out. If it's right, take note and adjust your doctrines accordingly ...

The Gnostics did neither, they couldn't ignore it, so they tried to incorporate it into a system it just will not fit.

On the other hand, almost to a man, the Fathers of the Church were Platonists, not 'Gnostics', which I think is significant in itself, although most if not all display a luminous gnosis in their works...

Augustine was a Manichean at one point, which is a type of Gnosticism, I suppose, but he tired of that and became a Platonist, before another Platonist, Ambrose of Milan, introduced to the understanding of the Christian Mysteries.

The influence of Plato, Aristotle and others have survived as philosophical systems because of their intellectual rigour, something that was lacking from 'gnosticism' which is why is fizzled out. 2nd century gnosticism was a 'last ditch' attempt to resurrect a dead system by a mix of borrowed ideas and borrowed doctrines.

Just WHY do you think I have such strong objections to the Nicene Creed, anyway?

Because of your opinions of Nicea. The Creed was largely what Nicea was all about, and a bit of housekeeping.

The Catholic Church has every right to claim the orthodox definition of the Trinity as its own, because I want NOTHING to do with it!

OK. Then please leave it alone. And ask your Gnostic friends to do likewise.

Other Trinity concepts exist in other spiritual traditions, and I have no problem with any of them. I can understand the Hindu trinity, for example: Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer or Transformer, if the word "destroyer" is too harsh for you. It isn't for me. Sometimes old, obsolete forms NEED to be destroyed so that something new can be born.

I think 'destroyed' is too harsh a term for me, but I can see why it suits you. Nature doesn't work by destroying, but repurposing ...

I like the triune cit-sat-ananda: 'being-consciousness-bliss' — but that describes their process, not the Christian Trinity ... not the same thing at all.

Likewise with the Kabbalistic Tree of Life, which contains a number of trinity or threefold configurations. Coming from a Jewish background as I do, these are all extremely important to me as you can imagine. There are the three Supernals at the top of the Tree, for one thing. I hesitate to talk about them because human language is inadequate to do them justice, especially in a context like this one. Especially the first one, Kether (the Crown), which I was about to call it the "first emanation" but then stopped myself. Maybe the "first crystallization" of divine potential would be a better way of putting it.

OK. Good for you ... and I have a lot of respect for the Kabbala, but you're still talking about something other than the Trinity, and you can't 'fit' the Trinity to this system.

The point is that I can understand the concept of emanation, from both a Gnostic and a kabbalistic point of view because it isn't really "both." It is the SAME concept in two different languages, not really separate from each other historically, any more than they are now. The kabbalistic teacher I met recently on Facebook uses both languages fluently and interchangeably--and I understand them both.

Good for you. But Christianity is not emanationist.

The ONE trinity concept that makes absolutely NO sense to me whatsoever is the one formulated at the Council of Nicea.

I have to say ... why should you? Your disposition toward Christianity pretty well guarantees it, surely you can see that?

Not all knowledge is given simply because we exist, or because we think we have a right to it, simply because we exist...

And again, one must always be conscious of speaking of a Mystery that surpasses human comprehension ... if one understood the Trinity fully, one would have the Mind of God ...

Might I add that you accuse me, unfairly I think, of being condescending? I think this is somewhat condescending reasoning on your part. I don't understand E=MC squared, but I don't assume its a crock because I don't understand it.

Three persons in one God? What is that supposed to mean? I can understand three (or ten!) emanations of one God. I can understand three personifications of one God, because that's a natural outgrowth of the idea of emanation. I guess the reason I don't understand it is because I don't believe God is a "person" at all, not in any kind of absolute sense anyway.

I'm afraid you're still showing a thought process that's trying to make the doctrine fit your assumptions. The knack is to put your assumptions aside, try and understand what the doctrine is saying, and then make an informed decision. It's called objectivity ... I suggest you're approaching it subjectively?

In fact, the older I get the more I detest monotheism.

Well that's up to you. To me its philosophically reasonable and ultimately the only logical way to go. I believe in a philosophy of the Absolute, and there can only be one Absolute ... that kind of thing.

I have come to see it as an express route to intolerance, and I haven't considered myself a monotheist for years.

Well that's a poor reason to abandon a metaphysical position, but hey-ho.

But I do think it's nonsense really, if you think about it. Monotheism isn't the cause of intolerance, human prejudice is the cause of intolerance. And some monotheists have become exemplars of human generosity, take Albert Schweitzer for one ... I know one instance can be the exception, but really, if you want me to draw up a list, I can ... take Bede Griffiths or Thomas Merton, two Catholic mystics who settled happily into an Asiatic milleau ... no, I really think you need to review that one, for your own sake, more than mine.

