so stealin that
The Spiritual Path
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
so stealin that
Deists suppose God created the universe, and then walked away. Theists suppose God created the universe, and remains involved with His creation. The two positions cannot both be true — God is either involved, or He is not involved — as God is One, His will is one, His act is one.
I rather think you're projecting a human subjectivity onto God. Creating difference is a human activity, not a divine one.
No, that's a fallacy. My kids don't need the example of someone else to know that I love them.
Continuation of the above. I don't need to beat my kids to prove that I love them. Nor is not beating them a proof either.
Not according to Scripture. Read the text: "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death" (Genesis 2:17). Unless you're arguing that God means the opposite of what He says? If you can't believe God, who can you believe?
So it's His fault then?
I think you've missed the metaphysical symbolism of the tree, which signifies the vertical principle, and standing at the centre of the Garden (in effect, Creation), signifies the world axis. I also think you've missed the metaphysical meaning of man.
Why? Diversity in this context is just the degree of error. Understandably so, but not really necessary, nor useful.
You seem to be an adherent of Leibnitz? Or at least you're an optimist of the Pangloss school: "all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds" (Voltaire's Candide).
God bless.
Thomas
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
"Diversity in this context is just the degree of error."
What do you mean by that, Thomas?
Are you asserting that there is a single, glorious truth out there? The use of the phrase degree of error implies that. Truth in what sense, define it for me please (like I am a five-year old).
P.S. Kenneth, we need to create some panentheistic thread and go through all your logic, good job.
What do you mean by that, Thomas?
Are you asserting that there is a single, glorious truth out there? The use of the phrase degree of error implies that. Truth in what sense, define it for me please (like I am a five-year old).
P.S. Kenneth, we need to create some panentheistic thread and go through all your logic, good job.
We all can only suppose. Nothing else is possible. The truth remains a mystery.
Then our Hindu and Muslim brothers are created by? Then, Jesus would have not have allowed that to happen.
To know love at its best one needs to feel or at least have the knowledge of hatred. Your kids would have definitely seen or would have had the knowledge about hatred to know, understand and feel your love.
You may have not beat them, but to know your love more better they would seen or have heard about beating happening to somebody else.
In the Bagavat Gita at the end of his discource to Arjuna, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna to forget all that has been taught to him and tells him to decide on his own.
The bible also like the Bagavat Gita teaches free will. I believe in God and I try to interpret him in a more broader sense.
You are seeing it as fault. I am seeing it as experience.
I believe that there are only 2 religions - GOOD and BAD. As long we do our best to hurt none as far as possible and do or believe in whatever connected to us by GOD; we are GOOD.
The Church gives me the silence for a prayer with God.
The temple and my Hindu practices and way of life, makes me connect with the 5 forces of nature for healthier body and spirit.
The commitment of my Muslims friends to prayer and fasting impresses me.
I see the good in all religions and see God in everything and try to allow and accept all that is destined to me as from GOD.
This is my religion.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."
"All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness ... the important thing is they should be part of our daily lives."
~ the 14th Dalai Lama
There is but one Gospel; only the wise can see it in its many and varied forms. Only the virtuous will practice it daily, increase in Spirit and attain to Perfection. Thus, if we are wise and virtuous ..."All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness ... the important thing is they should be part of our daily lives."
~ the 14th Dalai Lama
IowaGuy
Hunter-Gatherer
- Messages
- 660
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
I didn't say YOU said that, JESUS HIMSELF said it. Unless you think he is misquoted in John 14:6? I don't think John 14:6 leaves much room for misinterpretation, do you?
I'm a "wide path" guy myself, and I know a lot of "wide path" folks like to say Jesus also fits into the wide path philosophy. But, when I read the New Testament, I don't see much evidence that Jesus actually believed that way. Hence, my earlier statement that, if Jesus was indeed enlightened (which seems to be the belief of many/most on this forum including myself), why would he argue a narrow path?
Can you please cite some scripture that you believes supports that notion that Jesus was actually a "wide path" sort of guy, and not the standard Christian version of "you can only get to heaven/god through Jesus"?
IowaGuy
Hunter-Gatherer
- Messages
- 660
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
Thomas, do you disagree with any of the Pope's positions? Do you think anyone who believes in the bible and considers themself a "true Christian" should therefore also fall in line 100% with the Pope and the official viewpoint of the Catholic Church?
D'you think so? No-one ever got very far with that attitude though, did they?
I think you underestimate the knowing of faith.
Depends on what you mean by 'mystery'. In the Christian Tradition, the mysteries are those transcendent truths that have been revealed to man, and is entirely sufficient for man's salvation/realisation/whatever ...
