Faith: Belief vs. Knowing

[Saltmeister]

I am not here to criticize at all, but I certainly accept your criticism because I fully understand why you do so.

Not all conflict is bad. You will often see me arguing with people in these forums simply because it is the way to understand them better. My world invades your world. Your world invades my world. We are still alive, we are not dead. The Gospels records how the Pharisees often came to "test" Jesus with questions. They were portrayed as villains in the drama of Jesus' life, that they were mean people who wanted to incriminate. But that just isn't the reason why everyone argues or asks questions.

I have told you exactly the type of Yoga Jesus teaches: Bhakti Yoga. Do you not agree that Christianity is about devotion, about loving Jesus? Yoga is not only the positions, or meditation or whatever else you think it is. You clearly do not know what Yoga is, and I don't know what you think it is, but every religion is a form of yoga, it cannot be otherwise because there is a type of yoga that covers every single part of life.

Now that you explain it that way, I can see how "yoga" can be made compatible with Christianity. Regarding devotion, I am less "devotional" than I was years ago. I don't think in terms of devotion anymore. I think of a martyr who stood up for something noble. I consider myself part of something important, but it's not devotion. My thinking on this has changed over the years.

I cannot speak for all 2 billion Christians, but I can speak of what I know. Christianity isn't about spirituality, theology or mysticism. It is about integration and assimilation. Mysticism (or whatever it may be called) may have been part of it, but not all of it. There was something "greater" and "more important" than the spirituality, theology or mysticism in Christianity.

It started with breaking down the walls of separation between Jew and Gentile and the purpose became a breaking down of walls between other Gentiles. In the first century the Jews considered Hellenism an abomination, but Paul defended it and Christianity was born. As long as they worshipped one God, they were fine. Christianity spread through much of Europe and beyond, assimilating pagan cults. For example, the way the Christmas tree became part of Christianity was St Boniface cutting down a tree to show that the tree god was false.

Christians today, however, have forgotten about this integrationist agenda. When I speak of integration, I don't mean conversion. I don't mean a person confessing Jesus is Lord and saviour. I mean other religions becoming part of Christianity, just like Hellenism was mixed with something Jewish to get Christianity started.

Most Christians think that becoming Christian is about accepting that Jesus is your saviour, that he died for your sins. But 2,000 years ago, people were applying Jewish criteria to becoming Christian and becoming circumcised. The idea of Jesus dying for people's sins was therefore used to explain why they didn't have to be circumcised. A less strict requirement replaced a stricter one so that more people could be included in the "collective."

The idea of having to accept Jesus as your saviour, however, was not the requirement given by the Jerusalem church. This was Paul's idea, so there were differences in opinion. James the Just and the Jerusalem church proposed the Apostolic Decree, which is basically a derivation of the Seven Noahide Laws in Judaism. The teachings were less important than including more people in the collective. That's why even if Jesus did teach something mystical, that isn't what his religion is about.

There are two reasons why I felt it was important to "argue" with you. One was that if Christianity was an integrationist agenda, then saying it's mysticism or yoga would give people the wrong idea. The second is that many Christians treat it as a "devotional" religion. It is one spirituality versus another. Saying it's yoga would put you in conflict with that category of Christian.

If Christians were to remember that it was integrationist, they wouldn't be so offended by a statement that "Christianity" teaches "yoga." But because they have forgotten, you must remind them. The way to make "yoga" a part of Christianity is not to say that Jesus taught yoga. It is to say that Christianity allows yoga to be part of it. You have to mention the Apostolic Decree. It's not impossible to make it part of Christianity. You just have to know how.

Let me use the analogy of citizenship. In the last century, Western countries introduced the idea of multiculturalism. When you go to another country and become a citizen, you have to agree to obey its laws. As long as you agree to its laws, you are accepted regardless of your race. In tribal cultures, there is often an initiation ritual. Saying that Jesus was an Essene, a mystic or taught yoga wasn't my idea of the "proper protocol" of making something Christian. This is what will get you in conflict with those 2 billion Christians.

Yes, I would say Jesus is a bad teacher, because so many of his seeds have sprouted.

I don't think Jesus intended to be a "good teacher" -- not in the sense of teaching something consistent. If his goal, however, was for people of different backgrounds to come together, then half of that goal has been achieved. This is what he taught well without saying so much.

There are 2.5 billion Christians today, I presume you yourself are Christian and do not even value spirituality. For me, spirituality is the path to discovering your soul, but Christians are not even curious. Christians blindly accept and it is disgusting to me, it shows utter lack of intelligence.

I believe Christians try to be spiritual, but fail miserably. The reason is because they are jealous of other spiritualities. This is why I think spirituality should be avoided. Something else needs to be tried.

Yoga, for me, means unification, union... when a bull is yoked with another, they are now one, they cannot act against each other without pain. What you describe between Jew and Gentile is exactly a type of unification, and he prescribes the pill for this as well: love.