To be honest, I think it's you who is intolerant, and you've externalised that by a fixation on Christianity as a way of self-justification ... but I'm no shrink, so don't take my word for it.

I think I've said enough here that you realize that just because I have a short fuse ... You can't burn him at the stake or even burn his books at this late date. So if you want to engage in dialogue with one of his proteges you'd better damn well drop the condescending attitude.

I have never been condescending, I've argued reasonably throughout, but you have failed to respond to any of my arguments ...

I will happily admit I've been robust in my responses, but condescending? No. Unless you consider it condescending when someone chooses not to adopt your viewpoint just because you hold it?

So, politely, might I reposition the question I had been asking someone else from the very beginning, and which you chose to express to that person your own low opinion of me and my faith ... which I see as absolutely void of care, compassion or any form of generosity, if you're interested ...

Can you outline the specific articles of the Creed of Nicea, or the Canons of that Council, that you have a problem with?

That's all I have asked.

Thomas
SPOILER:
Below I will express a personal view of our discussion so far ... I am pretty sure you'll find this 'galling' too, so if you're not disposed to receive a view of how someone else might perceive you, don't bother to read on.

In fact I will stand under the rubric "honi soit qui mal y pense" if I offer any unwarranted offence.

Oh, and one thing — if you're interested in Christian Hermeticism, try and get hold of "Meditations on the Tarot" — it really is a Masterwork.

Pax tecum














So ... like it or not, you've come this far ...
In the world today, Christians are being killed for their faith, and in the last 100 years, more have died than in the 1900 years prior ... and the killing of Christians goes on. Secularism in Europe is on the rise, and quite dramatically so.

The point, my dear another, is that if next week people started deporting Christians from the streets of Europe, to be 'rehoused' for an indefinite period at some undisclosed location, from your attitude towards me and those who share my faith I would only assume that yours would be one of the faces that turned away with the response, "Well, they had it coming ... "

+++

If that hurts, and I am sure it might, I don't mean to inflict pain, but I would like to draw your attention to an ancient Hermetic teaching:
You become what you think about, and the danger is that one becomes the unwitting host of the very thing one sees and detests in others, even when it is not there, because one resonates on that frequency all the time, or put another way, the fault we recognise in others is the one we carry in ourselves ...

Thomas

 

[Raksha]

I'm afraid you're still showing a thought process that's trying to make the doctrine fit your assumptions. The knack is to put your assumptions aside, try and understand what the doctrine is saying, and then make an informed decision. It's called objectivity ... I suggest you're approaching it subjectively?

Yes, of course I'm approaching it subjectively, and why shouldn't I? I was born and raised Jewish, remember? I was NEVER under the slightest obligation to give the Nicene Creed what you would consider even "a fair hearing," and I never have and probably never will.

The Nicene Creed wasn't presented to me from earliest childhood as the last word in Ultimate Truth, as something I *must* believe, but the complete opposite. Of course it wasn't presented to me as "the Nicene Creed" at all. I doubt if my mother ever heard that term in her life. What little I knew about orthodox Christian belief was presented to me in a rough, sceptical, rather hostile third-hand fashion of what those "others" believe that "we" are too rational to believe. The intent was to innoculate me against these dogmas, NOT to convince me of their "truth." Like it or not, this is usual way Christianity is presented to Jewish children. What else would you expect?

Jesus as the one unique incarnation of God? That's something I was taught I must NOT under any circumstances ever believe, because then I would no longer be Jewish. You Catholics call this sort of thing "invincible ignorance," remember? A pretty insulting term, but ultimately charitable in its intent. I do understand the basic idea, which goes something like this: A person of another religion cannot accept Catholic truth because he or she was raised to believe in another truth, totally incompatible with Catholicism. And this is true even if the individual is basically a good person (or at least no worse than anyone else) and a sincere truth-seeker. Because of prior conditioning, ethnic background and life experience, the person is not so much unwilling as unable to accept Catholic truth. Isn't that the way it goes, more or less?

Now that's pretty damn condescending as I said, but it's still a big improvement over the prior assumptions about the "perfidious Jews" that caused us so much suffering and death for 1500 years, which I was naturally well informed about beginning in childhood. I knew that Christians were predisposed to dislike us and even hate us for "rejecting Jesus." And if I had any doubts on that score, the Italian boy who lived next door to me when I was 11 years old told me I was "probably going to hell" because I was Jewish. That was in Brooklyn, and it was an interesting neighborhood. I literally did not know any Protestants! Everyone was either Jewish or Catholic (Italian or Irish).

