Do you call yourself a Christian?

[wil]

...it was presented as factual...

Nary a theology can throw stones....isn't it all presented as factual?

 

[earl]

Nary a theology can throw stones....isn't it all presented as factual?

Good one Wil-since all of the major religions were oral histories-stories told around campfires Reminds me of aline heard long ago that when it came to the big existential questions one was better off having grand up-lifting stories or none at all. Forgot to list that Cutsinger site for those interested:
http://cutsinger.net/pdf/christianityperennialphilosophy.pdf

have a good one, earl

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Zagreus, and welcome to CR!

I must say, your arguments are very familiar. And I am curious why your post didn't show until now...either at home or at work?

Yikes! That sounds like Communism, or Marxism.

Perhaps, but it also sounds like Universalism and Theosophy.

But who defines "legitimate?" Doesn't this leave the door wide open for interpretation?

I don't understand how. If you read the post, and I figure you must have, then the definition of "legitimate" is spelled out rather clearly.

And what if, in looking, we find that there are parallels? What if, juantoo3, we find that there are such similarities in fact, that an underlying Truth begins to reveal itself?

Ah, but what if that "truth" is partial and incomplete? Which was, again, very clearly spelled out.

Why look at other religions for the "sake of understanding," if we have already decided, concluded, or otherwise assumed from the beginning that OUR view is "the correct one?" What's the point?

Tolerance.

Mind you I do not advocate the abandoning of one's own faith, one's own belief, or the tenets of one's own chosen path, simply because this stuff over here "smells rosier," as you seem to put it.(interesting, neither did I, why misleading?-jt3) But if a garden is filled with beautiful flowers, why is it that some people insist that only PEONIES are worth admiring? Or that in fact, it is the BEGONIAS which God favors? I find that notion patently absurd, and rather difficult to swallow as a thinking individual. Surely God created all flowers to be admired, some with a fragrant scent to be appreciated, and others with a beauty that surpasses their fragrance. Even a rose comes in many natural - as well as altered - varieties! Cute! That is not what I said at all, so I am really wondering what your motives really are. What I said, to borrow your metaphor, was to appreciate each and every flower for just what it is. No cross pollination, no weeding, no human interference *whatsoever*.

To say that the value of any one variety of flower in God's Most Beautiful Garden has been "reduced" to a common denominator, and "neutered," simply because our aesthetic, or olfactory senses have been expanded ... isn't this the more offensive notion? pointing this out to universalism *is* offensive, considering they are the ones that advocate the neutering of all to a common aesthetic pleasing to their unique, and incomplete view. To some of us, I assure you, it is. And yes, it takes manure to grow *each* variety of flower, but manure is manure. This crap over here under these flowers - is probably no better than that crap over there under those. some are better crap shovellers than others, it would seem...

Nevertheless, for those who prefer to keep to one corner and shower their attention upon the daisies, and their particular brand of fertilizer ... ah well, I guess as long as you don't eat them, no harm done. You mean like the universalists, right? Just don't despise the gardeners who must see to it that all the flowers receive attention, nor speak ill of the man who has chosen to "consider the lillies." (Or of him who know the wisdom of the rain dance! ) Indeed! Of course, I hardly count thieves and usurpers as "gardeners."

Either you are genuinely new here, and have not read my previous work...or you are deliberately convoluting what I said. I clarified for China Cat, at least he and I have a history. I fail to see how arguing at me with my own argument is productive, especially when it requires putting words into my mouth that were *never* said or implied or even thought of.

It seems the only problem with Universalism that I can find, after hearing the objections presented by its detractors of various faiths, is that the detractors don't get any special treatment or allowances made for THEIR version of God/Reality/etc.as long as universalism gets "its", by hook or crook, what does it matter, huh? If a person says, "I can see, feel, sense, touch, experience, embrace, honor and appreciate - even WORSHIP - the Goodness, Truth and Beauty which I find manifest in YOUR tradition, as in all other traditions I have encountered" ... this just isn't good enough.depends, is that person also trying to circumvent or override my path in the process? We insist, rather, that this person forsake what s/he has already experienced and found to be True (Beautiful and Good), and return to a smaller notion thereof, or one which s/he has already happily retired as no longer suitable for the job! this is but only one small insistence of universalism...out of many, many more! Nor is it that the smaller notion is any less valid, only that the Greater always includes the lesser.