Love is hard to learn when you are trying to be spiritual but are jealous of other spiritualities, and there are a lot of jealous Christians out there. Jealous Christians don't like yoga. The idea of love doesn't work for everyone. This is why you should invoke the Apostolic Decree. Make sure you understand the Apostolic Decree so you can explain it to them. Study its history and significance, get to know it inside out.

Enlightenment (heaven, paradise, moksha, nirvana) merely means the ability to never leave truth, never forget truth. This is immortality, this is eternal life, knowing you are not separate from the whole, how can you die?

You can't die?

 

[Lunitik]

My world invades your world. Your world invades my world.

There is only one world, this is the whole problem of separatism, it is founded on utter crap. I am here to advance interfaith dialog, not to create war on other lovers of God. I am merely trying to show people how to know God for themselves so organizations and priests - and indeed even particular enlightened ones, like Jesus, or Buddha, or Krishna, whoever - do not stand in the way of your discovery of that. You are essentially arguing for not knowing because it is easier, because you fear standing alone in the world so at least the lies provide support.

Now that you explain it that way, I can see how "yoga" can be made compatible with Christianity. Regarding devotion, I am less "devotional" than I was years ago. I don't think in terms of devotion anymore. I think of a martyr who stood up for something noble. I consider myself part of something important, but it's not devotion. My thinking on this has changed over the years.

You uphold a lie, and you devote yourself to that lie. The devotion facilitates growth of heart which is one of the poles towards truth - the other is in the opposite direction, facilitating the removal of views and opinions, the arrival at zero and your natural self. The culmination is the same in both directions so this is not important.

What is important is that you actually practice, or you leave the faith alone. As Mr Miyagi said "choose left side of street, ok; choose right side of street, ok; go middle, get squished", everything in life must be done totally. Currently, you are "guess so", you are committed to neither yes or no.

I cannot speak for all 2 billion Christians, but I can speak of what I know. Christianity isn't about spirituality, theology or mysticism. It is about integration and assimilation. Mysticism (or whatever it may be called) may have been part of it, but not all of it. There was something "greater" and "more important" than the spirituality, theology or mysticism in Christianity.

Christianity is not about anything really, they are too busy hating each other and everyone else. The whole of what Jesus has taught pertains to truth, but he has worded it in such a way that the uneducated can comprehend. Jesus has not attracted a single knowledgeable person, not one, if he told whole truths in plain language he would not have been popular for the same reasons you do not accept what I say.

It started with breaking down the walls of separation between Jew and Gentile and the purpose became a breaking down of walls between other Gentiles. In the first century the Jews considered Hellenism an abomination, but Paul defended it and Christianity was born. As long as they worshipped one God, they were fine. Christianity spread through much of Europe and beyond, assimilating pagan cults. For example, the way the Christmas tree became part of Christianity was St Boniface cutting down a tree to show that the tree god was false.

Simply false, it started with Jesus' own attainment, then, at the age of 30 he has began to teach what he knows. This is why he has taught that no one should be excluded, that no one should be treated different, because he knows all is one. The particular choice of Jew and gentile is merely what is relevant to his audience, you do an injustice to say it is limited to these groups. It also serves a greater purpose, for the Jew Jesus would have been a gentile, thus it is integral to his teaching being accepted. He was killed because he went against Judaism, so he cannot be an accepted Jew at that time, only one by birth.

As for the example you provide of the tree, I would rather not go into it, this is disgusting.

Christians today, however, have forgotten about this integrationist agenda. When I speak of integration, I don't mean conversion. I don't mean a person confessing Jesus is Lord and saviour. I mean other religions becoming part of Christianity, just like Hellenism was mixed with something Jewish to get Christianity started.

It could not continue after Constantine, it was impossible because he has defined exactly what Christianity is. Everything prior is irrelevant, what you know as Christianity should more rightly be called Constantinism, I can accept Roman Catholic too, but of course the groups have rebelled against that.

Most Christians think that becoming Christian is about accepting that Jesus is your saviour, that he died for your sins. But 2,000 years ago, people were applying Jewish criteria to becoming Christian and becoming circumcised. The idea of Jesus dying for people's sins was therefore used to explain why they didn't have to be circumcised. A less strict requirement replaced a stricter one so that more people could be included in the "collective."

Again, you fight for the growth of crowd-think, this is poisonous. In a crowd, people forget their humanity.

The idea of having to accept Jesus as your saviour, however, was not the requirement given by the Jerusalem church. This was Paul's idea, so there were differences in opinion. James the Just and the Jerusalem church proposed the Apostolic Decree, which is basically a derivation of the Seven Noahide Laws in Judaism. The teachings were less important than including more people in the collective. That's why even if Jesus did teach something mystical, that isn't what his religion is about.

I don't know why you are giving me a Christian history lesson? You are just fuelling my point, yet you think it is supporting your own apparently?

