Religions vs. religions

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, ili, and welcome to CR!

And doesn't it say in the Bible that each of us carry the seed of God in us, if that is true doesn't it follow that easch of us has the ability to be God-like?

Having read the KJV through, and several other versions as reference, I do not recall this anywhere. Would you mind quoting chapter and verse?

Therefore, if God/s is there to look after us, shouldn't we look after our fellow humans in the same way? Because if we don't do it, who will?

I like to hold the old adage, G-d helps those who help themselves. In that sense, you are correct.

 

[seattlegal]

Kindest Regards, ili, and welcome to CR!

And doesn't it say in the Bible that each of us carry the seed of God in us, if that is true doesn't it follow that easch of us has the ability to be God-like?

Having read the KJV through, and several other versions as reference, I do not recall this anywhere. Would you mind quoting chapter and verse?

The closest that comes to my mind is 1 John 3, specifically verse 9, but the chapter talks about distinguishing between those with the spirit of truth, and those with the spirit of error.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Seattlegal!

Love your posts, BTW!

The closest that comes to my mind is 1 John 3, specifically verse 9, but the chapter talks about distinguishing between those with the spirit of truth, and those with the spirit of error.

Yes, I see what you are saying there, but the comment I responded to stated "doesn't it follow that easch of us has the ability to be God-like?" I suppose in the sense that if we choose the "path of righteousness" we are much more "in tune" with what G-d has in mind for us. But even these folks, IMHO, are not able to "become as G-d." As for the rest of us, well, we need a little assistance from time to time to even remain in good graces. That is the purpose of Christ's sacrifice, at least to Christians.

 

[taijasi]

Yes, I see what you are saying there, but the comment I responded to stated "doesn't it follow that easch of us has the ability to be God-like?" I suppose in the sense that if we choose the "path of righteousness" we are much more "in tune" with what G-d has in mind for us. But even these folks, IMHO, are not able to "become as G-d." As for the rest of us, well, we need a little assistance from time to time to even remain in good graces. That is the purpose of Christ's sacrifice, at least to Christians.

So then ... what is the meaning and nature of Christ's injunction, where He Himself is but quoting existing Teaching, saying:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34)
[/FONT]​

and more poignantly:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
[/FONT]​

Why ... I bet we could wrangle something out of that if we shake it hard enough. In fact, anything you like!

What disturbs me, however, is that the Son of God would deceive us this way. You know, the proverbial carrot at the end of the stick trick. Sure, it'll get us closer to peace and happiness and harmony if we all strive to be righteous ... but since we can never attain or accomplish what The Master Himself has asked us to do, why should we bother? Just to make him happy? To prevent the incurring of so-called "divine wrath" (a fiction if ever there was one!)? Just why exactly is it again that we have been asked to be godlike, since we can never be God?

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, since personally I am happy with the approach suggested by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who believes in no Christian God, yet encourages and inspires us to follow the Golden Rule. Why would he advocate this, if not a Christian, and not coming from a strictly Christian perspective? Simply because it makes Good Sense! Why on earth would we actually want to go around killing each other and hurting each other, living only for ourselves while those around us suffer? The way we live intimately affects those around us, argue folks like HHDL - and the Mother Teresas, Ghandis, and Dr. MLK, Jr.s. If this is so, then we should treat each other well simply for practical, and even selfish reasons. Because we stand to gain (!) ... from treating our Brothers as Brothers!

It's incredibly practical, easy to understand, sensible and sound. But of course, it does require that we actually "give a sh*t," and sadly, many are just apathetic - or else derive a sick thrill from watching others suffer. The oil wells make all of this possible, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna give up my SUV that gets 3mpg, with its twelve color TV sets, deluxe leather sofa, and dedicated corresponding satellite. No, I don't care if you have to bomb twelve more godless heathen countries, I'm in the process of classifying them as terrorist, too ...

--So much for brotherhood in action. WHAT HAPPENED?