What I'm saying is that when I finally did get around to actually reading the Nicene Creed--probably in my late teens or early twenties when I was already being influenced by the Gnostic teachings--it had to compete in the free marketplace of ideas.

I never went to any catechism classes, and therefore I was NOT predisposed to any prior notions of its alleged "sanctity" but the complete opposite, remember? I have never "studied" it as someone else alleged I claimed earlier. I gave it a cursory reading and wrote it off as literalist orthodox Christianity, and therefore total nonsense and superstition. I was coming from a Reform Jewish background and hanging out with a group of Gnostics and Theosophists who prided themselves on not being literalists even if they were Christians. In fact, it's very possible that the first time I ever actually read the the Nicene Creed was in a book called Shadow of the Third Century, a scathing, polemical critique of the Council of Nicea written by a Theosophist named Alvin Boyd Kuhn.

Meanwhile at more or less the same time, I was encountering other trinity concepts from other traditions--especially Kabbalah--that resonated with me much more, and seemed profound and true. I guess I should explain that Kabbalah was completely inaccessible to me in Judaism at that time, but VERY accessible in my chosen spiritual environment--i.e. my Gnostic and Theosophical circle, which later included a strong element of Golden Dawn-style ceremonial magic. And then there are always books. I read everything I could get my hands on about Hasidism and Kabbalah by Jewish writers (Gershom Scholem and others) although that was probably later.

So again, my own tradition was simply more compatible with my natural predispostions, even though I was seriously alienated from Judaism at the time for other reasons. I had almost no interaction with the organized Jewish community at the time, and yet the esoteric tradition of Judaism still "fed" me in the spiritual sense.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

Well OK then, but you've just made the point I was making. There is a massive difference between one's own psychic presence or sprit, and the Divine Presence. If you find someone pointing out the distinction between the two 'galling', then that's your issue.

Thomas,

Speaking subjectively--which is the ONLY way to talk about such things--the issue of discernment can be an extremely delicate and difficult judgment call, even for the individual herself (in my case) and certainly impossible for any outsider. And it's absolutely impossible for an arbitrary, abstract self-appointed spiritual authority like the Roman Catholic Church to make that judgment call.

I categorically deny and reject ANY claim on the part of the Roman Catholic Church or one of its apologists to make the slightest claim of discernment as to the validity or non-validity of my spiritual experiences. I am willing to accept ONLY the guidance of own spiritual teachers (and especially the last one), but even at that my acceptance is conditional and subject to revocation at any time.

I say that because someone who briefly claimed that position (or I believed he was a possibility anyway) but he made a huge error in discernment yesterday, and he will not be forgiven for it. I'm not free to go into detail here, but "the bigger they are, the harder they fall," as I always say. You think I'm hard on YOU? You ain't seen nuthin'! Just be grateful I DON'T consider you a spiritual authority, because that's when I'm really hard as nails!

So in the end all I can really trust is my own conscience and my own Higher Self. And Lady Sophia...the Divine Wisdom who has never failed me.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

Secularism in Europe is on the rise, and quite dramatically so.

Good. Serves you right!

The point, my dear another, is that if next week people started deporting Christians from the streets of Europe, to be 'rehoused' for an indefinite period at some undisclosed location, from your attitude towards me and those who share my faith I would only assume that yours would be one of the faces that turned away with the response, "Well, they had it coming ... "

No. Don't insult me.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

James speaks of this directly in the epistle marked by his name:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" - James 2:14-20

Dondi,

Very good! I really like the Book of James, but it's my understanding it almost didn't get included in the canon of the NT because it was too "Jewish."

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

Oh, and one thing — if you're interested in Christian Hermeticism, try and get hold of "Meditations on the Tarot" — it really is a Masterwork.

Thomas,

I have read it--very carefully, as a matter of fact. There is no question that there is a great deal of value in it, but sooner or later I ALWAYS, inevitably, hit the brick wall of the author's Roman Catholic particularism. And that is ALWAYS the place where I get off. Inevitably. The bottom line is that I am a universalist, and in the end I will not accept anyone's brand of particularism. Not even the Jewish one, although I do retain my idiosyncratic understanding of the "Chosen People," which I won't get into here.

