Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
In your own words ..
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
How many agnostics/atheists have you seen changing their views? Normally they consider C.S.Lewis to be a lunatic.
You do not need a God for that.
Heaven! Buawaaah. We are going six feet deep or up in flames (or perhaps left for birds and animals).So, if you are a good person, as you seem very well to be, you are going to go to heaven, whether you like it or not! ...and that's my 'personal' opinion, so you can take it or leave it.
T
Tadashi
Guest
T
Tadashi
Guest
Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, Lee Strobel, George Bernard Shaw... and I don't consider C.S.Lewis lunatic.
Okay, that's your opinion and I have mine.
If you are gonna just mock my beliefs, I'm not gonna talk to you any more. Bye.
Tad
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
OK, since you do not like criticism, this will be my last post in the topic.
Francis Collins: Collins rejects intelligent design, and for this reason was not asked to participate in the 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
Alister McGrath: He states that he is not opposed to atheism itself, but rather the views of atheism held by people such as Dawkins.
George Bernard Shaw: In "The New Theology," he prepped his audience: "When you are asked, 'Where is God? Who is God?' stand up and say, 'I am God and here is God, not as yet completed, but still advancing towards completion, just in so much as I am working for the purpose of the universe, working for the good of the whole society and the whole world, instead of merely looking after my personal ends."' God "would provide himself with a perfectly fashioned and trustworthy instrument. And such an instrument would be nothing less than God himself."
That is more like Hindu 'Advaita' (non-dualist) philosophy which is not theism. I am an atheist 'advaitist' Hindu.
I do not think Lee Strobel is good enough to be included in this list. Bye.
Francis Collins: Collins rejects intelligent design, and for this reason was not asked to participate in the 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
Alister McGrath: He states that he is not opposed to atheism itself, but rather the views of atheism held by people such as Dawkins.
George Bernard Shaw: In "The New Theology," he prepped his audience: "When you are asked, 'Where is God? Who is God?' stand up and say, 'I am God and here is God, not as yet completed, but still advancing towards completion, just in so much as I am working for the purpose of the universe, working for the good of the whole society and the whole world, instead of merely looking after my personal ends."' God "would provide himself with a perfectly fashioned and trustworthy instrument. And such an instrument would be nothing less than God himself."
That is more like Hindu 'Advaita' (non-dualist) philosophy which is not theism. I am an atheist 'advaitist' Hindu.
I do not think Lee Strobel is good enough to be included in this list. Bye.
T
Tadashi
Guest
It's not your criticism that I can't stand, it's your rudeness.
Sayonara!
List of converts to Christianity from nontheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_nontheism
Well, yes and no. I could argue that my powers powers of reasoning led me away from the truth in the first place. I’d have done better to stay and dig deeper, rather than go looking elsewhere. That’s the received wisdom of the Traditions.
In my experience, few people exercise ‘reason’ as a discipline. They confuse ‘reason’ and ‘opinion’. And too often ‘reasoning’ is quite shallow, serving the ego’s agenda. They justify themselves by criticising me or other Christians rather than actually argue the point I am making. As if a ‘bad Catholic’ is proof of anything.
What I found in the Perennial Tradition was reasoned insight (with some notable reservations), and in René Guénon (Sufi) especially, a rigorous and penetrative intellect, if somewhat cold and critical. Frithjof Schuon’s (Sufi) writings are the more lyrical (but some of his assertions, with regard to Christianity, are very weakly founded) and I would encourage everyone to have a go at reading him. Marco Pallis (Tibetan Buddhist) I hold in high esteem, and I had the honour of seeing Martin Lings (Sufi) speak twice before he died.
What I found in the theology of the Church (in which metaphysics, theology and philosophy are all one) is a compelling exegesis of Scripture and faith. It’s reasoned, rational and logical.
There is a Church document called Fides et Ratio which begins:
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth... "
Reasoning oneself to God is only the start of the journey. Reasons are sensible consolations of the mind, but the journey in Faith takes one into the Mystery of the Divine, and in so doing carries one beyond the powers of the reasoning faculty. Reasoning then becomes secondary. As Anselm said, ‘theology is faith seeking understanding’.
The act of faith is necessarily a ‘step into the dark’, but the ego-oriented western mind needs to be convinced before it will believe. It needs ‘proof’, it needs to be ‘sold’. It’s a consumer mindset which is a tragic disability when it comes to the Way.
Really? Sometimes I envy their certitude. Some would say it’s common sense. Christianity is not a knowing, which is a natural gnosis, it’s a way of being, a supernatural gnosis. Faith is not in knowing but in being known.
St Bonaventure outlined the ascent of the soul into God in the following a series of steps:
1: On the steps of Ascension into God and on the sight of Him through His vestiges in the Universe.
2: On the Sight of God in His vestiges in this Sensible World.
3: On the Sight of God through His Image marked on Natural Powers.
(Here we’ve reached the limit of the physical faculty, including reasoning.)
4: On the Sight of God in His Image reformed by Gratuitous Gifts.
5: On the Sight of the Divine Unity through its Primary Name, which is Being.
6: On the Sight of the Most Blessed Trinity in His Name, which is The Good.
7: On the Mental and Mystical Excess, in which Rest is given to the Intellect, by an Affection Passing wholly into God through Excess.
(This last is the urgründ, or ‘ground of being’ in which all distinction – self and Other – disappears, according to Meister Eckhart. The Eastern traditions recognise it as the Void, or the real Tao, ‘that cannot be spoken’.)