Religions, plural, enable us to fight over who is holier, who is more redeemed, who God "favors" (what a thoroughly disgusting concept), and how we shall all worship in the Brave New World that awaits us. Religion, singlular, can offer us hope from day to day, hope for the future, the incentive to live righteously in order to avoid practical consequences ... and best of all, religion can help us to live Responsibly, as we look to the various role-models Who have presented to us the Ideal throughout history.

There is a vast difference between these two forces - one is definitely pernicious, and is what Christians would call "of the devil." It leads to separativeness, greed, and a smug self-righteousness that is the antithesis of what the Founders intend. But the other, religion as it can and should be, in the perfect antidote to separtiveness, materialism, and a certain meaninglessness which would otherwise characterize all (human) life on this planet. And because of Religion (singular), philosophies such as Communism - which are otherwise positive in many regards - are at the same time a deadly poison ... to the human spirit. So when Chairman Mao told His Holiness the Dalai Lama that "religion is poison," he but projected the status of his own Communism, pure & simple.

Personally, the spiritual Ideal of Christhood - though a "fur piece down the road" from where I now know myself to stand ... is nevertheless probably the greatest inspiration which I could possibly have toward Right Living (Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path, summarily expressed). Now, just because it will take me many, many lives to reach Christhood, does not mean that I should shrug, let out a sigh, and go on about being a miserable louse. Those who have confused the `Wheel of Rebirth' for some kind of absurd system of infinite opportunity, with no consequences, no meaning, no purpose, and no modus operandi ... are like those who see the sun rise every day - and know Earth to be the center of Cosmos. How easy - to misconstrue, and so utterly fail to grasp the true nature of things.

If I have several lives, by the way - not to dawdle, but rather, to Master my own life and circumstances - then who's to say that Godhood/Godhead is not precisely why I'm here ... why we're all here? Jesus said so. But of course, that's not good enough for some people. They'll insist in one breath that if it's in their Holy Book, and if Jesus said it, then it's absolute, perfect, unalterable truth from the very mouth of God and the Lord strike me dead if there's any two ways about it! Oh, umm, but - umm, like, not this part right here ... cuz, ya see, THIS is what God meant here, because - well, you know, if you don't look at it this way, it - well, umm, you know - it just doesn't fit with everything else I've come to believe. So there!

Okay, okay, whatever floats your boat. But then we slip, headlong, back down that slope to "my religion" and "your religion" and pretty soon - we got 6 billion of 'em ... or even just six ... and often enough, no two can seem to get along. Wait, are we talking about religions here, or people? Hmmm.

'Nuff editorial ... I just thought I'd weigh in with the proverbial tuppence.

andrew

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, taijasi!

Thank you for your post!

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34)

Yes, I expected this to be quoted in support. And I am grateful you pasted it as it is written, "gods" in the lower case, not G-d in the upper case.

Simply consider the implications, rather than me making them for you.

Oh, umm, but - umm, like, not this part right here ... cuz, ya see, THIS is what God meant here, because - well, you know, if you don't look at it this way, it - well, umm, you know - it just doesn't fit with everything else I've come to believe. So there!

Of course, you do realize this sword cuts both ways?

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)

It is also written, let he among you who is perfect cast the first stone. I'm not perfect, are you? That doesn't stop me from trying the best I know how to be the best I can be. But I am only human, I am not "god." And I will never be "G-d," no matter how hard I try.

 

[Quahom1]

Kindest Regards, taijasi!

Thank you for your post!


Yes, I expected this to be quoted in support. And I am grateful you pasted it as it is written, "gods" in the lower case, not G-d in the upper case.

Simply consider the implications, rather than me making them for you.


Of course, you do realize this sword cuts both ways?

Oh, I can't let this go. When Adam was created, he was created in the image and likeness of God...hence a "god". That is what man was supposed to be in the beginning...

v/r

Q

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Q!

Oh, I can't let this go. When Adam was created, he was created in the image and likeness of God...hence a "god". That is what man was supposed to be in the beginning...

Indeed. Yet, how quickly Adam fell from that pedestal...and we have yet to regain it. That will certainly not come about by our own efforts alone.