There are two reasons why I felt it was important to "argue" with you. One was that if Christianity was an integrationist agenda, then saying it's mysticism or yoga would give people the wrong idea. The second is that many Christians treat it as a "devotional" religion. It is one spirituality versus another. Saying it's yoga would put you in conflict with that category of Christian.

The more you integrate, the more you have to cater to the lowest common denominator, and the lower that denominator becomes. All organized religion will be opposed to me, because I call it all a poison. Including mysticism and yoga when attached to the stories of a particular faith, if we speak more plainly and point at truth more accurately, we do not need something dead to teach the living - and scripture is a dead thing.

If Christians were to remember that it was integrationist, they wouldn't be so offended by a statement that "Christianity" teaches "yoga." But because they have forgotten, you must remind them. The way to make "yoga" a part of Christianity is not to say that Jesus taught yoga. It is to say that Christianity allows yoga to be part of it. You have to mention the Apostolic Decree. It's not impossible to make it part of Christianity. You just have to know how.

What exactly is the point of religion, in your view, if it is not spiritual? If it is about living peacefully and accepting one another, simply take Christianity away entirely - we have government now. There must be something else, something deeper, else there is simply no point to it. Denying the material manifestation is wrong, but you are positioning this as an either or scenario. Grow both spiritual and material aspects and you have a complete person, if you cut off a wing the bird cannot fly.

Let me use the analogy of citizenship. In the last century, Western countries introduced the idea of multiculturalism. When you go to another country and become a citizen, you have to agree to obey its laws. As long as you agree to its laws, you are accepted regardless of your race. In tribal cultures, there is often an initiation ritual. Saying that Jesus was an Essene, a mystic or taught yoga wasn't my idea of the "proper protocol" of making something Christian. This is what will get you in conflict with those 2 billion Christians.

This is fundamentally flawed, Christ didn't even define what makes you Christian, he was not Christian himself - he was a Jew. In the Catholic Church, for instance, there are a series of rituals you go through that shows your advancement through life. It creates a goal oriented following, and an entirely esoteric configuration. Eastern Orthodox is the same way, but you say that Christianity is inclusive. These are the original foundations of Christianity, there is not even competition to this fact. I do not know what branch you identify yourself with, but it is no longer even resembling genuine Christianity, Jesus has not come to bring peace, yet you say he has. Jesus says he has come to divide people, but you say he has come to bring them together... it is difficult to understand where you are getting this from.

I don't think Jesus intended to be a "good teacher" -- not in the sense of teaching something consistent. If his goal, however, was for people of different backgrounds to come together, then half of that goal has been achieved. This is what he taught well without saying so much.

How did he teach this? He had 12 followers and they are all essentially from the same walk of life.

I believe Christians try to be spiritual, but fail miserably. The reason is because they are jealous of other spiritualities. This is why I think spirituality should be avoided. Something else needs to be tried.

I think Christianity has to be dropped, along with every other such organization, then when these separations do not exist there is no reason to be jealous. When there is no jealousy, we can run through scriptures and see what is most true and what is irrelevant. We can advance all that is true from the multitude of sources available and formulate them in a new way. This is my hope in joining an "interfaith" forum. I am not telling people to convert, I am telling them to stop clinging to lies.

Love is hard to learn when you are trying to be spiritual but are jealous of other spiritualities, and there are a lot of jealous Christians out there. Jealous Christians don't like yoga. The idea of love doesn't work for everyone. This is why you should invoke the Apostolic Decree. Make sure you understand the Apostolic Decree so you can explain it to them. Study its history and significance, get to know it inside out.

The cultivation of love is spirituality, what are you talking about? Where is this jealousy arising from? It is arising from segregation, us and them, and they are winning so let us remove the field that they are superior at entirely. Don't learn from them and apply it to our own faith, just ignore them and spread lies about what the other group teaches. This is why I say organizations are poisonous, they have such a hold on its members that there is no possibility. Love is now a "hippy" characteristic, despite the Bible stating God *IS* love, and no one considers how backwards this is.

You can't die?

Can you? If you say yes, you do not know who you are.

 

[Saltmeister]

You are essentially arguing for not knowing because it is easier, because you fear standing alone in the world so at least the lies provide support.

I already stand alone. This isn't about me, but everyone else.

Christianity is not about anything really, they are too busy hating each other and everyone else.

There is nothing truly fundamental to Christianity. Christianity is an agenda, a process of integrating more and more people into a community that believes in one God.

The whole of what Jesus has taught pertains to truth, but he has worded it in such a way that the uneducated can comprehend. Jesus has not attracted a single knowledgeable person, not one, if he told whole truths in plain language he would not have been popular for the same reasons you do not accept what I say.

Jesus attracted people from many different walks of life, some of which would have been unknowledgeable. He took his teachings directly to the underclass, unlike the Pharisees who needed good students because they were the educated elite. They were Torah teachers and they wanted Torah students. Jesus turned nobodies into somebodies. You didn't have to be a Pharisee to be important. Jesus made the common person feel special.