It is for me. As C.S. Lewis said, He is either mad, bad, or the Son of God. The promise and hope of Christ can only be fulfilled in the Trinity. If Our Lord is not God, St Paul saw, then our faith is in vain.
That depends on how one views miracles.
The skeptic will say that miracles are impossible, moreover they are simply gratuitous displays of power, a trick to fool the mob, or the invention of the scribe to exalt his subject.
The common exoteric view of the miracle of the man born blind, is its just that. There was this man, he was born blind, but now he can see. Isn’t God wonderful?
The common esoteric view of the miracle is that is speaks of the opening of the inner eye; the man was spiritually blind, but has had his spiritual sight restored.
So the esoterist will claim that the miracles recounted in Scripture never actually happened ‘in real life’, they are literary devices, they are metaphors, using physical terms to describe spiritual concepts.
There is an ancient and, I think, universal concept: As above, so below.
This concept is realised, actualised, in Christianity in no uncertain terms. That’s the point of the miracles, they are not metaphors, they are the ‘above’ state or condition actualised in the ‘below’. So the man born blind was actually born physically blind. And his physical sight was restored. It’s not a gratuitous display of power, it’s not some strategem to convince the unbeliever, it’s a demonstration of what Our Lord is all about, what the Mission and the Message is all about.
Christianity is not a dualist religion, it’s not ‘body v soul’ despite the shallow interpretations of Scripture and the ever-present tendency of a profane Hellenic influence to render it that way. (This is why we disputed with the ‘gnosis so-called’ (cf 1 Timothy 6:20) of ‘the Gnostics’, gnosticism is utterly dualist and places an infinite number of impediments between the union of God and man.) It’s an holistic religion, in which its essence is realised ‘through and through’ or ‘all in all’.
Our Lord came in the flesh (Gk: sarx) to heal the rift between body (Gk: soma) and soul (Gk: pneuma). The body is the symbol of the union of sarx and pneuma, it’s a broken symbol, but it is the most incredible thing — higher than than angels — because in the body, essence and substance, spirit and matter, all dualities, all dichotomies are resolved.
This is what most people fail to see when they question the miracles. They cannot stretch their mind to encompass the enormity of what is being said, what is being portrayed, what is being lived out in front of them.
Our Lord’s mission and His message was actualised in concrete physicality; the metaphor is not enough, it has to be real, or it remains a concept without actuality. A theory. Such a Christianity is little more than romantic idealism. God just becomes the exemplar of everything we think of as ‘nice’. Christ is an extension of ourselves.
The man born blind was as blind physically as he was blind spiritually, that’s the point. And Christ healed that blindness, because it’s not a case of either/or, it’s ‘this and this’ ... the world is one, if something is the case in the higher realm, it is actualised in the lower.
The Way of Christ is not ‘the flight of the alone to the Alone’ of Plotinus; the body is not some temporary impediment we are stuck with, that the soul must abandon at the earliest possible opportunity; the world was not created by some ridiculous demi-god; nor is it the misbegotten and aborted foetus of some gnostic syzygic coupling.
The world is a theophany.
The body is the means by which we are ‘really’ and ‘actually’ present in the world. And Christ dealt with the real and actual, be it physical or spiritual.
So in the unfolding of the Revelation, it is right and proper (and for our sakes, necessary), that the Drama of man’s reconciliation is played out in real life, and not merely in abstract concepts.
The Life of Christ is the Sublime actualised in the mundane, the encounter with Christ is not something that happens in some abstract, aetherial realm, it’s not a myth, not a metaphor ... it’s real life, because God is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6), and “no man cometh to the Father, but by me” — which means we do not get to God by pursuing abstract concepts, but through concrete realities.
Note: Our Lord says no man gets to God but through me — now that can only be one of two things:
A blasphemy of monstrous proportion, or
Christ is God.
That’s it. There is no other possibility. You read John 14:6 and you either go for it, or walk away.
You can read his essay online.
Well, if you were paying me tutor’s fees
I might be inclined to take you to task, on the basis that might not our theories be just a means of relativising Scripture, a way of reducing it to make it more palatable? May I offer you this, from an essay by Jean Borella, a Catholic Perennialist?
This is where I take the modern pseudo-Christian apologist to task. Too many modern denominations are just so much ‘new wine in old bottles’, watered-down wine at that, they attempt to explain Christianity in terms of the world they know, rather than enter into the Mystery of the world as it is ... and miss the point that in Our Lord, the world has been transformed.
There’s a bloody awful film called ‘The Passion of the Christ’. It’s a load of rather masochistic and sentimental tosh. If there is anything I would extract from the film however, it’s one (fictitious) moment. Our Lord is carrying His cross to Golgotha, and He falls, and His mother rushes to His side. “See,” he says ironically, being the flayed and bloody wreck of a man He now is, “I make the world anew.”
Perhaps that line is not so ironic, after all.
You mentioned your critique of Christians who accept their faith without investigation. But really, it’s not necessary to interrogate God. Half the time, we see ‘as though through a glass, and darkly’, because we don’t want to see the light. It puts too much of an obligation on us, and modern egoic man hates obligation. And, like I said, modern man tends to think God owes him something, that his condition is all God's fault, not his own ...
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Tad, you said,
"…this earth is the school where all grades of souls learn together."
--> Yes. We have all types of people here, from highly spiritually evolved people to very unevolved people.
"…it makes sense to me that the harder the life, the closer to salvation (or satori)."