 

[Quahom1]

Kindest Regards, Q!


Indeed. Yet, how quickly Adam fell from that pedestal...and we have yet to regain it. That will certainly not come about by our own efforts alone.

My point as well. We are not there yet...

 

[taijasi]

Kindest Regards, Q!


Indeed. Yet, how quickly Adam fell from that pedestal...and we have yet to regain it. That will certainly not come about by our own efforts alone.

ADAM KADMON - look it up here (WIKI! - for starters). And I definitely believe in Adam ...
Apples are so tasty. Gee, could it all be allegory?

As a side note, if esotericists regard some Logoi as "Imperfect Gods" (such as Mars, and Earth), relative to the Perfect ones (Vulcan, Venus, Saturn, etc.) ... then what does that make us? Gods in but embryo - and that is all that is asserted. The mistake, imho, of new agers is to express what is purely potential - as if it were already manifest. Wishful thinking, will not cook the rice. And Quahom just said as much ...

andrew

 

[Quahom1]

ADAM KADMON - look it up here (WIKI! - for starters). And I definitely believe in Adam ...

andrew

Sorry, the Biblical "Adam" means ruddy man, or reddish in skin color (as in red like the clay of the ground). You can check that in the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old testament.

v/r

q

 

[juantoo3]

Apples are so tasty. Gee, could it all be allegory?

<sarcasm>I just love it when non-Christians know my faith so much better than I, thanks.</sarcasm>

Over the course of several conversations there have been gross presumptions about what I believe. All Christians are so predictably alike! That is why we have so many disagreements among our various denominations, because we agree so well on everything.

Rather than spouting the words "I am not a literalist," I had thought I had made my view pretty well known by now. Alas, foolish me.

FWIW, a simple reading of the book of Genesis will reveal that Eve did not tempt Adam with an apple. The question for discerning minds, is what did Eve tempt Adam with? Of course, I am certain non-Christians with a bent towards usurping G-d know that one as well, but I suspect not nearly as well as they believe they do.

I did not enter this discussion to denigrate anybody else's beliefs. Neither will I sit idly by and let mine be denigrated. I made my point explicitly clear, Christ's sacrifice is for Christians. I do not expect anybody else besides Christians to agree, or observe. Neither will I allow anybody to take that promise away from me.

I think it is patently clear, that a universal religion cannot incorporate Christianity without doing away with that promise and all it entails. I think that point is made excruciatingly obvious by the last few posts. I realize you have your point of view, more power to ya! I do not expect you to adopt mine. Therein lies the difference between us, I tolerate you with respect, you cannot tolerate me because I pose a threat to you. Not that I really do, but you perceive me as a threat. You have created that reality in your own mind. Sad, really. But that is what happens when you believe you know better than another what their chosen path actually represents. I haven't walked a mile in your moccasins, so I cannot presume what it is you actually believe beyond what you have posted in this forum. It would be nice if you would not presume what it is I actually believe, especially when you are so way off base.

 

[Quahom1]

Eve was deceived. Adam was not...he deliberately chose Eve over God...and God knew he would...now the two would work together to meet God, through thick or thin, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health...get it?

Maybe not.

v/r

Q

 

[taijasi]

Sorry, the Biblical "Adam" means ruddy man, or reddish in skin color (as in red like the clay of the ground). You can check that in the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old testament.

Now that is amazing. I don't know about etymologies in this case ... but consider the following straight out of The Secret Doctrine, from the 10th Stanza of Dzyan:

"THE FIRST (Race)ON EVERY ZONE WAS MOON-COLOURED (yellow-white); THE SECOND, YELLOW, LIKE GOLD; THE THIRD, RED; THE FOURTH, BROWN, WHICH BECAME BLACK WITH SIN. THE FIRST SEVEN (human)SHOOTS WERE ALL OF ONE COMPLEXION IN THE BEGINNING. THE NEXT (seven, the sub-races) BEGAN MIXING THEIR COLOURS"
​

Now this describes, specifically, the development of the Atlantean race - and although by no means Humanity's First, this is the time period and stage of human development during which things began to go astray. During the previous (Lemurian) race, we might trace the origins of sin (or to an earlier world, even an earlier System, if we like) ... yet there is a general agreement that during Atlantis (and more specifically, during the 4th sub-race, as mentioned above), we screwed up "biggest."