Oh, no, no no! What you're arguing is not love, but the material worth of love. You're reducing it to a commodity. If you can only value something by comparing it to other things, then you have no intrinsic sense of the meaning or value of the thing itself.
Nor can knowing something at its best only be attainable by knowing the worst. That's the argument of complacency, surely? "I never knew what I had until I lost it" does not mean it's necessary to lose things to know that you had them, it means you were complacent about what you had, which was probably why you lost it in the first place! If you were mindful, you would never have lost it.
I think love is fundamental to our nature. It can be conditioned and perverted by nurture, for good or ill, I agree. Look at the state we're in today. Love would seem to be all about self-gratification. But at core, we are creatures of love, made of love, made to love ...
So there's no point in reading the Bagavat Gita then? There's got to be more wisdom to it than that.
Hmm ... "Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" Matthew 7:13-14.
I think the 'broader sense' is, too often, a discrete way of self-serving, of reading the text to suit me.
If the Spiritual Path was easy, everyone would be on it. I think it's a narrow path. Yet God never set out to make life difficult.
I'm pointing out the fault, the fault from which everything else follows. If you don't understand the cause, you won't understand the effect.
Too vague for me, I'm afraid. Religion is from re-ligeo, to re-tie the cord that connects God and man. If it's bad, it's not religion.
Is that your doctrine? I always find the dogma of the self unreliable, we are so fallible after all. Are we each, individually, the arbiter of the GOOD? No, so for me that line of thinking doesn't stand up to examination.
OK. But it's what one does that counts. Many people see the diversity of religion as a reason not to do religion at all. Or think everything is religion. or religion is whatever they want it to be.
Well I don't see God in the evil that men do ...
God bless,
Thomas
Probably. I don't know them all. Some I think are utterly brilliant. Some I think ... are you sure?
Sometimes I think: At what point did Our Lord start walking round in Emperor's clothes? Then why are we? And if we're not modelling ourselves on Him, then who are we modelling ourselves on, and why?
No, patently not. But I do think, for all its fault, that no Church has as much to offer as the Roman Catholic Church.
Before anything else, the Early Christian Church was a Liturgical Church. One Mass, two sacraments, and that's about it. Today, how many self-designated Christian institutions are Liturgical? Sacramental?
I'm not 'knocking' such people, I just think a whole dimension of being has been lost. A sense of the Transcendent, and indeed, of the Immanent.
To me, as I have said so often, Christianity in its manifold forms today seems to be not much more than ethical humanism with a Jesus badge.
And yet much of the message of Scripture is just that. Be nice to your neighbour. How humanist can you get?
And yet there is a whole other message, about communing with God, about 'nuptial union' and 'filial adoption', and the means were given, and that's where the Liturgy comes in, that's what the Sacraments are all about ... and yet, I talk to Christians who haven't got the slightest idea of what I'm talking about.
But that speaks to me ... and the only place I can get the answers is the Catholic Church. My brothers and sisters in the Orthodox patriarchates, of course, but I find them a tad too snippy about lay people asking questions. You should only do theology if you are in orders, it seems. But then, after that, places to look rapidly run out.
If I have any complaint about the Roman Catholic Church (and I do), it is why so many see us, for so many valid reasons, as being the Church of God's condemnation, not the Church of God's Love?
God bless,
Thomas
Well the nuns just had their big meeting and it looks like they are holding the line against the papal hierarchy and the bishops... they are looking for discussion on contraceptives, homosexuality, women priests...and if discussion does not proceed, they've left the door wide open...
Times they are a changin!
Times they are a changin!
For me the Bible and other Holy Books are not the final word about the Character of GOD because it is based on interpretations by some men.
There are so many religions and that we all have to agree. This is reality. God is supreme and he is creating and sustaining all life.
God was in earth at different periods on earth and he is the cause of all the world religions through some chosen men. Why he did this remains a mystery. I feel that it is for Experience.
Just thoughts are not enough. Experiencing is paramount even for GOD. Desire, difference and Experience is Life.
So I base my wide path belief based on pure reality and logic. Many may differ but difference keeps Life rolling. If all us were the same just imagine.
Even this Forum will not be there. What will we discuss about when we all have the same thoughts?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Hsing Shing Ming
Those who do not live in the single tao fail in both activity and passivity, assertion and denial. To deny the reality of things is to miss their reality, to assert the emptiness of things is to miss their reality. The more you talk and think about it, the further astray you wander from the truth. Stop talking and thinking, and there is nothing you will not be able to know. To return to the root is to find the meaning, but to pursue appearances is to miss the source. At the moment of inner enlightenment there is a going beyond appearance and emptiness. The changes that appear to occur in the empty world, we call real only because of our ignorance. Do not search for the truth; only cease to cherish opinions.