Simply false, it started with Jesus' own attainment, then, at the age of 30 he has began to teach what he knows. This is why he has taught that no one should be excluded, that no one should be treated different, because he knows all is one. The particular choice of Jew and gentile is merely what is relevant to his audience, you do an injustice to say it is limited to these groups. It also serves a greater purpose, for the Jew Jesus would have been a gentile, thus it is integral to his teaching being accepted.

You're missing the point. The Law or Torah is sacred to the Jews. The Gentile wasn't an "abomination" because the Jew considered him subhuman. The Jew recognised the Gentile as human. It was because the Gentile was a potential bad influence on a Jew's efforts to follow the Torah. This wasn't about racism. This wasn't about white people versus black people. It was about religion.

Jesus' teachings weren't original. Many of Jesus' teachings were similar to that of other Pharisees. This debate about what to do about the Gentile had been going on for some time. The reason why a full-blown religion emerged that was about Jesus was because of his death and resurrection. His resurrection was a sign that if you followed his teachings, you too would be resurrected.

I am not here to criticize at all, but I certainly accept your criticism because I fully understand why you do so.

That just isn't true. I have seen criticism from you, but what got me involved was what seemed to be a promotion of the mystical over everything else. It was your emphasis on Sufism in Islam, bhakti and karma yoga in Christianity and kabbala/Hasidism in Judaism. You then said something about rejecting certain religions because of their materialism. The underlying message was, "mysticism is great, everything else is worthless."

If a person merely promotes X, then they mildly support it. If they promote X and also devalue Y, they want X to dominate the world. If X was to dominate the world, then we would lose the merits of Y.

I did not like the idea of Jesus or Christianity being 100% Essene, "enlightenment" or "yoga." It simply is not what I have found in my Google searches. There was some Pharisaism, some Hellenism and Greek philosophy and probably even some Zoroastrianism. But it was definitely not 100% Essene, mysticism or enlightenment.

My view was actually that what you regarded as Essenism or enlightenment was really Greek philosophy. That's because the Jews were more influenced by Hellenism than any other foreign thought system.

I explained why I thought Christians should stop allowing themselves to be influenced by Greek constructs in the NT and you said something about me being "against anything other." Because I wasn't sure if you understood what I was saying about Greek influences, my response to that was to declare 99% of mysticism and spirituality to be dangerous or destructive. I really believe Greek influences did set Christianity down the wrong path. Christians have tried to be "spiritual" but it's a failed project. I felt you were encouraging the practice. I do not believe Christianity needs those Greek influences anymore because Jesus was a Jew. If Christians forbade themselves from being influenced by the Greek, Christianity would become more compatible with Judaism and Islam. This would remove a critical barrier between Christianity and the "ethical monotheism" of Judaism and Islam.

I did say at some point that I was not absolutely against mysticism (and spirituality). There is a time and place for it. I was just opposing and countering what I thought was your bias toward mysticism and spirituality.

What exactly is the point of religion, in your view, if it is not spiritual? If it is about living peacefully and accepting one another, simply take Christianity away entirely - we have government now. There must be something else, something deeper, else there is simply no point to it. Denying the material manifestation is wrong, but you are positioning this as an either or scenario. Grow both spiritual and material aspects and you have a complete person, if you cut off a wing the bird cannot fly.

I think people jump toward the spiritual too soon. This is what I wanted to see -- a balanced view. I allow the possibility for the spiritual, but I seek sociological explanations first. If there is a physical, sociological, earthly explanation, there is no need for a spiritual one. Physical experiences, however, may tell us something about the spiritual. These should be noted, but people should not jump to conclusions. The aim of knowing the spiritual is to escape the physical, but you cannot access or transition to the spiritual without conquering the material.

What really annoys me is when people talk about "truth" but not what the truth is about. Truth as you probably know requires a statement that is either true or false. What is truth without something that can be proven? It also annoys me when someone says you are a problem for not understanding something when they haven't even explained how they got to that conclusion.

Jesus has not come to bring peace, yet you say he has. Jesus says he has come to divide people, but you say he has come to bring them together... it is difficult to understand where you are getting this from.

I don't know where you got the idea of me saying Jesus came to bring peace. I spoke of integration, not peace. I didn't say integration would be a peaceful process. If it is ever attempted, there will be conflict and resistance, but what matters is that it eventually happens.

Jesus talked about division, but he also spoke of unity. The division is external. Jesus' followers are to consider themselves to be in conflict with the rest of the world. The unity is internal. In John 17:21, he says "I pray that they all be one."

How did he teach this? He had 12 followers and they are all essentially from the same walk of life.

Jesus had many more followers than just twelve people. He attracted crowds. The twelve were just those who followed Jesus everywhere and "got covered in the dust of their rabbi" (so to speak).