Another specific reference to red can be found in an earlier Stanza, Stanza VIII, in describing the earlier "sin of the mindless," during Lemurian times (somewhere within the past 18 million years ago, and more likely something like 5):

AND THOSE WHICH HAD NO SPARK TOOK HUGE SHE-ANIMALS UNTO THEM. THEY BEGAT UPON THEM DUMB RACES. DUMB THEY WERE THEMSELVES. BUT THEIR TONGUES UNTIED. THE TONGUES OF THEIR PROGENY REMAINED STILL. MONSTERS THEY BRED. A RACE OF CROOKED, RED-HAIR-COVERED MONSTERS, GOING ON ALL FOURS. A DUMB RACE, TO KEEP THE SHAME UNTOLD.​

I quote from one of my own "Holy Bibles," because I believe it to be far, far more ancient than both the Torah and the New Testament, or even the Popol Vuh ... yet there are parallels. The second passage provided refers to that time when MAN existed prior to any of the supposed ancestors which modern science still hypothesizes. Indeed, this is the common ancestor referred to - though already an example of the Third Race of Humanity! That the anthropoid ape literally de-volved from us at this stage ("the sin of the mindless"), is exactly what esotericism suggests, which potentially reconciles evolution with creationism - and without bias toward/against either.

andrew

 

[Bandit]

<sarcasm>I just love it when non-Christians know my faith so much better than I, thanks.</sarcasm>

Over the course of several conversations there have been gross presumptions about what I believe. All Christians are so predictably alike! That is why we have so many disagreements among our various denominations, because we agree so well on everything.

Rather than spouting the words "I am not a literalist," I had thought I had made my view pretty well known by now. Alas, foolish me.

FWIW, a simple reading of the book of Genesis will reveal that Eve did not tempt Adam with an apple. The question for discerning minds, is what did Eve tempt Adam with? Of course, I am certain non-Christians with a bent towards usurping G-d know that one as well, but I suspect not nearly as well as they believe they do.

I did not enter this discussion to denigrate anybody else's beliefs. Neither will I sit idly by and let mine be denigrated. I made my point explicitly clear, Christ's sacrifice is for Christians. I do not expect anybody else besides Christians to agree, or observe. Neither will I allow anybody to take that promise away from me.

I think it is patently clear, that a universal religion cannot incorporate Christianity without doing away with that promise and all it entails. I think that point is made excruciatingly obvious by the last few posts. I realize you have your point of view, more power to ya! I do not expect you to adopt mine. Therein lies the difference between us, I tolerate you with respect, you cannot tolerate me because I pose a threat to you. Not that I really do, but you perceive me as a threat. You have created that reality in your own mind. Sad, really. But that is what happens when you believe you know better than another what their chosen path actually represents. I haven't walked a mile in your moccasins, so I cannot presume what it is you actually believe beyond what you have posted in this forum. It would be nice if you would not presume what it is I actually believe, especially when you are so way off base.

oh my goodness. i was busting my gutt when i was reading this. i am dying, my smiling face muscles actually hurt.
i choose harry potter, so you must choose harry potter.

 

[akbar]

Friends,
As you know that I believe that there is a God mentioned in holy books or not. I believe that there may not any religious God as no religious God may be taken as universal or omnipresent.
I also believe that humans are exposed to evil though basically having a good nature liked by the God and if they are not induced or taken over by the evil they are supreme beings. This inducement may be by any devil/devils or within themself which they are required to supress.