Then either you misunderstand Universalism, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it. I find both to be quite commonplace positions.

As for "smorgasbord religion," I fail to see how one could take at all seriously the idea that anyone of even moderate intellect would simply open a textbook on world religions and go through the descriptions the way we go through a cafeteria line, picking and choosing. Or are we focusing here on the mentally deficient? As children we may have looked at the Sears catalog and checked off the several dozen toys we wanted Santa Claus to bring, but now that we have (hopefully) put away the things of childhood, surely we are ready to accept that Santa Claus was in fact, a fantasy!

I see there is something we both agree on then! So you *do* understand, a little, about why I find people who do this very thing spiritually and intellectually dishonest?

What I see, is the straw-manning of the entire GOOD NAME of comparative religion and religious Universalism, reduced to this absurd notion of smorgasbord or "cafeteria line" religion ... as if anyone actually approached Ecumenism in this way to begin with! One can point out, in quite a scholarly manner, that similarities exist across all major religions, yet then one is accused of being too detached, or intellectual, about something which is "of the heart" or spirit. Approach this more experientially, and critics will accuse us of being "too subjective," having bias, and failing to see the big picture. No matter how you slice it, there are just folks who have already decided that God is not a Universalist, and *nothing* you can say will convince them otherwise. N'est pas?

Speaking of strawmanning, since that seems to be the order of the day, this is not quite fully what I have said or implied. However, there is a certain...arrogance?...attached to those who "know" what is best for everyone else. "Just lay down your toys, little kiddies, and we will sort through them and hand you back the ones we approve of..." Bah! Universalism does not speak for me. I am *far* more tolerant than any universalist ever dreamed of being. I'm not out to change everybody to my view...as universalism is.

Yet they somehow fail to see the absurdity of this statement, even at face value! God plays favorites, and "we are it!"

Ah, pots and kettles, friend. Pots and kettles. Stated another way, motes and beams...

Someone please clear up this notion of pick and choose religion before I make a complete fool of myself. I am sure I must have misunderstood your meaning, juantoo3. You do believe in comparative religion, do you not? And if you answer in the affirmative, then tell me, IS it simply a scholarly, perhaps professional, yet largely intellectual excercise, or can/might it not be "of the heart," even "of the (One, True) Spirit?" - assuming you believe in such a thing

"Comparative" in no way equates with "condensed."

Can there be a difference? Or is the Universalist doomed to failure from the very outset, since it is S/HE who has begun with the mistaken premise, rather than ourselves?

Your words, not mine. Frankly, universalists begin from an errant (arrogant?) stance to begin with. Can I be friends with them, sure, I suppose, if they stop trying to convert me and everybody else or prove the error of our tolerant ways.

If G-d truly was a universalist, he would have made everybody the same. But He didn't... I fail to see why man should try to outdo G-d, place "him"self in G-d's place, claim to speak for G-d, and tell everybody to sign up or face the consequences. Ooops, that's just a little ahead of myself, universalism doesn't have that political mandate they are seeking, yet. Until then, the latest act is propaganda to obscure the reality behind the motivation (tell people how tolerant universalism is when it is remarkably intolerant). Oh yeah, and gloss over the fact that in order to compel every faith into a politicized union, they will of necessity have to surrender key elements of their culture and faith walk, regardless of how longstanding or effective / efficient it is as a moral guide for the respective populaces.

No sir, I advocate allowing each to be as G-d created them to be...unlike the universalist intolerance that demands all to acquiesce, and bow to *one* human leader. Boy oh boy, if that isn't prophetic fulfillment, I don't know what the hell is.