--> And don’t forget that some people have been working very hard for the last several lifetimes, and some have not worked hard at all for the last several lifetimes, so the gap continues to widen.
By the way, we must make it clear to the readers of this thread that the word satori is not the Japanese translation for the word salvation.
"I had always felt disturbed by how unfair life can be to some people."
--> Fortunately, reincarnation makes all of this fair.
"…those who enduring such hardship are actually superior souls taking a higher hurdle for their soul building."
--> Exactly.
"…the logic of Theosophy is very appealing to me. so I'm torn..."
--> You have to choose. Either you think Jesus takes away our sins, or you think that we must burn off all of the bad karma that we make. You cannot have both.
"I have to be careful which psychic I go to, don't I? I hear there are many 'fakes' out there... "
--> Yes. I have known some terrible psychics and I have known some excellent psychics. Yes, it is hard to tell which is which.
"Probably you were the only gaijin there? (btw, when I use the term 'gaijin' I never mean as a pejorative, but as a term of endearment. I just realized that some foreigners may feel it has a negative connotation... perhaps you prefer 'gaikoku-jin' instead?)"
--> The word gaijin is okay for me. I do not see it as a pejorative, although other foreigners do.
"What do Theosophists typically do at their meetings? Theological discussions like the Bible study?"
--> Yes, they are usually study sessions. We usually choose one book and study it a little each week. It can take over a year to finish a book in weekly study groups.
"Does Theosophy have something equivalent to the Bible?"
--> Yes. The best-known (and most difficult) Theosophical book is The Secret Doctrine:
The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky
"…so, you became a Theosophist at a young age... but you also left it once and tried other religions... Was it out of pure curiosity? because it seems you had no reason to leave it if you agreed with everything in Theosophy."
--> It may have been because Theosophy is so difficult to study and understand.
"... I'm still trying to figure out what 'anatta ([FONT=??,SimSun][FONT=??,SimSun]無我[/FONT][/FONT])' really means... I'm attracted to the notion of 'selflessness'. But I need to study more about Buddhism, before I can decide if it's for me or not..."
--> Anatta is the idea of no-self or no-mind. But it is also the idea of no-soul, I believe we have a soul, so I refused to call myself a Buddhist for many years.
The meaning of no-self is no ego, no pride, no selfishness. We have a lower self and a Higher Self. No-self really means destroying the lower self and becoming able to be conscious in our Higher Self. Nirvana literally means to extinguish ourselves, but it really means for us to extinguish only our lower self and keep our Higher Self.
"…I'm a bit interested in Baha'i too."
--> We have one member of this forum who is a very enthusiastic Baha’i, so he can help you with any questions you have.
"…But what did you find in it to be incompatible with your beliefs?"
--> It’s hard to explain. I was looking for ‘something’ but I didn’t find this ‘something’ in Baha’i.
"I kind of doubt if I can find a perfect religion that I agree with every doctrine it entails..."
--> I suggest you try. It may take you decades, but if you find it, it will be worth it.
"Why can't I learn from multiple religions and make my own path to my salvation..."
--> At this stage of your spiritual training, I think it is okay for you to pick and choose from several spiritual teachers. Eventually you will have to choose only one spiritual teacher. But for now, yes, go ahead and study several different spiritual teachers. For example, it’s okay for you to study both Jesus and Gandhi, even though Gandhi rejected the idea that Jesus was god. Another problem for you is that you believe some irreconcilable ideas. But as time goes on, you will eventually realize which ideas to keep and which ideas to discard.
"Hontouni iroiro arigatou-gozaimasu"
--> Ton de mo "no"!
"…this earth is the school where all grades of souls learn together."
--> Yes. We have all types of people here, from highly spiritually evolved people to very unevolved people.
"…it makes sense to me that the harder the life, the closer to salvation (or satori)."
--> And don’t forget that some people have been working very hard for the last several lifetimes, and some have not worked hard at all for the last several lifetimes, so the gap continues to widen.
By the way, we must make it clear to the readers of this thread that the word satori is not the Japanese translation for the word salvation.
"I had always felt disturbed by how unfair life can be to some people."
--> Fortunately, reincarnation makes all of this fair.
"…those who enduring such hardship are actually superior souls taking a higher hurdle for their soul building."
--> Exactly.
"…the logic of Theosophy is very appealing to me. so I'm torn..."
--> You have to choose. Either you think Jesus takes away our sins, or you think that we must burn off all of the bad karma that we make. You cannot have both.
"I have to be careful which psychic I go to, don't I? I hear there are many 'fakes' out there... "
--> Yes. I have known some terrible psychics and I have known some excellent psychics. Yes, it is hard to tell which is which.
"Probably you were the only gaijin there? (btw, when I use the term 'gaijin' I never mean as a pejorative, but as a term of endearment. I just realized that some foreigners may feel it has a negative connotation... perhaps you prefer 'gaikoku-jin' instead?)"
--> The word gaijin is okay for me. I do not see it as a pejorative, although other foreigners do.
"What do Theosophists typically do at their meetings? Theological discussions like the Bible study?"
--> Yes, they are usually study sessions. We usually choose one book and study it a little each week. It can take over a year to finish a book in weekly study groups.
"Does Theosophy have something equivalent to the Bible?"
--> Yes. The best-known (and most difficult) Theosophical book is The Secret Doctrine:
The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky
"…so, you became a Theosophist at a young age... but you also left it once and tried other religions... Was it out of pure curiosity? because it seems you had no reason to leave it if you agreed with everything in Theosophy."