 

[seattlegal]

And I leave it to the eye of Wisdom (operative within the Heart) to discern and acknowledge that a World Religion cannot exist so long as the color green asserts itself to be better than all other colors - and to itself be the One White Light. Green, is but one of many wavelengths. Nor is orange the "one true sacred color" - all others being but poor imitations, and incomplete, on their own. No, juantoo3, orange is not white, either! And no matter how you insist, or how much you try to feel scapegoated, and play the victim (and that's the sad story, if you ask me, that one must cling so tenaciously to one's beliefs that none other can be admitted - as even possibly compatible) ... separated colors remain just that. White Light will never be obtained by simply straining away at one tiny portion of the spectrum.

When someone says that only certain wavelengths of whole range of the color "orange" {585-620 nm} are "valid", and the other wavelengths are "invalid," one is "blackening out" a large portion of that color. Black is not a true color, but is an absence of the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum. By declaring aspects of another's beliefs as invalid, is that not what you are doing, but removing the light? Doesn't orange have a valid point to complain when someone else attempts to blacken out certain wavelengths within that color range by declaring aspects of their belief are invalid, especially when those wavelengths are staying in their proper place within that color range?

 

[taijasi]

When someone says that only certain wavelengths of whole range of the color "orange" {585-620 nm} are "valid", and the other wavelengths are "invalid," one is "blackening out" a large portion of that color. Black is not a true color, but is an absence of the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum. By declaring aspects of another's beliefs as invalid, is that not what you are doing, but removing the light? Doesn't orange have a valid point to complain when someone else attempts to blacken out certain wavelengths within that color range by declaring aspects of their belief are invalid, especially when those wavelengths are staying in their proper place within that color range?

Let's not mince words, get technical, and make applesauce, seattlegal. Orange is orange is orange is orange. And so with every other color. Truth will never be arrived at by "blacking out" what does not suit, or does not fit. But this is not what I do, when I simply present a different interpretation ... and suggest that there are more than ONE, NARROW SET of wavelengths involved, in the color orange, for example. To be certain (assuming I look it up), the spectral range you provide is orange. And every bit as objectively, I hold that there is a truth to what Christ taught. Before you feel the need to rush valiantly to someone's defense, please at least allow juantoo3 the opportunity to address specific points of disagreement or dispute. And spare me a second face which will defend the notion that simply because one believes something, it is valid, true, etc. We have played that little game before, and you can't have it both ways. Either there is objectivity to this picture, or indeed, ORANGE is purely subjective, after all!

So which is it? Let ME rush to juantoo3's defense, instead, by sharing one of my favorite Voltaire mis-quotes (which still makes the point, regardless):

[SIZE=-1]"I may not agree with what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it!"
[/SIZE]​

Let us exercise a little distance from our cherished and sacred beliefs, if we are to discuss them rationally. If we cannot do the former, we should not pretend to do the latter.

And if we're going to speak of the various wavelengths of light and get technical, let's not forget infrared, ultraviolet, Gamma Rays, X-Rays, Cosmic Rays ... and spectra which are so far beyond our ken, that "Vision" really conveys nothing to us of what that kind of "Light" actually is! What can be said about the Religion(s) of the other planets of our own Solar System - far let alone those of planets circling other stars entirely? Oh, you don't believe in such (you might, I'm just being hypothetical)? Ah well, again, your right to believe. But what would it take? The UFO on the White House Lawn, and the familiar, "take us to your leader?" Hmmm, perhaps just an actual craft, or a piece of alien technology. And what did you say the nature of the CPU is again, which you're using to get these words out here in the ether? Hmmmm. Where did you say they come from? Hmmmm.

You see, we can believe any nonsense we like. While I find my wandering thoughts quite rational (in terms of what they imply, not necessarily their actual sequence, or literal expression) ... others will say, "LGMs!" - and simply shake their head and sigh. I have to laugh with them. Certainly some things sound crazy, and truth is stranger than fiction .... (so we laugh, and get a rise out of the seemingly absurd).

