Nor of time.
I see little point of continuing this discussion, so I shall withdraw.
Thomas
God or G-d
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
I see little point of continuing this discussion, so I shall withdraw.
Thomas
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
No matter, it is evident that the man Jesus was born long after Abraham, even 1000 years after Moses, and the prediction of his sacrifice. Still, knowing he must die on the cross, apparently knowing he will resurrect in 3 days, still he begs God to change what must happen. Seeing God has refused since he is now nailed to the cross, he howls "why have you forsaken me?" It seems to me that if Jesus was actually God he could have changed the events himself. Indeed he qualifies his initial plea with "not my will, but thy will be done". I would love to see how Christians qualify this in their trinity assertion.
Further, if Jesus had gotten his way, there would be no Christianity today. If Jesus doesn't die on the cross, there is no resurrection, and people wouldn't have converted out of pity. I have never understood why Judas is hated by Christians, he has caused the very event that defines the religion, perhaps you can explain this as well?
The Logos exists outside time, sure, but it was made flesh within time. This is why I separate the principle from the manifestation, the principle is common to all religions, Jesus is a particular teacher of this principle, but clinging to the finger causes us to miss where it is pointing.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
The teachers differ, the audience differs, yet all of them point at the same.
Why favor one over another? It only means your understanding is one sided, incomplete.
You cannot grasp the totality of truth when your perspective is so limited.
Why favor one over another? It only means your understanding is one sided, incomplete.
You cannot grasp the totality of truth when your perspective is so limited.
Oh, like we've never heard this before ...
Oh, like we've never heard this before ...
Oh, like we've never heard this before ...
Oh, like we've never heard this before ...
If I had a quid for everyone like you, who turns up here, who really hasn't got the first grasp of Christian doctrine, and then proceeds to try and tell me what's wrong with it ...
... so to put it bluntly — I'm bored of having to handle your ignorance and your opinions.
Thomas
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
I might not understand Catholic extra scriptures - which have little to do with Jesus, and often go directly against what the Bible says about him - but I know plenty about the Bible, and further the state Christ actually tried to present.
Funny. You'd think if that was the case, better minds than yours would have made that point a long time ago?
No, I doubt that you do ... but that matters not, the point is, you don't even begin to understand.
Thomas
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
See, that's just it, what Christ was conveying isn't attainable or knowable through the mind. I would suggest they were trying to explain something logically that cannot be confined to logic, for logic itself arises in what Jesus has pointed to. Ignoring totally your attempt to insult, it is the very attempt to know through the mind where they have shown their ignorance, what Jesus has shown is beyond mind, it is the source of mind, how can it be grasped by any mind? Indeed, most Christians agree on this, that God cannot be grasped by the mind. All devices are an attempt to cease mental activity so that what it exists within can be seen clearly. This is why I say no amount of scholarship can help, it creates a more hyper mind, it makes us less like children, it makes it impossible to 'be still and know' Truth.
I think here you are mistaking knowledge for knowing, you are mistaking information for insight, only a direct encounter leads to true understanding. Without your knowledge, dropping all your information, what remains? I think you are scared to find out because you know what you believe as truth isn't your experience. Did Jesus need scripture to know truth? Indeed on a few occasions he shows the flaws of scripture - for instance the hypocrisy of sinners condemning the woman guilty of adultery. He has something which makes all scripture irrelevant, he has love, although still he uses scripture to make his points, even if people disagree with his interpretation.
Love is Truth, it is God - the author and authority - it is what is conscious in us, it is everything we are conscious of, it is what causes us to recognize our presence, and the nature of the present. Divine Love is nothing but the experience there is no separation at all, existence itself is one, just as human love is the lack of separation between two people.
Love cannot be explained intellectually with any accuracy.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
I think you confuse Christianity for truth, where actually Christianity is just a particular attempt to express it.
As a finger pointed at the moon, you can't see what is pointed at because you are fixated on the finger.
As a lake, reflecting the moon, you take the particular reflection during a stormy night to be the real moon, clinging to each ripple unique to those conditions and analyzing them trying to understand the moon. The whole time, you have never simply looked up, perhaps never even understanding the reflection isn't the point.
Find what is reflected in him and reflect it yourself, this is his real purpose. It isn't to emulate or worship, although these serve as a convenient avoidance, denying you can reach so high permits your remaining so low. Your own expression will be utterly unique, for existence is too creative to repeat anything, simply trust what is within you - your heart, not your head. Take this as a criteria, whatsoever causes division is a call to understand ego, and know that if you cling, you will receive the lesson again.
As a finger pointed at the moon, you can't see what is pointed at because you are fixated on the finger.