--> It may have been because Theosophy is so difficult to study and understand.
"... I'm still trying to figure out what 'anatta ([FONT=??,SimSun][FONT=??,SimSun]無我[/FONT][/FONT])' really means... I'm attracted to the notion of 'selflessness'. But I need to study more about Buddhism, before I can decide if it's for me or not..."
--> Anatta is the idea of no-self or no-mind. But it is also the idea of no-soul, I believe we have a soul, so I refused to call myself a Buddhist for many years.
The meaning of no-self is no ego, no pride, no selfishness. We have a lower self and a Higher Self. No-self really means destroying the lower self and becoming able to be conscious in our Higher Self. Nirvana literally means to extinguish ourselves, but it really means for us to extinguish only our lower self and keep our Higher Self.
"…I'm a bit interested in Baha'i too."
--> We have one member of this forum who is a very enthusiastic Baha’i, so he can help you with any questions you have.
"…But what did you find in it to be incompatible with your beliefs?"
--> It’s hard to explain. I was looking for ‘something’ but I didn’t find this ‘something’ in Baha’i.
"I kind of doubt if I can find a perfect religion that I agree with every doctrine it entails..."
--> I suggest you try. It may take you decades, but if you find it, it will be worth it.
"Why can't I learn from multiple religions and make my own path to my salvation..."
--> At this stage of your spiritual training, I think it is okay for you to pick and choose from several spiritual teachers. Eventually you will have to choose only one spiritual teacher. But for now, yes, go ahead and study several different spiritual teachers. For example, it’s okay for you to study both Jesus and Gandhi, even though Gandhi rejected the idea that Jesus was god. Another problem for you is that you believe some irreconcilable ideas. But as time goes on, you will eventually realize which ideas to keep and which ideas to discard.
"Hontouni iroiro arigatou-gozaimasu"
--> Ton de mo "no"!
Hi Tad –
The Hebrew Scriptures tends to see everything that happens to Israel in history as the will of God. So all good comes from God, and all ill comes from God. Karma on a grand scale.
Personally, I think it's a dubious theology, and I would argue that Our Lord Himself refutes it (cf Luke 13:4).
It too easily sets up a punishment and reward mentality, and a false piety that makes a virtue of suffering.
I see God as willing some things, and allowing others. I think God wills the good, and nothing but the good. I think God allows evil as a necessity because without it, all our notions of freedom, autonomy, self-determination, indeed the notion of love ... become illusory.
(Going back to the miracle debate, God did not actualise evil, man did. If man simply obeyed the moral norms written in his conscience, there would be no evil in the world — that's what the story of Adam and Eve is trying to convey.)
God could remove all the evil from the world at a stroke, but He would thereby reduce us all to automata. That which defines us as 'human' would have to go also.
But W.C.L's theology is questionable. I would remind him of the statement attributed to Arnaud Amalric, a Cistercian abbot, when asked by a soldier at the siege of the Cathar stronghold at Béziers (1209AD) how he might distinguish between Christians and heretics:
"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt emus" the monk is supposed to have replied, 'Kill them all. For the Lord knows those that are His own.' A very dubious theology.
It's now generally accepted that the attribution is spurious. Although it has apparently been adopted by American Special Forces ... go figure ...
Yes, I found it a bit jaw-dropping, too.
The Hebrew Scriptures tends to see everything that happens to Israel in history as the will of God. So all good comes from God, and all ill comes from God. Karma on a grand scale.
Personally, I think it's a dubious theology, and I would argue that Our Lord Himself refutes it (cf Luke 13:4).
It too easily sets up a punishment and reward mentality, and a false piety that makes a virtue of suffering.
I see God as willing some things, and allowing others. I think God wills the good, and nothing but the good. I think God allows evil as a necessity because without it, all our notions of freedom, autonomy, self-determination, indeed the notion of love ... become illusory.
(Going back to the miracle debate, God did not actualise evil, man did. If man simply obeyed the moral norms written in his conscience, there would be no evil in the world — that's what the story of Adam and Eve is trying to convey.)
God could remove all the evil from the world at a stroke, but He would thereby reduce us all to automata. That which defines us as 'human' would have to go also.
But W.C.L's theology is questionable. I would remind him of the statement attributed to Arnaud Amalric, a Cistercian abbot, when asked by a soldier at the siege of the Cathar stronghold at Béziers (1209AD) how he might distinguish between Christians and heretics:
"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt emus" the monk is supposed to have replied, 'Kill them all. For the Lord knows those that are His own.' A very dubious theology.
It's now generally accepted that the attribution is spurious. Although it has apparently been adopted by American Special Forces ... go figure ...
Hi Tad —
There is an old saying we Catlicks have: There’s two kinds of people in the world: Catholics, and those who don’t know it yet. I have to say, I rather think Nick falls into the latter category.
I only bring this up, because it would appear that Nick seeks to consistently, deliberately and and knowingly distort Christian, and especially Catholic, doctrine in the furtherance of some private agenda. I find myself obliged, for the sake of truth, to correct these errors, but I don’t bother addressing Nick directly, as he ignores my requests to desist in maligning my religion, even though he used to make great complaint about those he perceived as maligning his.
(I rather think that anyone who feels the need to spread deceits about the faith of others is probably not well founded in their own. For someone who professes a belief in karma, I find this habit strange ... maybe he’ll come back as a Catholic in the next life, to make amends? Or maybe, deep down, he’s still a Catholic, but can’t bring himself to admit it — a well-document pathology. )
Anyway: here’s some of Naughty Nick’s Favourite Fallacies:
--> (The Bible did not originally teach that hell is forever.)