I think Christianity has to be dropped, along with every other such organization, then when these separations do not exist there is no reason to be jealous.

Jesus wasn't against organised religion. His earlier followers did form an organisation. It wasn't just so that they could support missionaries. It was so they could look after the poor, the blind and widows. Many of them sold their land to the "church." It was like socialism. They gave up their property for the collective. Jesus seemed to want to provoke jealousy, saying "people will hate you because of me." He also told people to make disciples among the nations.

Considering what you've said, I don't think you would have liked Jesus.

It is arising from segregation, us and them, and they are winning so let us remove the field that they are superior at entirely. Don't learn from them and apply it to our own faith, just ignore them and spread lies about what the other group teaches. This is why I say organizations are poisonous, they have such a hold on its members that there is no possibility.

Not all organised religion does that. It's annoying when people do it, but I don't assume that's what everyone does. I have seen more respectful views and I am not talking about casual views that brush differences under the carpet, but very detailed analyses examining the relative strengths and weaknesses of a tradition.

What is important is that you actually practice, or you leave the faith alone. As Mr Miyagi said "choose left side of street, ok; choose right side of street, ok; go middle, get squished", everything in life must be done totally. Currently, you are "guess so", you are committed to neither yes or no.

This is a misunderstanding of what I said. I didn't say "don't be radical." Actually, I consider my idea quite radical. People are no longer to define their Christian beliefs by theology, because if Christianity is an integrationist agenda, theology doesn't matter. This is how we can end the divisions and schisms today. It's right there in the Book of Acts and Paul's epistles. Christians will stop caring about theology. They can walk over to the Jewish and Muslim worlds and say, "I'd like to join you."

The walls of separation will fall down and there will be a new religion -- the Abrahamic faith.

 

[luecy7]

Sorry to seem so thick, but I really like seeing how you see things.

So then, how do I see things?

I thought you meant there was a reason for seeing things differently and that you had some interesting insights as to why that might be.

How do you think I obtain insights?

 

[Lunitik]

There is nothing truly fundamental to Christianity. Christianity is an agenda, a process of integrating more and more people into a community that believes in one God.

Every tradition on earth is about one God. Even those that appear to be polytheistic have a single God on top.

Jesus attracted people from many different walks of life, some of which would have been unknowledgeable. He took his teachings directly to the underclass, unlike the Pharisees who needed good students because they were the educated elite. They were Torah teachers and they wanted Torah students. Jesus turned nobodies into somebodies. You didn't have to be a Pharisee to be important. Jesus made the common person feel special.

No one Jesus attracted was from a respectable class, no one that actually understood the Torah believed in Jesus.

You're missing the point.

Weird, because you have not even comprehended my point based on your reaction to it.

That just isn't true. I have seen criticism from you, but what got me involved was what seemed to be a promotion of the mystical over everything else. It was your emphasis on Sufism in Islam, bhakti and karma yoga in Christianity and kabbala/Hasidism in Judaism. You then said something about rejecting certain religions because of their materialism. The underlying message was, "mysticism is great, everything else is worthless."

I believe that religion should be used to gain religious insight, that does not mean I reject the material. If it isn't useful in pursuit of the ultimate reality, what use is it? We don't need religion to create better people in the world, and pursuit of religion merely on material grounds has proven dangerous.

If a person merely promotes X, then they mildly support it. If they promote X and also devalue Y, they want X to dominate the world. If X was to dominate the world, then we would lose the merits of Y.

I want the core of religion to dominate the religious landscape, certainly. When we know for certain that every religion is merely founded by an enlightened person, and that all point at the same thing, we can finally know a unity in human relations. Currently, everyone misunderstands and clings to useless crap because they lack comprehension. This is my whole purpose on an interfaith forum - to increase interfaith insight. You cannot do this by concentrating on the surface statements.

I did not like the idea of Jesus or Christianity being 100% Essene, "enlightenment" or "yoga." It simply is not what I have found in my Google searches. There was some Pharisaism, some Hellenism and Greek philosophy and probably even some Zoroastrianism. But it was definitely not 100% Essene, mysticism or enlightenment.

I have spent much of my time studying mystic groups, and I assure you the New Testament is full of mystic statements. Nothing in the New Testament points to anything non-mystic, although often it speaks about the ramifications thereof rather than being direct. Even Jesus' very approach - parables - is mystic in nature.

My view was actually that what you regarded as Essenism or enlightenment was really Greek philosophy. That's because the Jews were more influenced by Hellenism than any other foreign thought system.

There was a large Buddhist influence in Judea when Jesus was teaching, the Essenes were often in dialog with the Buddhists, this is where much of the correlations between Jesus and Buddhism comes from. Greek philosophy was also heavily influenced by Buddhism, however, so it is not surprising you make the correlation without understanding who the middle men were.

In fact, it is also truth that Sufism is Buddhism's influence on Islam, and Advaita is largely influenced by Buddha's statements as well. Most mysticism can be traced back to Buddhist thought.