Words! The tao is beyond language, for in it there is no yesterday, no tomorrow, no today.
~Hsing Shing Ming
OK. But what you are saying is your interpretation is superior to the interpretation of those who wrote the text.
I don't think so. I bet if all the religions in the world got together and signed an accord, that wouldn't make a jot of difference.
Better to agree with one and get on with it.
Who's experience? God has no need of experience. I think the mystery here is that, logically, you're thinking about God the wrong way. The need for experience suggests something new or other ... as God is not conditioned nor determined by time, space, or anything else, there is no 'need' in God, for experience, or anything else.
Frankly I think experience is over-rated. Mostly it's novelty. We'd be better off making more of less, than deadening our senses by cranking up the meter ...
No. You're assuming God is like you.
Each to his own ... but might I suggest that, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, your logic is flawed? And 'pure reality'? How pure do you want it? I would suggest it's beyond forms, beyond being ...
God bless,
Thomas
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Agreed
Again, I agree. Any good panentheist would say yes to this.
Again, from the Hsin Hsin Ming:
Emptiness here, Emptiness there, but the infinite universe stands always before your eyes. Infinitely large and infinitely small, no difference, for definitions have vanished and no boundaries are seen. So too with Being and non-Being. Don’t waste time in doubts and arguments that have nothing to do with this.
One thing, all things: move among and intermingle, without distinction. To live in this realization is to be without anxiety about non-perfection. To live in this faith is the road to non-duality, because the non-dual is one with the trusting mind.
Words! The tao is beyond language, for in it there is no yesterday, no tomorrow, no today.
{Maybe someday I'll understand it from the western perspective...going beyond Plato's world of forms as the so-called highest reality...}One thing, all things: move among and intermingle, without distinction. To live in this realization is to be without anxiety about non-perfection. To live in this faith is the road to non-duality, because the non-dual is one with the trusting mind.
Words! The tao is beyond language, for in it there is no yesterday, no tomorrow, no today.
Possible. In what way am I or my interpretations inferior to them.
I am only telling something as it is in this world created by God. There are differences all over and I am just saying that dont fix into anything just relax and see the good in all.
I am sorry, may be I was not clear. Actually I was tring to tell that we have to agree that many different religions are really present in this world. We have to acknowledge that it does exist. I did not mean to say that we all have to agree with all the religions.
You and most orthodox believers live in the earth thinking about Heaven focussing all actions towards that single goal not fully accepting all human experiences and differences.
God is in each one of us and we are all created by him. That is the root and the reality that GOD wants us to see with unattachment. God kept all other heavenly aspects a mystery. Because he wants us to focus more on earth and people and get the best out all that is good here on Earth as it is.
MARIE NICKERSON
PRAYER POET
In looking at this thread, i remember the quote, "welcome your brother (sister), but not to contention." when we get conceptual and so into pixels, etc. In the form of language, we tend to get into wars of words. We overvalue our heads and undervalue our hearts. So let's not all indulge in vain activities together.
Well said! Debate is good. When debate shifts to strong contention, it becomes vain activity.
When I read these words I feel that God is telling me to balance and value my heart more than my head.
N
Nephilim48
Guest
Religion is what the ruling classes dreamt up to control the rest of us and if you are prepared to be duped like that then fine. Spirituality on the other hand is within you and needs no religion to express itself
Dream
Well-Known Member
More like the ruling class tried to distort and abuse religion. They themselves tend to believe in earnest that they are special, because they get their way so often. They have comical 'Delusions of grandeur'. Normal people get these too, but ours are knocked out by our humble positions. Such delusion requires no religious catalyst to be present but is the psychological twin of being a dictator, or to me that is how it seems based upon the dictators and wealthy families of history. Religion on the other hand is communal, and the ruling classes find themselves having to cope with it. It is an annoyance to them.Nephilim48 said:
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
The two really go hand in hand. Sprituality (direct contact with the D!VINE) always within some context (religion in an inclusive sense). Is the contact of a shaman with the GREAT SP!RIT realoly so much different than the Liberal Quaker's contact with the HOLY SP!RIT. I believe the experiences to be identical, but the context (religion) a little different (depending on beliefs and upbringing and other experience).
This is not to say that Religion is religion. A Zoroastrian or a Bahai can be religious and spiritual, but that does not mean their Religion cannot be the product of "ruling class distortions".
This is not to say that Religion is religion. A Zoroastrian or a Bahai can be religious and spiritual, but that does not mean their Religion cannot be the product of "ruling class distortions".