Not sure what version of what Bible is being referred to here ... none that I can ascertain.
--> I believe that even the Bible was re-written for political purposes, for example, the way the Bible was intentionally changed to now say that hell is eternal.
Theosophy seems to assume that where Scripture disagrees with its own dogmas, then the Scripture has obviously been 'altered'.
--> Many beliefs were lost in the process.
Ditto.
--> Please remember that it may take you decades to find the religion that really fits you.
Religion addresses man collectively, not individuals ... it addresses the flaws in our nature, not this man for having a big nose, or that one for having a short temper ... religion transcends the individual state.
If religion was supposed to fit man, then there would be a different Scripture for every man woman and child on the planet.
But really, the human race is one. Realising this today may indeed take decades of fannying about, though. The first impediment on the Way is the egoic self.
--> Theosophy is not a New Age religion. Theosophy started before the New Age movement started. The New Age movement evolved from Theosophy.
I'm not so sure of that.
As I see it, both evolved from The Romance Movement, but the New Age philosophies owe more to 60s counter-culture than to Theosophy.
The Romance Movement was a revolt against the (so-called) Enlightenment and the dehumanising effects of the Industrial Revolution. It gave rise to the philosophy of the Sublime, to the Gothic Novel (eg 'Frankenstein' and 'Dracula'), and led to the sentimental reinvention of all manner of things: faeries, Wicca, pagan traditions...
Coupled with an opening up of the East to trade and travel, an infatuation with Egypt, Persia, Tibet ... and, of course, the proliferation of ‘esoteric schools’ of which Theosophy and Anthroposophy are perhaps the more commercially marketed to the public.
Other more ‘secretive’ schools abounded all over Europe (especially France), along with a renewed interest in Freemasonry, Rosicucianism, The Golden Dawn, Thelema, etc., etc., and the emergence of ‘teachers’ from Russia, such as Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Blavatsky, etc., etc.
René Guénon, the ‘father of contemporary Perennialism’ was active during this time exposing charlatans of every ilk.
--> Pope Francis is wrong.
Speaks for itself.
--> The Old Testament's description of God is wrong.
Ditto.
--> The ‘burning’ is not a physical burning but an emotional unhappiness and emotional suffering. And it is not eternal, it is temporary, just like the Bible originally said.
So near ... and yet so far ...
I would speculate that when one passes through the veil, one leaves this illusory world. It is our belief that we do not enter yet another illusion, but rather see things as they are. This, in effect, is a kind of ‘enlightenment’ or ‘realisation’ and at the same time we form a 'judgement' of ourselves, according to the difference between what is, and what we assumed things to be.
This judgement is carried out under the winnowing gaze of God, it is a refining, mentioned many times in Scripture, and we might suppose that this realisation can be somewhat ‘painful’ as all our illusions are ‘burned’ away ... the fear is, if the illusory self is all there is, then ...
“We see now through a glass and darkly; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.” (1 Corinthians 13:12)
“We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2).
In this realisation, man is offered a choice: to accept the love of God, or reject it. Personally, I cannot see anyone choosing the latter, but then, who am I to say?
--> If you like the idea that God will save you (that you do not save yourself through your own effort), then you need to continue to be a Christian.
This is one of Nick’s favourite fallacies, something of a dogma with him, and although it's been demonstrated to be wrong, no amount of evidence will shift him from this opinion. As the saying goes; "There's none so blind as those who will not see."
--> The Pope is correct, but this idea is very much against traditional Catholic teaching.
Tosh.
--> He didn't. He doesn't need to. He won't. The Pope is fighting a huge battle against a very oppressive, huge political machine in the Vatican. I’m afraid he will eventually lose this battle. (Do you agree?)
Ah ... trying to get you on-side in his anti-Catholic campaign.
--> Do you believe in the Pope’s infallibility, like Catholicism teaches?
More tosh. It doesn’t teach that.
--> There is no need for heaven and nirvana to be the same place. Why should they be? But Christians think they are the same. But nirvana is NOT a Christian idea, and Christians do not believe in nirvana.
So they can hardly believe them to be the same, can they, when they believe one and not the other? This is where Nick trips himself up with his own flawed logic in his desire to misrepresent Christianity.
And Nick’s favourite fallacy:
--> Christianity teaches that Jesus forgives our sins (which means that Christianity teaches us we not responsible for our sins).
which he repeats again and again ...
--> Christianity teaches that Jesus forgives our sins (which means that Christianity teaches us we not responsible for our sins).
(I’ve just seen the two comments are word perfect. That mean’s it’s probably ingrained as a dogma!)
Stephen Fry, in offering a critique of The DaVinci Code referred to its author’s writings as “complete loose stool-water” and “arse gravy of the worst kind”. I’m afraid the same can be said regarding Nick’s pronouncements about Christian and especially Catholic doctrines.
Interestingly Fry, who is no friend of religion, once said: “I just loathe all those books about the Holy Grail and Masons and Catholic conspiracies and all that botty-dribble. I mean, there's so much more that’s interesting and exciting in art and in history. It plays to the worst and laziest in humanity, the desire to think the worst of the past and the desire to feel superior to it in some fatuous way.”
There is an old saying we Catlicks have: There’s two kinds of people in the world: Catholics, and those who don’t know it yet.