One sentence in Meditations on the Tarot in particular is so outrageously unjust that it comes very close to invalidating the entire book, which is a shame because there really is a great deal of insight in it. It's the part where the author says that the incarnation of Jesus was the entire reason for the existence of Jewish people. I'll try and track down the exact quote and post it later on. Can you even begin to imagine how horrifying that was to me?

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raksha
Strictly your opinion!

Not really, strictly Christian doctrine.

Thomas,

So your opinion and Christian doctrine are one and the same? And that's supposed to convince me of something? You already know I don't accept orthodox Christian doctrine, don't find it authoritative and don't have the slightest reason to accept your brand of particularism over my brand of universalism--or anyone's brand of universalism, for that matter.

To me Christianity's claim to be "unique" is a fault, NOT a virtue. It's only possible value to a non-Christian can be in its univeralism, not its particularism. And its historically adversarial relationship to Judaism makes Christian particularism even more distasteful to me than it might be to someone of a different background.

Although there are some, like the Russian Orthodox theologians Sergei Bulgakov and Vladimir Solovyov, for example, who present Sophia as the Divine Feminine ... but they're hardly mainstream, and the doctrine is not without problems.

Problems for you maybe, but not for me. I really like the Russian Sophiologists, what little I know about them.

--Linda

 

[shawn]

The bottom line is that I am a universalist, and in the end I will not accept anyone's brand of particularism.

That is funny as the catholics consider themselves the church universal and the blended in all these various other religions into the mix to keep all the new adherents happy at the outset.

It does in the end boil down to brand preference.

 

[Raksha]

That is funny as the catholics consider themselves the church universal and the blended in all these various other religions into the mix to keep all the new adherents happy at the outset.

It does in the end boil down to brand preference.

Shawn,

I thought of that myself when I was writing that post. It really is totally ironic that the word catholic means "universal." I have also said more than once (again with a considerable sense of irony) that the three main strands of my particular brand of syncretism, i.e. Judaism, Gnosticism and Paganism--are the SAME three that came together to produce orthodox Christianity! I love all three of them separately, albeit for different reasons. What I can't stomach is the indigestible stew that is the end result of someone else's brand of syncretism.

The biggest sin of all was the denial and demonization and persecution of its sources, and the heavy-handed enforcement of the resulting dogma. The Catholic Church's obsession with coercion and control is precisely what has brought about its downfall, and I find that immensely satisfying. If Thomas expects me to shed any tears over the secularization of Europe, has he EVER come to wrong place! "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."

I'll resist the temptation to get too long-winded again. I've done enough of that today!

--Linda

 

[shawn]

I'll resist the temptation to get too long-winded again. I've done enough of that today!

--Linda

Blessings to you.

 

[Saltmeister]

the three main strands of my particular brand of syncretism, i.e. Judaism, Gnosticism and Paganism--are the SAME three that came together to produce orthodox Christianity! I love all three of them separately, albeit for different reasons. What I can't stomach is the indigestible stew that is the end result of someone else's brand of syncretism.

The biggest sin of all was the denial and demonization and persecution of its sources, and the heavy-handed enforcement of the resulting dogma.

The trouble with Christianity, I believe, is that it grew out of a faction that was trying to resolve problems with legalism in religion, particularly Judaism.

It happened at a time when a lot of Jews/Israelites/Palestinians were under the influence of a foreign culture -- Hellenism. I think what they had was an obsession with a particular component of Hellenism: heroics and mythology. I think this is where the idea of Jesus being divine emerged. When I talk about "divine" I don't mean "deity." Deity is distinct from divinity in that deity is about being a god whereas divinity is about coming from heaven. Jesus was definitely thought of as having originated from heaven.

The idea of a hero on a quest, on a mission was a big part of the legend of Jesus and that is why when you read the New Testament writings, you see plenty of hyperbole and allusions to Jesus being "big" and "spectacular." It was a way of making Jesus, his life and sayings seem important. It was supposed to inspire people and get them interested in the Christian story.

Personally, I don't know if this stuff makes Christianity intrinsically "pagan" by nature, but Christianity is definitely dominated by Hellenism. The Gnosticism and Paganism was just an expression of the greatness of the hero.

Unfortunately, I believe Christians over the centuries have failed to understand Hellenism as a literary device and literary construct and have allowed themselves to be hynotised and mesmerised by it without understanding its true purpose. The Hellenistic expressions in the New Testament, the expressions that made Jesus seem big and spectacular and hero-like were turned into slogans.