I think people jump toward the spiritual too soon.

Again, I remind you we're on an interfaith forum... for me, you are essentially trying to ensure faiths stay separate and spiritualism be put on the back burner. I would ask what exactly you are doing even discussing religion if you reject exactly what it offers for the human condition.

I don't know where you got the idea of me saying Jesus came to bring peace. I spoke of integration, not peace. I didn't say integration would be a peaceful process. If it is ever attempted, there will be conflict and resistance, but what matters is that it eventually happens.

I am merely pointing out that Jesus isn't someone we should be trying to focus on if we want peace.

Jesus had many more followers than just twelve people. He attracted crowds. The twelve were just those who followed Jesus everywhere and "got covered in the dust of their rabbi" (so to speak).

And yet you are against mysticism...

Jesus wasn't against organised religion. His earlier followers did form an organisation. It wasn't just so that they could support missionaries. It was so they could look after the poor, the blind and widows. Many of them sold their land to the "church." It was like socialism. They gave up their property for the collective. Jesus seemed to want to provoke jealousy, saying "people will hate you because of me." He also told people to make disciples among the nations.

Jesus didn't bring an organized religion, that much is certain.

The walls of separation will fall down and there will be a new religion -- the Abrahamic faith.

I hope not, we must drop everything from the past if we want to move forward together. I can accept Sufism becoming the common ground of all faiths if the high influence of Islam is taken away, at least it is something beautiful. It even has people like al-Hillaj that Christians can really get behind. Many people, like Hazrat Inayat Khan, have attempted to distance Sufism from Islam, and I think it could gather steam in the future.

For me, the best religious text for bringing humanity together so far is Maitreya Ishwara's "Unity", however, simply because it delivers the common thread of religion without any particular focus in any one stream - not even particularly towards using proofs from a given tradition. This, or simply meditation + science will be what future religions are about.

 

[radarmark]

Interesting, I thought Shiva Vigyama Upanishad and the Jainist books predate the Lord Buddha. The influence of Buddhism in Judea is highly contested academically. Discussions, yes. But merkabah exegesis seems native to the Qumran community and Ben Zakkai (the two great Roman wars really did a number on texts).

Besides, it seems pretty Bubbha-centric to claim most mysticism owes it to this source. One would be hard pushed to find a scrap of evidence that Qarni or Rabina orJakob Boeheme, Teresa, St John, Luria, the Besht, or George Fox ever heard of it.

It seems more reasonable to me that myticism is the heart of all religions. There is no higher or better or earlier. The Light Within just is, and has always been there for one to draw on.

I will delete a story I just posted about Ishwara, I did not know you were a believer.


Pax et amor vincunt omnia--radarmark

 

[Saltmeister]

Every tradition on earth is about one God. Even those that appear to be polytheistic have a single God on top.

The idea of Christianity "integrating" has more to do with where I think Christianity should be going in the near future. Christianity will either integrate or be integrated -- whatever makes you happy. Christianity needs to be going somewhere and other religions may follow if they are willing. Someone said a while ago in another thread that Bahai was syncretistic. I say Christianity was too. People just didn't realise it.

In order for Christianity to be made compatible with Judaism and Islam, its theology needs to be changed. I don't think I have to get into detail here. I was just proposing the idea that all "seemingly polytheistic" religions could be integrated into one before Christianity itself was "given away." I called this syncretism "Christianity," but you could all it Bahai, Hinduism or something else -- like "the confederation of seemingly polytheistic monotheisms."

No one Jesus attracted was from a respectable class, no one that actually understood the Torah believed in Jesus.

I have no problem with that. I think they were right for not believing in Jesus. The hebrew word halakha means something like "way of walking." Halakha is the application of Jewish law. In John 14:6 Jesus says, "I am the way." Most Christians think it means you have to believe Jesus is your saviour and died for your sins. Jesus probably really meant "I am halakha." It was actually wrong to believe in Jesus. You were not supposed to believe in him, but his teachings. His teachings were "the way of walking." They were the way to follow the commandments. Jesus was interpreting Jewish law and his teachings were an interpretation of it. Jesus was just being metaphorical.

that no one should be excluded, that no one should be treated different, because he knows all is one.

Weird, because you have not even comprehended my point based on your reaction to it.

Your point was both unrealistic and unhelpful. The "oneness" you speak of is a mystical concept and is not something to be found anywhere on earth -- there is no social, communal or political oneness to be found that includes the entire human race. There is war, racism, sectarianism, violence, etc. Your concept of mystical oneness suggests there is no problem and that we don't need to do anything.

You're also wrong about Jesus because in John 17:21 he says, "I pray that they will all be one." Obviously, Jesus doesn't believe in a mystical oneness. He sees it as a process. They need to achieve unity. It doesn't already exist.

Greek philosophy was also heavily influenced by Buddhism.