I have to say, I rather think Nick falls into the latter category.I only bring this up, because it would appear that Nick seeks to consistently, deliberately and and knowingly distort Christian, and especially Catholic, doctrine in the furtherance of some private agenda. I find myself obliged, for the sake of truth, to correct these errors, but I don’t bother addressing Nick directly, as he ignores my requests to desist in maligning my religion, even though he used to make great complaint about those he perceived as maligning his.
(I rather think that anyone who feels the need to spread deceits about the faith of others is probably not well founded in their own. For someone who professes a belief in karma, I find this habit strange ... maybe he’ll come back as a Catholic in the next life, to make amends?
Or maybe, deep down, he’s still a Catholic, but can’t bring himself to admit it — a well-document pathology. )Anyway: here’s some of Naughty Nick’s Favourite Fallacies:
--> (The Bible did not originally teach that hell is forever.)
Not sure what version of what Bible is being referred to here ... none that I can ascertain.
--> I believe that even the Bible was re-written for political purposes, for example, the way the Bible was intentionally changed to now say that hell is eternal.
Theosophy seems to assume that where Scripture disagrees with its own dogmas, then the Scripture has obviously been 'altered'.
--> Many beliefs were lost in the process.
Ditto.
--> Please remember that it may take you decades to find the religion that really fits you.
Religion addresses man collectively, not individuals ... it addresses the flaws in our nature, not this man for having a big nose, or that one for having a short temper ... religion transcends the individual state.
If religion was supposed to fit man, then there would be a different Scripture for every man woman and child on the planet.
But really, the human race is one. Realising this today may indeed take decades of fannying about, though. The first impediment on the Way is the egoic self.
--> Theosophy is not a New Age religion. Theosophy started before the New Age movement started. The New Age movement evolved from Theosophy.
I'm not so sure of that.
As I see it, both evolved from The Romance Movement, but the New Age philosophies owe more to 60s counter-culture than to Theosophy.
The Romance Movement was a revolt against the (so-called) Enlightenment and the dehumanising effects of the Industrial Revolution. It gave rise to the philosophy of the Sublime, to the Gothic Novel (eg 'Frankenstein' and 'Dracula'), and led to the sentimental reinvention of all manner of things: faeries, Wicca, pagan traditions...
Coupled with an opening up of the East to trade and travel, an infatuation with Egypt, Persia, Tibet ... and, of course, the proliferation of ‘esoteric schools’ of which Theosophy and Anthroposophy are perhaps the more commercially marketed to the public.
Other more ‘secretive’ schools abounded all over Europe (especially France), along with a renewed interest in Freemasonry, Rosicucianism, The Golden Dawn, Thelema, etc., etc., and the emergence of ‘teachers’ from Russia, such as Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Blavatsky, etc., etc.
René Guénon, the ‘father of contemporary Perennialism’ was active during this time exposing charlatans of every ilk.
--> Pope Francis is wrong.
Speaks for itself.
--> The Old Testament's description of God is wrong.
Ditto.
--> The ‘burning’ is not a physical burning but an emotional unhappiness and emotional suffering. And it is not eternal, it is temporary, just like the Bible originally said.
So near ... and yet so far ...
I would speculate that when one passes through the veil, one leaves this illusory world. It is our belief that we do not enter yet another illusion, but rather see things as they are. This, in effect, is a kind of ‘enlightenment’ or ‘realisation’ and at the same time we form a 'judgement' of ourselves, according to the difference between what is, and what we assumed things to be.
This judgement is carried out under the winnowing gaze of God, it is a refining, mentioned many times in Scripture, and we might suppose that this realisation can be somewhat ‘painful’ as all our illusions are ‘burned’ away ... the fear is, if the illusory self is all there is, then ...
“We see now through a glass and darkly; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.” (1 Corinthians 13:12)
“We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2).
In this realisation, man is offered a choice: to accept the love of God, or reject it. Personally, I cannot see anyone choosing the latter, but then, who am I to say?
--> If you like the idea that God will save you (that you do not save yourself through your own effort), then you need to continue to be a Christian.
This is one of Nick’s favourite fallacies, something of a dogma with him, and although it's been demonstrated to be wrong, no amount of evidence will shift him from this opinion. As the saying goes; "There's none so blind as those who will not see."
--> The Pope is correct, but this idea is very much against traditional Catholic teaching.
Tosh.
--> He didn't. He doesn't need to. He won't. The Pope is fighting a huge battle against a very oppressive, huge political machine in the Vatican. I’m afraid he will eventually lose this battle. (Do you agree?)
Ah ... trying to get you on-side in his anti-Catholic campaign.
--> Do you believe in the Pope’s infallibility, like Catholicism teaches?
More tosh. It doesn’t teach that.
--> There is no need for heaven and nirvana to be the same place. Why should they be? But Christians think they are the same. But nirvana is NOT a Christian idea, and Christians do not believe in nirvana.
So they can hardly believe them to be the same, can they, when they believe one and not the other? This is where Nick trips himself up with his own flawed logic in his desire to misrepresent Christianity.
And Nick’s favourite fallacy:
--> Christianity teaches that Jesus forgives our sins (which means that Christianity teaches us we not responsible for our sins).
which he repeats again and again ...
--> Christianity teaches that Jesus forgives our sins (which means that Christianity teaches us we not responsible for our sins).
(I’ve just seen the two comments are word perfect. That mean’s it’s probably ingrained as a dogma!)
Stephen Fry, in offering a critique of The DaVinci Code referred to its author’s writings as “complete loose stool-water” and “arse gravy of the worst kind”. I’m afraid the same can be said regarding Nick’s pronouncements about Christian and especially Catholic doctrines.