As a lake, reflecting the moon, you take the particular reflection during a stormy night to be the real moon, clinging to each ripple unique to those conditions and analyzing them trying to understand the moon. The whole time, you have never simply looked up, perhaps never even understanding the reflection isn't the point.
Find what is reflected in him and reflect it yourself, this is his real purpose. It isn't to emulate or worship, although these serve as a convenient avoidance, denying you can reach so high permits your remaining so low. Your own expression will be utterly unique, for existence is too creative to repeat anything, simply trust what is within you - your heart, not your head. Take this as a criteria, whatsoever causes division is a call to understand ego, and know that if you cling, you will receive the lesson again.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
If you want to emulate Jesus and die for a thought, so be it, but I assure you you will not resurrect.
Personally, I am willing to die to cause a greater love in the world, but Jesus has only caused a greater schism, he has divided man, his attempt to show how to live as love has caused more hate that any other man to ever live. Many say Hitler was the most evil man to ever live, but Jesus has caused the deaths of many more, indeed Hitler used the Bible to justify his actions towards racial cleansing.
For these reasons, Christianity is a failure, love Jesus - as I do - but see Christianity for what it is.
It is evidence of the dangers of clinging, of believing blindly, and acting on the interpretations of the mind. True understanding goes far deeper than the mind, it is the recognition of love as being everything, but to defend an ignorant love is how hate spreads.
Personally, I am willing to die to cause a greater love in the world, but Jesus has only caused a greater schism, he has divided man, his attempt to show how to live as love has caused more hate that any other man to ever live. Many say Hitler was the most evil man to ever live, but Jesus has caused the deaths of many more, indeed Hitler used the Bible to justify his actions towards racial cleansing.
For these reasons, Christianity is a failure, love Jesus - as I do - but see Christianity for what it is.
It is evidence of the dangers of clinging, of believing blindly, and acting on the interpretations of the mind. True understanding goes far deeper than the mind, it is the recognition of love as being everything, but to defend an ignorant love is how hate spreads.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
Simply consider our current dispute.
It is only the difference between human love and divine love.
It is the difference between loving something and being love.
When love is targeted, it is the result of ignorance, you are making it dependent on something, true understanding causes us to see we are that, every action becomes an expression of love.
Even yelling in a place of worship and destroying others property.
Of course, due to his Jewish roots, it appears target ted, he appears to objectify God often, yet still he insists God is within, and in saying he and the father are one, he makes God the true subject. He only defends what he has found within himself, pure love. Acting as love, nothing can be questioned, and I love him for his attempt to share what he found.
My only problem is how insufficient that expression has proven, but I don't blame him, I understand the difficulty. So do your Church Fathers, apparently, thus their attempts to clarify, but those attempts are bias, they are intellectual, they do not know themselves what they speak. Christians accept the words, insisting they are spurred by the Holy Spirit, they are just believers though, they show no insight, just logic trying to explain the illogical.
It is only the difference between human love and divine love.
It is the difference between loving something and being love.
When love is targeted, it is the result of ignorance, you are making it dependent on something, true understanding causes us to see we are that, every action becomes an expression of love.
Even yelling in a place of worship and destroying others property.
Of course, due to his Jewish roots, it appears target ted, he appears to objectify God often, yet still he insists God is within, and in saying he and the father are one, he makes God the true subject. He only defends what he has found within himself, pure love. Acting as love, nothing can be questioned, and I love him for his attempt to share what he found.
My only problem is how insufficient that expression has proven, but I don't blame him, I understand the difficulty. So do your Church Fathers, apparently, thus their attempts to clarify, but those attempts are bias, they are intellectual, they do not know themselves what they speak. Christians accept the words, insisting they are spurred by the Holy Spirit, they are just believers though, they show no insight, just logic trying to explain the illogical.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
Whether enlightened or not, no one in this world would ever call love a logical phenomenon.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
I think it is acceptable to not understand everything. Perhaps we shouldn't comment on what a thing is and isn't when we don't understand it?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Ahh--the path to the padded cell with an I-love-me-jacket with arms that tie behind the back.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
Me and I are ideas, I speak of the one for whom they arise.
These are perhaps the most difficult thoughts to see, for they feel so intimate, yet I tell you they are the very prison, and all other thoughts rest on them. This also means they are the most effective to look into.
You are only that presence, why limit yourself to definitions, why not remain as just this openness.
A
AdvaitaZen
Guest
You are this moment, your form is only to produce a point of origin from which to observe and interact in a comprehensible way. Everything you see arises in you, even the seer.
This present presence is all there is.
This present presence is all there is.