Even if that were true, it doesn't matter. What matters is that Greek philosophy was the most immediate and direct influence. What we call "Christianity" today (what I call "Hellenistic Christianity") is really the Hellenistic version of monotheism, a religion that has gotten addicted to dominating over others and staying on the high horse. Look at the consequences of these Greek influences. The reason for wanting Christians to turn their back on the Greek influences in the NT is to get them back to being infantry.

Again, I remind you we're on an interfaith forum... for me, you are essentially trying to ensure faiths stay separate and spiritualism be put on the back burner. I would ask what exactly you are doing even discussing religion if you reject exactly what it offers for the human condition.

Interfaith? I thought that was implied. If you want faiths to come together, you need to propose concepts that are helpful. I consider spiritualism and mysticism to be unhelpful for some faiths.

I don't know what part of the world you live in, but from where I am, I see a majority of Abrahamics (Jews, Christians, Muslims) that are not mystically-minded. If you propose a "mystical oneness" that would be a "deal breaker." Jews follow halakha, Muslims follow shariah and Christians follow creeds and metaphorical/allegorical theology. These things aren't mystical. Jews and Muslims abhor the idea of God being "one" with human beings (like Jesus). While Christians like the idea of Jesus being one with God, they don't like oneness that includes everything else.

Jews, Muslims and Christians follow tradition. They are not as enthusiastic about mysticism or enlightenment as you are. How could your idea of mystical oneness help the majority of them to get together?

Tradition is authoritative. Mystical experiences are not. It would be much easier to "authorise" social integration if tradition allowed it. What would be helpful is if tradition can show that other religions are not enemies. This is what I mean by integrationism and Christian tradition allowing it. This is about keeping tradition. The majority of Abrahamics want tradition to be kept. This will keep them happy.

My concept of integrationism doesn't forbid spirituality and mysticism. I am actually more opposed to a mystical concept being the basis for people coming together. Be a mystic or enlightened person if you will, but don't make that the reason why the non-mystics come together, because they will probably hate it.

And yet you are against mysticism...

You still see Jesus as a mystic and "enlightened person." He seems to be a different kind of teacher to you than he is to me. I think of him as a person who taught his followers how to approach the commandments.

I hope not, we must drop everything from the past if we want to move forward together. I can accept Sufism becoming the common ground of all faiths if the high influence of Islam is taken away, at least it is something beautiful. It even has people like al-Hillaj that Christians can really get behind. Many people, like Hazrat Inayat Khan, have attempted to distance Sufism from Islam, and I think it could gather steam in the future.

Let the non-mystical Abrahamics get together and you can pursue as much mysticism as you want. My concept of integrationism doesn't forbid mysticism. Once they have gotten over their differences, they will probably get bored of mutual acceptance and start pursuing mysticism. That's why I say, put it on the backburner.

For me, the best religious text for bringing humanity together so far is Maitreya Ishwara's "Unity", however, simply because it delivers the common thread of religion without any particular focus in any one stream - not even particularly towards using proofs from a given tradition. This, or simply meditation + science will be what future religions are about.

I think tradition should be used to bring them together, as long as it can be shown that everyone who values tradition is still keeping their tradition. Apparently you've given up on tradition. It doesn't all have to come from one tradition. The more traditions there are that allow social/religious integration, the easier this will be. When one door opens, others may also open and heaven will start breaking in.

You saw mystical oneness as the concept bringing people together but don't you want to increase the chances of this happening by allowing other alternatives?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

For me, the best religious text for bringing humanity together so far is Maitreya Ishwara's "Unity", however, simply because it delivers the common thread of religion without any particular focus in any one stream - not even particularly towards using proofs from a given tradition. This, or simply meditation + science will be what future religions are about.

I have a question on your take on religious texts. Some are 'dead' and some are not? Does it have to do with the author being dead?

 

[Paladin]

So then, how do I see things?

How do you think I obtain insights?

I was really hoping you knew.

 

[Lunitik]

I have a question on your take on religious texts. Some are 'dead' and some are not? Does it have to do with the author being dead?

Me pointing at a particular text does not mean I do not think it is also dead, how can a book be living? A very strange question.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Yes, very strange indeed. But your belief structure is nothing I have ever seen before, it is strange to me.
And I didn't understand your reply at all. When you speak with other on here, like Vaj, you dismiss the text they study as 'dead' and that you, as I understand it, only value experience. I understand that this is not the case, but I don't understand how it is not. So, how do you value texts and why do you consider some 'dead'?

 

[Paladin]

Yes, very strange indeed. But your belief structure is nothing I have ever seen before, it is strange to me.
And I didn't understand your reply at all. When you speak with other on here, like Vaj, you dismiss the text they study as 'dead' and that you, as I understand it, only value experience. I understand that this is not the case, but I don't understand how it is not. So, how do you value texts and why do you consider some 'dead'?