 

[juantoo3]

What I think interesting about the question on this board is that it doesn't matter what anyone's definition is but your own. It is not are you a Christian according to this, that or the other definition or sect or denomination or whatever...simply 'Do you call yourself a Christian' Totally your decision, your definition, between you and your Christ.

Namaste and Happy New Year Andrew and Bandit, wherever you are, hope all is well with you and yours.

Indeed! Bandit is greatly missed as well.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Wil!

Nary a theology can throw stones....isn't it all presented as factual?

True, yet nary a religion should *just stand there* and take stone after stone upside the head, either.

 

[taijasi]

Kindest Regards, Zagreus, and welcome to CR!

Thank you!

I must say, your arguments are very familiar. And I am curious why your post didn't show until now...either at home or at work?

Don't know. Sometimes I see that a post is going to be filtered? Moderator approved? Other times not. Same computer, I'm clueless. Apologies for the delay. It just happened again on another thread. Let's see what happens here ...

Perhaps, but it also sounds like Universalism and Theosophy.

Let us be clear, and include your original comment here:

There have been others who for the moment shall remain nameless, whose desires were to impose their vision on others, and that vision was pretty much the neutering of anything of value in any particular path.

If there are those of the Christian faith (I see how it's best to allow them to "remain nameless," as you put it), who insist that *thus'n'such is the only TRUE path, God, etc.*, and that all who "do not subscribe" are infidels, misguided, going to hell, etc. ... and especially if the very word `missionary' characterizes those who, essentially, seek to go about and "impose their vision on others," then how is this the least bit different than what *you* are talking about?

In fact, I think you have it backward. If the Theosophist or Universalist is saying that Christianity IS valid and legitimate *insofar as it goes*, but that additionally, *so is every other tradition* (which eschews the `smorgasbord' religious approach you are objecting to), then I fail to see how this "neuters anything of value in any particular path." What I DO see it doing, is helping to elevate ALL religious traditions out of the mire of human thinking, and contribute ever so slightly to restoring the clear light of Reason to an enterprise which - frankly speaking - is otherwise swift-approaching unredeemable-ness. The problem, to be clear, has been humanity's failure to follow the Spiritual example(s) set, and not the shortcoming of the Prophets (Teachers, Saviours, etc.)!



To sum up, I think you have confused the message that "All religious traditions hold a kernal of Truth" with the notion that one can make a religion OUT OF such a statement. Yes, it is possible to study comparative religion, even to become a Follower of the Perennial Tradition, as I think many here would claim as their Path. But I am reminded of a statement by the well-known scholar William James:

"If religion be a function by which either God's cause or man's cause is to be really advanced, then he who lives the life of it, however narrowly, is a better servant than he who merely knows about it, however much. Knowledge about life is one thing, effective occupation of a place in life with its dynamic currents passing through your being is another." (James 1961, 380)​

So even for the Perennialist, the Path is not about simply "collecting religions," let alone *pieces* of them which happen to suit his fancy. It is about LIVING what one has discovered, and this can work itself out a thousand ways, such that even no two given Perennialists (Theosophists, Gnostics, esotericists, mystics, etc.) are likely to agree on all points.

Tolerance.

As I see it, this can take two forms. One is decidely positive, in which we recognize that we do *not* have all the answers, and no matter how presumptuous another person (or representative(s) of another tradition) may seem to be, we still wish to learn more. Tolerance then becomes *part* of the reason we seek dialogue and interchange, but it is really only a stepping stone on the path to harmonious cooperation. We are here not simply to peacefully co-exist (religiously or spiritually speaking); we are also here to collaborate in a project that is larger than any of us, and perhaps even greater than all of us put together - how does the maxim go again?