Interestingly Fry, who is no friend of religion, once said: “I just loathe all those books about the Holy Grail and Masons and Catholic conspiracies and all that botty-dribble. I mean, there's so much more that’s interesting and exciting in art and in history. It plays to the worst and laziest in humanity, the desire to think the worst of the past and the desire to feel superior to it in some fatuous way.”
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
Haha, Tadashi, now you have your work cut out for you. Try to decipher opinion from fact in that war of words if you can. I would advice keeping it simple, just listen to what they have to say about their own religion.
In the spirit of fairness, there is a wise man around here calling himself 'wil' that would advice you to 'cherry pick' what feels right about religion. I bring it up because neither, Nick, Thomas or I would speak favourable about SUCH BLASPHEMY! (j/k). Keep an eye out for him. 'Radarmark' our resident scientist (he claims to be one at least, the data hasn't been verified as of yet) could probably also give you an encouraging word on the subject, having a mixed background in this and that.
In the spirit of fairness, there is a wise man around here calling himself 'wil' that would advice you to 'cherry pick' what feels right about religion. I bring it up because neither, Nick, Thomas or I would speak favourable about SUCH BLASPHEMY! (j/k). Keep an eye out for him. 'Radarmark' our resident scientist (he claims to be one at least, the data hasn't been verified as of yet) could probably also give you an encouraging word on the subject, having a mixed background in this and that.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
Almost slipped my mind:
Yes, 'hard-lined agnostic', just coined the phrase, quite happy with it. There was one other agnostic here recently, very nice guy but couldn't cope with the harsh climate of this forum, but I didn't think he was agnostic ENOUGH! He in turn had a hard time understanding how I could have so few opinions and the virtue of not having them (these are my words, I'm doing my best to do him justice).
So, having a label brings a lot of baggage to the table. I don't care to be responsible for what people THINK I believe, or should believe, and assumptions tend to get in the way of discussion.
Makes perfect sense to me, and a loving thought in my book, thank you for that.
No, not bad at all, I'm just against labels at all. One person was once outraged when he heard I was an "agnostic" (you could feel the contempt from just reading the word typed by him), calling it worse the being an atheist! That being bad too apparently.
Yes, 'hard-lined agnostic', just coined the phrase, quite happy with it. There was one other agnostic here recently, very nice guy but couldn't cope with the harsh climate of this forum, but I didn't think he was agnostic ENOUGH! He in turn had a hard time understanding how I could have so few opinions and the virtue of not having them (these are my words, I'm doing my best to do him justice).
So, having a label brings a lot of baggage to the table. I don't care to be responsible for what people THINK I believe, or should believe, and assumptions tend to get in the way of discussion.
I'm very interested in society, and people. And religion is a very interesting facet of humanity, containing a rich and long history and culture with all that it brings. And you all talk about something I might never experience. Very interesting, indeed.
Makes perfect sense to me, and a loving thought in my book, thank you for that.
The agnontheistic panentheist christian quaker objects. And so does his buddhist renewal jewfi higherself. The giian druid anarchist ramthian could give a crap.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
I knew you were lurking!
T
Tadashi
Guest
Waaaaaa...... MORE HOME WORK!! I guess I asked for it...
Thank you, Thomas, Nick, for tutoring me! And I admire both of you for your strong conviction and dedication to your beliefs.
Guys, let me have some time to chew on the many things expressed in your posts and also to read materials you gave me... my mouth is pretty much FULL now... and my brain is starting to overheat... (I need a better brain!)
ACOT, you're right. This should challenge my ability/skill for processing new knowledge when various and often opposing views are presented.
(This thread is becoming more like an online correspondence course for my religious study than anything else... but I guess that's okay, it's my thread anyway...)
As a Pluralist, I tend to feel a bit saddened by scuffles among believers of different faiths, like a little boy crying, "Mommy, Daddy, please don't fight, we all love each other, right?"... but at the same time, I realize this is what strengthens our faiths. There's a Japanese term for this, it's sessa-takuma (切磋琢磨), loosely translated as 'indefatigable assiduity by friendly rivalry'.
God's probably watching amused, kicking back on a sofa eating popcorn, being pleased with how serious we are about Him. lol...
I too, like cherry-picking what feels right to my heart. But when I cherry pick, I'd like to think it's God guiding me to do so. I consider my conscience is the receptor of God's telepathic signals, so, in my understanding, following my conscience IS following God. I will not follow any dogmas (religious or otherwise) without the approval of my conscience. And if that makes me a blasphemer, then that's the way it goes. (But, a blasphemer according to who? Men or God?? Pharisees thought Jesus and his disciples were blasphemers, didn't they?)
Thanks for the tip. I'll look out for the wise words of those wise men you mentioned as well as the wise men of those with strong adherence to their traditional persuasions. The more diversity the better!
Tad
Thank you, Thomas, Nick, for tutoring me! And I admire both of you for your strong conviction and dedication to your beliefs.
Guys, let me have some time to chew on the many things expressed in your posts and also to read materials you gave me... my mouth is pretty much FULL now... and my brain is starting to overheat... (I need a better brain!)
ACOT, you're right. This should challenge my ability/skill for processing new knowledge when various and often opposing views are presented.
(This thread is becoming more like an online correspondence course for my religious study than anything else... but I guess that's okay, it's my thread anyway...)