Please, before we start rattling sabers, cages, teeth and wits, do tell me which "wavelengths" I'm seeking to "black out," as either you - or juantoo3 - see it. If you could provide a simple list or enumeration, I would be happy to show that in each case, the belief, thought, or idea in question is surely open to several possible interpretations. Or, where the meaning seems apparent, then just pretend for a moment that I haven't heard of Xianity - give me the benefit of the doubt (that I desire to learn, in this case, where there are different viewpoints), and explain. But for God's sake - or even just mine - please don't just jump on this familiar bandwagon, without being willing to talk turkey.

Let us not hide behind religions, belief systems, philosophies, or even individual ideas. I embrace the opportunity to "make myself very, very small" and enter some particular thread of discussion. But maybe we could focus on a key thought or two (?) ... if we aren't going to return to the actual thread topic.

Respectfully,

andrew

 

[seattlegal]

Stop assuming that everything's being directed at you, personally.

Before you feel the need to rush valiantly to someone's defense, please at least allow juantoo3 the opportunity to address specific points of disagreement or dispute.

So which is it? Personal or general? Particle or wave?

We have played that little game before, and you can't have it both ways.

Indeed! {see above}

Please, before we start rattling sabers, cages, teeth and wits, do tell me which "wavelengths" I'm seeking to "black out," as either you - or juantoo3 - see it. If you could provide a simple list or enumeration, I would be happy to show that in each case, the belief, thought, or idea in question is surely open to several possible interpretations.

{pointing to top of page}

 

[taijasi]

So which is it? Personal or general? Particle or wave?

Well that's precisely it ... and your (implied) point is a valid one. We adopt beliefs, and these begin to form a part of our "faith" (where this word signifies understanding, and applies to any & all religions).

I almost posted a follow-up, and so will take this opportunity to go ahead an state, in juantoo3's absence, that - whether it be him, yourself, or another - if the preference is simply to not play ball ... I can and will, understand and respect that. There can either be the agreement to disagree, or it could be said, plain & simply, "I do not feel comfortable discussing this further." That's all that need be said, and I'm happy to drop it. And if that's what juantoo3 was saying, then I would like to know, so as not to press my points with him any further.

But now, here, we see ... the wavelike nature of the discussion comes into play. Did Xianity (I abbreviate solely to save keystrokes) exist prior to juantoo3, seattlegal, taijasi, et al here at CR? Most certainly. Will it probably exist long after we're dead and gone? Oh I dare say. And frankly, is it dependent upon any of us, or even upon all of CR, as a whole, for either its continued existence or its well-being? Well, certainly not, in the former case, but arguably (and I could make a good case for it), much of what happens here probably does amount to more than just a casual ripple - or say, an effect of the most minor nature - when it comes to Xianity, or Buddhism, or Baha'i, or any other of the religions/belief systems we're discussing. It's requires us to stop and think - if even a small pebble tossed into the centre of a lake ten miles wide, will have its inevitable effects upon the farthest shores, all around (to say nothing of the river bottom, or of the ethers of space!) ... then what about the meteorite, which plummets to earth and makes a rather noticeable splash! Certainly its effects will also be sensed, but science tells us - these effects are Greater!

Well that's a very limited metaphor, and I think the splash here is one that the world could not have too much of, for the most part ... in the present day & age. But to return to the answer to your question -> we choose which beliefs and ideas to adopt, even if we find that they have become somewhat rather intimately wound up, woven, or entangled (however we prefer to see it) with our feelings, worldview, and our very identity. But this is why a basic philosophy class (at the college level) is a good idea for anyone otherwise brave enough to discuss religion at a forum such as this. The substitute, can either be trial & error, or learning through observation - or then again the application of the same skills & approach as one might gain in an Intro to Philosophy course, as have been gained in any of countless other venues.

I don't want to patronize anyone, and babble on about "thin skin," especially since this is something that applies to us all, at least from time to time. S/he who denies having feelings, is but hiding them. And I find it all too easy to become offended, on occasion, but when the very topic under discussion is the role and relationship between religion (in the singular) as compared and contrasted with religions (in the plural), I hardly think that it makes sense to take offense from those who simply believe (and for good reason, which viewpoint can be supported by much evidence, of many different types) - that Unity is preferable to conflict, and must one day triumph over the present still-chaotic, often-violent religious climate in today's world.