People became more interested in sensationalism than in helping the poor and less fortunate in the community, which I believe was the original purpose of Christianity. They became more interested in theology and the chanting of words than in anything of real value to humanity and the community.

A religion that originally intended to oppose the legalism in Judaism itself became legalistic. Why do people insist on a Nicaean Trinity? Why is the theology of the Trinity and of Jesus' deity so important? How does this help the human race? How does this help people get closer to God?

You may argue that accepting the Nicaean Trinity "because it was the right concept" and "because it can be proved that this was what was intended" will help your relationship with God, but from my own personal experience I consider this to be false. Theological dissension has never helped the human race. It is just a bunch of people promoting and fighting for a particular ideology and it has no social or communal benefit except to those who accept that ideology.

Jesus came into this world to offer social and communal benefits to the human race. That was supposed to be his legacy: to guide people to something that would help humanity. His legacy was a part of the heroics that people would think of as "big" and "spectacular" and be passed down over generations in the Christian story.

But the greatness of Jesus is only as good as the good deeds of his followers. It's great if one man can do what Jesus did, but even better if we can all do what he did. There is no point remembering a legend if we cannot repeat it, otherwise Christianity would be no better than the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

Is Christianity a form of syncretism? Well, I have not argued against it. After all, if Christianity arose out of a Jewish culture influenced by Hellenism, I cannot see how that cannot be syncretism.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Linda — In your own words ....

"So in the end all I can really trust is my own conscience and my own Higher Self. And Lady Sophia...the Divine Wisdom who has never failed me."

Linda — I make no claims for spiritual mastership, so you can stop threatening me — but I do make a claim to basic humanity, and as such, there is so much violence and bitter poison in your heart ... I don't see how there's room for anything else.

And you hang on to it as if it were a virtue. As for the Raksha test to measure the worth of a spiritual master — I dread to think. Bare-knuckle?

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

Linda — I make no claims for spiritual mastership, so you can stop threatening me — but I do make a claim to basic humanity, and as such, there is so much violence and bitter poison in your heart ... I don't see how there's room for anything else.

And you hang on to it as if it were a virtue. As for the Raksha test to measure the worth of a spiritual master — I dread to think. Bare-knuckle?

Thomas,

I think Linda's posts are just a literary device, very much like what you'd find in the New Testament when it talks about Jesus and his legendary greatness.

Maybe it has a lot to do with being a Wiccan. I remember some of the metaphors she used about what she would like do with you in the Judaism forum. I thought her metaphors were pretty gruesome. They were probably too gruesome, too extreme and exaggerated. She was using hyperboles and making her feelings seem really dramatic.

Ok, I could be wrong. I am not saying her sentiments and views should not be taken seriously. She might find it insulting for me to say that her posts are nothing more than an exaggeration. I am just saying that maybe she isn't really as vicious and malicious as you might think. She just likes to make it sound that way. She is angry, but not so much that she would become violent.

Everyone has their own little persona and posting style. This is her posting style. Take bananabrain for example. He's British. I don't know what it is about being British that makes his posting style special. He simply said there was. I don't know what the critical ingredient is, but he says there's something to it. It was something about tone.

So . . . Thomas, I think you are making an issue out of nothing.

Did I offend anyone?

 

[Thomas]

Maybe it has a lot to do with being a Wiccan.

I know Wiccans, and I don't think it is.

I remember some of the metaphors she used about what she would like do with you in the Judaism forum. I thought her metaphors were pretty gruesome...

The point is what gives rise to the language ... it has to be in there to come out.

"After all, what goes into your mouth won't defile you; what comes out of your mouth will."
Gospel of Thomas 14

"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."
Matthew 15:11

The point I am making should come as no surprise to the Gnostic or the Orthodox.

"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."
Luke 6:45

"Jesus said, "Grapes are not harvested from thorn trees, nor are figs gathered from thistles, for they yield no fruit. Good persons produce good from what they've stored up; bad persons produce evil from the wickedness they've stored up in their hearts, and say evil things. 'For from the overflow of the heart they produce evil."
Gospel of Thomas 45

Raksha'a posts to me serve no good end, nor is their intent to produce good, they hardly edify the author, and they certainly don't edify the recipient.

Thomas

 

[Ciel]

"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."
Luke 6:45

Thomas

Thomas,
In all truth see...... is there not something to be seen in this bringing forth from your own sentiments towards Raksha.

Can the church also let go, forgive, allow compassion to flow without grandiloquence. After all you are right aren't you.

- c -

- c -