As a Pluralist, I tend to feel a bit saddened by scuffles among believers of different faiths, like a little boy crying, "Mommy, Daddy, please don't fight, we all love each other, right?"... but at the same time, I realize this is what strengthens our faiths. There's a Japanese term for this, it's sessa-takuma (切磋琢磨), loosely translated as 'indefatigable assiduity by friendly rivalry'.
God's probably watching amused, kicking back on a sofa eating popcorn, being pleased with how serious we are about Him. lol...
I too, like cherry-picking what feels right to my heart. But when I cherry pick, I'd like to think it's God guiding me to do so. I consider my conscience is the receptor of God's telepathic signals, so, in my understanding, following my conscience IS following God. I will not follow any dogmas (religious or otherwise) without the approval of my conscience. And if that makes me a blasphemer, then that's the way it goes.
(But, a blasphemer according to who? Men or God?? Pharisees thought Jesus and his disciples were blasphemers, didn't they?) Thanks for the tip.
I'll look out for the wise words of those wise men you mentioned as well as the wise men of those with strong adherence to their traditional persuasions. The more diversity the better!Tad
T
Tadashi
Guest
Wil, sir, please jump in and start blaspheming any time you see fit
Tad
Tad
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
For those of you who are studying Chinese, here is 切磋琢磨 in Chinese pronunciation:
qiē cuō zhuó mó
qiē cuō zhuó mó
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
T
Tadashi
Guest
Aupmanyav,
I thought you said your last post was the last post in this thread.
And the topic of this thread is not about if one should convert to either which belief or to disbelief, I have no interest in converting people, as atheists can go to heaven if they are good
Tad
I thought you said your last post was the last post in this thread.
And the topic of this thread is not about if one should convert to either which belief or to disbelief, I have no interest in converting people, as atheists can go to heaven if they are good
Tad
T
Tadashi
Guest
Hi Nick,
(sorry, I don't have time to format quotes properly... so, I'm in black & you're in blue.)
--> And don’t forget that some people have been working very hard for the last several lifetimes, and some have not worked hard at all for the last several lifetimes, so the gap continues to widen.
Does 'working hard' mean, being selfless, putting others needs before yours, being charitable, trying to help others the best you can, like in Christian teachings? Or is it more like trying to subdue the worldly desires for money and material/physical pleasures like in Buddhism? (although I recognize their core teachings are not that different...)
-->By the way, we must make it clear to the readers of this thread that the word satori is not the Japanese translation for the word salvation.
You are right. The way I wrote was confusing. The English translation for 'satori' is enlightenment. I kind of had the preposition of them being the same (just different ways of naming it), just as I thought heaven and nirvana are the same. What are the differences between salvation and enlightenment? So, in the Theosophy teaching, do we need to achieve both?
--> You have to choose. Either you think Jesus takes away our sins, or you think that we must burn off all of the bad karma that we make. You cannot have both.
I'll work on that. But as you said, it may take decades before I can find the right religion for me. I should take time searching by thinking deliberately rather than hastily deciding it, just for deciding sake.
--> At this stage of your spiritual training, I think it is okay for you to pick and choose from several spiritual teachers. Eventually you will have to choose only one spiritual teacher. But for now, yes, go ahead and study several different spiritual teachers. For example, it’s okay for you to study both Jesus and Gandhi, even though Gandhi rejected the idea that Jesus was god. Another problem for you is that you believe some irreconcilable ideas. But as time goes on, you will eventually realize which ideas to keep and which ideas to discard.
Thank you for such great encouragement. I'll do my best in looking into various religions and see if they have the answers I'm looking for. And I'll start reading the The Secret Doctrine a little by little too.
Thank you so much for your great help, Nick!
Kokoro kara orei wo moushiagemasu
Tad
(sorry, I don't have time to format quotes properly... so, I'm in black & you're in blue.)
--> And don’t forget that some people have been working very hard for the last several lifetimes, and some have not worked hard at all for the last several lifetimes, so the gap continues to widen.
Does 'working hard' mean, being selfless, putting others needs before yours, being charitable, trying to help others the best you can, like in Christian teachings? Or is it more like trying to subdue the worldly desires for money and material/physical pleasures like in Buddhism? (although I recognize their core teachings are not that different...)
-->By the way, we must make it clear to the readers of this thread that the word satori is not the Japanese translation for the word salvation.
You are right. The way I wrote was confusing. The English translation for 'satori' is enlightenment. I kind of had the preposition of them being the same (just different ways of naming it), just as I thought heaven and nirvana are the same. What are the differences between salvation and enlightenment? So, in the Theosophy teaching, do we need to achieve both?
--> You have to choose. Either you think Jesus takes away our sins, or you think that we must burn off all of the bad karma that we make. You cannot have both.
I'll work on that. But as you said, it may take decades before I can find the right religion for me. I should take time searching by thinking deliberately rather than hastily deciding it, just for deciding sake.
--> At this stage of your spiritual training, I think it is okay for you to pick and choose from several spiritual teachers. Eventually you will have to choose only one spiritual teacher. But for now, yes, go ahead and study several different spiritual teachers. For example, it’s okay for you to study both Jesus and Gandhi, even though Gandhi rejected the idea that Jesus was god. Another problem for you is that you believe some irreconcilable ideas. But as time goes on, you will eventually realize which ideas to keep and which ideas to discard.
Thank you for such great encouragement. I'll do my best in looking into various religions and see if they have the answers I'm looking for. And I'll start reading the The Secret Doctrine a little by little too.
Thank you so much for your great help, Nick!
Kokoro kara orei wo moushiagemasu
Tad