Yes, the warring members of what is in essence (integrally, fundamentally, and by nature) One Body ... must cease to fight amongst themselves. Yet, no limited vision or version of God, and of that nature & significance of unbounded LIFE Itself - may be foisted upon another, with some arbitrary (or chosen) figurehead being substituted - for REALITY.

And yes, I will invoke the "R" word here, as a last resort, and in silent recognition - of the CHAOS - which does, still, prevail ... and which is but the outer reflection of a Divine PRINCIPLE ... and thus by being sufficiently vague, I will be content, at this juncture, to say nothing at all - rather than going on about Universal Truth, or one's Highest Ideal(s). But I do think it fitting to invoke a portion of a parable I posted onto another thread, as one small section of it is especially relevant here. Christ speaks thus:

Basic, spiritual Truths did I reveal to man for his right guidance, so that security and peace should be his on earth; ay, more than that, for, because of my love for him, I wished him to have Life and have it more abundantly, as I did say erewhile; meaning thereby that One Life which is Pure Being, Intelligence and Bliss – and is ultimately for all.
But, alas for my Mission, and, alas, for my burning hopes. And, alas, for the nations, who, although professing to love me, have sought not to keep my commandments, and so brought about their own undoing.
Belief in me yet disbelief in my precepts! – a strange and paradoxical belief is that indeed.
And so, my son, because men have misunderstood me and the purport of my Mission, do I seek, in these times of danger and crises and tribulations, to bring back many things to remembrance …​

That the fair voice of this Master, and many others, would again fill the air - and as before, dispel doubt, end confusion, and bring to us again the sweet balm of harmonious, fraternal Understanding ... is my sincerest, most solemn wish.

In Love and Light,

Andreas Bar-abbâ

 

[seattlegal]

So which is it? Personal or general? Particle or wave?

Well that's precisely it ... and your (implied) point is a valid one. We adopt beliefs, and these begin to form a part of our "faith" (where this word signifies understanding, and applies to any & all religions).
<...>
But now, here, we see ... the wavelike nature of the discussion comes into play.

The wavelike nature, {the wavelength, specifically,} and not the particle, is what determines the color of the light, and the different colors have been specifically applied to religions {plural} in this thread. White light, {religion, singular}, by it's nature, consists of a combination of different wavelengths. Now, if the religion {singular}, or white light as it has been called, wishes to nullify one or more of the wavelengths that are part of it, how long can it remain white? How long before it becomes black, or the absence of any wavelength, due to the destruction and cancellation of the many different wavelengths that make up that white light? How is it that all of the different wavelengths can co-exist to produce this white light? Gee, might it be due to the Golden Rule that is found within so many of the different religions {plural}? By destroying those wavelengths, the white light destroys itself, and by invalidating the essential nature of of the various wavelengths, the white light invalidates itself. Isn't this the core message of the Golden Rule?

I don't want to patronize anyone, and babble on about "thin skin," especially since this is something that applies to us all, at least from time to time. S/he who denies having feelings, is but hiding them. And I find it all too easy to become offended, on occasion, but when the very topic under discussion is the role and relationship between religion (in the singular) as compared and contrasted with religions (in the plural), I hardly think that it makes sense to take offense from those who simply believe (and for good reason, which viewpoint can be supported by much evidence, of many different types) - that Unity is preferable to conflict, and must one day triumph over the present still-chaotic, often-violent religious climate in today's world.

I have been addressing that very topic,{of religions and religion} all along. My question still stands: Why go against the Golden Rule by trying to invalidate a specific wavelength, when all it will do is to turn the white light dark? Surely, what could be more violent than putting a beautiful banquet into the blender "for the sake of the one," and for creating "order out of chaos"? It destroys the banquet. Unity does not mean uniformity, and it is not what goes into your mouth that defiles you, but it is what comes out of your mouth that defiles you. Food for thought.