You must understand ACOT, you seem like a sweet person, but this is a contextual logic, and the context is hubris. Very often when a person has an oceanic experience they feel as if they have reached the top. They become delusional.
This is why you may have heard it said that "...if you meet the Buddha on the street, kill him"
In other words, experience is not reality, it is not the great enlightenment and if you get lost in thinking it is, you fool no one but yourself.
People chase after experience all the time, thinking this is the ultimate. It isn't. Experience comes and goes, it is phenomena and as such belongs in the realm of dualistic existence.
You my dear are just as close to the Great Reality as anyone else.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Paladin, I'm with you. I'm trying to understand his logic in his context if I can. I agree with little of what Lunitik says, but I'm still interested in understanding how it all works for him. I'm not going so far as to call Lunitik mad, or all I know he is the messiah, but his mind is like no other I have explored and it is quite fascinating.

Lunitik, I hope you aren't offended by what I write, I don't know you and can't judge you, I'm only interested in your thoughts (you can call it what you will, you understand what I mean).

 

[SoulFood]

This is fundamentally flawed, Christ didn't even define what makes you Christian, he was not Christian himself - he was a Jew.

This is some crazy stuff!

How can he not be Christain? He introduced Christianity; He was the Christ!

 

[radarmark]

When Jesus was born, he was born into a Jewish family in a Jewish state. Nowhere in the NT or the apocryptha (books not included in the canon) does he say "I am founding a new religion, Christianity".

That is the assumption I and (I believe) most of the other shere are making.

So hold on tight if you have never thought of things this way before, an welcome aboard!

Pax et amor vincunt omnia--radarmark

 

[luecy7]

I really like seeing how you see things.

So then, how do I see things?

I was really hoping you knew.

You claimed to have seen how I see things, even claiming that you like it. Is that merely from what I have written? Do you deny it?

In other words, experience is not reality, it is not the great enlightenment and if you get lost in thinking it is, you fool no one but yourself.

When you claimed to be enlightened, was it from something that you read? Something you imagined? Real experience? Since you say that your experience is not reality, have you been telling us fibs?

 

[Lunitik]

This is some crazy stuff!

How can he not be Christain? He introduced Christianity; He was the Christ!

No, Jesus taught spirituality to Jews, he thought of himself as a Jew. Jesus never knew what Christianity was, it has come to be out of disputation with the Jews after his death.

 

[Lunitik]

Yes, very strange indeed. But your belief structure is nothing I have ever seen before, it is strange to me.
And I didn't understand your reply at all. When you speak with other on here, like Vaj, you dismiss the text they study as 'dead' and that you, as I understand it, only value experience. I understand that this is not the case, but I don't understand how it is not. So, how do you value texts and why do you consider some 'dead'?

All texts are dead, but before you know you must utilize texts to understand - there is no other way unless you are lucky enough to find someone that already knows. Scriptures are accounts of historic enlightened people, you can gain from this but only to a certain point. The problem is that the text cannot correct you if you have understood something erroneously, they can completely support whatever you wish to see in them almost. If you go to a living master, he can ensure this does not occur, he can point you back towards the path instead of letting you cling to errors.

So texts are useful as a foundation to understanding, but without experience you cannot fully comprehend what exactly is being pointed at. If you do not understand, you will worship the person that has escaped your comprehension because saying they are special avoids admitting your own lack of capacity. They are normal men, but faiths over emphasize them for this reason. Experience knows that we can have a society of Jesus', Krishna's, Buddha's, etc, but faith says we are imperfect and pale in comparison. Through worshiping someone that is not so different, it has limited humans for a long time, for me this is disgusting.

 

[Lunitik]

Paladin, I'm with you. I'm trying to understand his logic in his context if I can. I agree with little of what Lunitik says, but I'm still interested in understanding how it all works for him. I'm not going so far as to call Lunitik mad, or all I know he is the messiah, but his mind is like no other I have explored and it is quite fascinating.

Lunitik, I hope you aren't offended by what I write, I don't know you and can't judge you, I'm only interested in your thoughts (you can call it what you will, you understand what I mean).

I am not so prideful to be offended, it is better to speak plainly and offend than beat around the bush, creating confusion to avoid it.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Lunitik,
ok, so texts aren't useless and technically you could absorb the wisdom in it's perfection even though it isn't likely because of the imperfection of language, correct?

I am not so prideful to be offended, it is better to speak plainly and offend than beat around the bush, creating confusion to avoid it.

I agree that being straight as it's place, I believe that I can be with you and try to be, but I always want to make sure that the other person is not offended. (There is a difference between being offensive to offend and to be clear)

Experience knows that we can have a society of Jesus', Krishna's, Buddha's, etc, but faith says we are imperfect and pale in comparison.

Also, since the topic is what it is, you seem to define faith differently than me. For me it is the force that move us from within. Now I have never experienced this so I it is more of an abstract concept for me.
But how do you define it?