earl,
Merry Meet ... and Greetings of the New Year!
In terms of my personal theology, there's much in Theosophy I could agree with. I just didn't like how many "facts" they made up
.
This caught my eye. What do you mean by ""facts" they made up?" Could you be more specific, and/or give some examples?
juantoo3 said:
I would say that boundary is approximately the line between orthodox and liberal, over whether or not Jesus is a manifestation of G-d (either he is G-d personified or somehow an extension of G-d)
Not quite sure where I fall in terms of the question posed by this thread either, juantoo3, earl,
et al. I think in the most general terms, if we can at least get past semantics, then I might be a Christian in the more orthodox sense. {Christ is the expression, or embodiment, of the 2nd Aspect of Godhead.}
But to quibble for just a second, I know my history, and the term
`christos,' from
`mashiah' or `
moshiach,' was actually a title - conferred upon Jesus of Nazareth. It can be found extant in the Greek Mystery Traditions long before Jesus came to us, as well as in the Hebrew prophetic tradition. Yet it is also a feature of perhaps every world religious tradition: the expectation of a Saviour or Avatar. How is the Christian tradition anything new, or unique, against this backdrop?
Along these lines, I'm more inclined to say that Jesus of Nazareth was a(n) "exceptional teacher," since ANY person who so manifests the 2nd Aspect of Godhead/Godhood would surely fit this description. In this same category I would agree with those who include Krishna, the Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster and perhaps even a long string of historical figures who brought God's Word to mankind. The differences I see are in terms of
`times & climes,' not so much in quality or importance of the message. After all, One God, One Truth, not - "whatever we FEEL like acknowledging at the moment" (as juantoo3 says, life's not always roses and rainbows!).
juantoo3 said:
All of the faults and frailties exhibited in Christianity seem to be equally on display, if one bothers to take a look, in every other major faith.
I would have to disagree with this statement (but please, do offer up some of your own observations in defence).
Buddhists, for example, have an overwhelmingly peaceful history, and have certainly not waged "holy" wars, or entire Crusades, against the "infidel." Islam, on the other hand, does seem to display on a fairly large scale the same proclivity to violence as does Christianity ... but only if the concept of
jihad is interpreted narrowly, jealously and zealously. Even if we do not allow for the difference of 14 centuries, it is clear that the great Prophet did not intend what we are seeing today, any more than Christ expected or advocated the carnage and slaughter that have characterized Christianity.
Take Hinduism as another example of an important difference. Hindus do NOT, on the whole, have much difficulty incorporating other philosophies and ideologies into their rubric. They seldom rail on about how <Hinduism is the only true, RIGHT way to God> ... nor do they present ideas that are logically unpalatable as well as spiritually or morally impossible,
to wit: vicarious atonement, or the substitution of one man's life for an entire planet's long & sordid history of transgressions.
Modern Christianity DOES ask one to swallow such a strange notion whole, and I would have to say that in this, there is divergence from the otherwise thoroughly Mithraic principles and ideology from which the entire Christian religion has been patterned. Perhaps it was understandable that in fashioning the new religion the church fathers opportuned themselves to insert a few modern conveniences, but it is precisely such *inventions* which offend many a thinking person today.
China Cat and Paladin, you two don't seem too partial to these doctrines, but neither are any of us who can see what has transpired. Strip away the add-ons, and one is left with that "old-time religion" more in keeping with a Pete Seeger song of the same name ... than the Christian hymn. Then again, "It will take us all to Heaven," I suppose, is exactly what the Universalists are saying, and if this makes me a Liberal Christian, then I prefer that to a <reserved for the chosen few> mentality. But to be fair, juantoo3, you are right about that part of it. The idea that <God plays favorites> is not exclusive to (some portions of) Christianity. Unfortunately, it is found in other traditions as well.
juantoo3 said:
Our hands are bloody because nature -beautiful nature- requires it of us.
I suppose it's a bit off-topic, but for the record, there are quite a few vegetarians who are *living proof* that nature does NOT demand animal sacrifice of us any longer (if in fact, it ever did). And then of course, we shouldn't confuse the killing of animals for food with religious sacrifice anyway. This invokes two different meanings of the word altogether.
In the spiritual sense it means "to make Holy," and my understanding is that we have some sort of atonement being sought, thus the *offering up* of something that is dear to us ... openly and selflessly in the presence of the Divine. It is not, after all, as if God the Almighty is going to swoop down and tangibly take from us the animal, vegetable or incense which we have offered. Perhaps its *essence* on the other hand, IS what matters, and perhaps in a way we do not yet understand, the `soul' of the thing DOES reach (up toward) Highest Heaven. If this be so, then I find it a bit ironic that we would first deprive an animal of the life *which God gave it*, then presume to return this life essence (spirit, soul, etc.) TO God, as if WE had anything to do with it except the wherewithal to insert the dagger.
At best, we might be saying, "See, I can go without food for you, which I would willingly and blithely do," but this is all. Wouldn't the greater sacrifice be the yielding to a higher will than our own, as epitomized for us in Christ's very real *struggle* at Gethsemane, wherein even the Son of God (2nd Aspect) acknowledges and hands itself over to the Father (1st Aspect)? Who made the Sacrifice here, God or Christ? Either it was a very real and voluntary giving on Christ's part, or it is surely meaningless!
The Apostle says it well in John 15:13: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." And I would say, let us stick to this appeal to the Heart, rather than invoke magic and superstition to try and explain Christ's Love for us. There is at least, no cognitive dissonance thus far.
As the jury weighs in, I think we will be reminded to consider the words of the Bard of Avon:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."
--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
Remember, in context, Romeo has been asked by his lover to
reject the family name, *if that is what offends*, and to be "new baptiz'd" as Juliet's lover. These are
Shakespeare's words, not mine. Curious choice, n'est pas?
So,
Salam and
Shalom or ...
Pax Vobiscum,
~Zag