Another form of tolerance is a begruding, "I don't like you, or believe you have anything to offer (me), but simply because it is necessary - and certainly not because *I* have anything to gain from it (spiritually) - I will seek to put up with you." This is a flawed approach from the outset. It is self-righteous and vain, and altogether misses the point. No one can properly dialogue while they believe they have all the answers, or think that it is only themselves who has a spiritual gift to offer.

I make no assumptions; I am simply pointing out that the word `tolerance' is vague, and often needs elaboration.

Either you are genuinely new here, and have not read my previous work...or you are deliberately convoluting what I said.

I do not know quite what you believe, nor am I well-versed with your posting history. Apologies if I have assumed anything at all. As above, my effort is to show that the Universalists (Theosophists, Perennialists, whoever else is under fire at the moment) are perhaps not quite as they are being represented. Indeed, I think we need further discussion to find out what's going on, and again, sorry for coming into things late, with delayed posts at that.

Then either you misunderstand Universalism, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it. I find both to be quite commonplace positions.

Explain for me what you think I have misunderstood.

Speaking of strawmanning, since that seems to be the order of the day, this is not quite fully what I have said or implied. However, there is a certain...arrogance?...attached to those who "know" what is best for everyone else. "Just lay down your toys, little kiddies, and we will sort through them and hand you back the ones we approve of..." Bah!

Yes, I quite agree!

Universalism does not speak for me. I am *far* more tolerant than any universalist ever dreamed of being. I'm not out to change everybody to my view...as universalism is.

But here I think we're on a different page. I was under the impression that Universalists advocate the practicing of *whatever* religious tradition is the most comfortable for you! Where do you get the idea that the above approach, which we agree is patently offensive, has *anything* to do with the Universalist idea that "all paths lead to God, Salvation, or Spiritual Fulfillment" (if followed to their logical conclusion)?

To be tolerant of a Universalist means that you can accept that another person *not only* may not want to follow your own particular, chosen spiritual path ... it also means that you are willing at least to *consider* that All paths may indeed lead to Rome, as the saying goes. You do not necessarily have to agree with this idea, but if you are interested in dialogue, then you must at least be willing to consider the arguments provided. You don't have to believe in reincarnation, or think that a pilgrimage to Mecca is necessary if at all possible. But as you can respect that others DO believe in these things, you must be willing to accept that for the Universalist, ALL of these paths are valid approaches to Godhood.

Let's talk more about the idea of whisking the spiritual rug out from under another person's feet, if this is what we really want to focus on. But please don't say that this is Universalism. I know that Wikipedia is an open-source project, and thus not ultimate truth, but if you will read the definitions of Universalism provided - *especially* the one on Christian Universalism - I think you will see what I'm saying. Webster gives a very succinct summary as the first defintion of this belief: "a theological doctrine that all human beings will eventually be saved." How does this de-neuter anyone's particular religious beliefs, unless these are exclusivist to begin with?

"Comparative" in no way equates with "condensed."

Huh?

Your words, not mine. Frankly, universalists begin from an errant (arrogant?) stance to begin with. Can I be friends with them, sure, I suppose, if they stop trying to convert me and everybody else or prove the error of our tolerant ways.

If the Universalist argues that ALL SOULS are destined for Salvation, or more generally that even all spiritual paths lead to Spiritual fulfillment, then what's there to convert one to?

I believe you've clarified this for me, however, now that I see your position. As I say above, your mind's already made up! Your words here, clearly stating your belief, is that "universalists begin from an errant stance," and you go on to use the word arrogant. But yet you speak of tolerance. Aren't you just as presumptuous, if you have already decided that "they're wrong," and - naturally - you're right? This sounds equally arrogant!

If G-d truly was a universalist, he would have made everybody the same. But He didn't...

Once again, this is yet another use of the word. Universalism as a religious tenet does not imply SAMEness in the sense you are suggesting. I'm am *not* trying to pick on you here, juantoo3. I just want to toss out the red herrings ...

I fail to see why man should try to outdo G-d, place "him"self in G-d's place, claim to speak for G-d, and tell everybody to sign up or face the consequences.

This sounds almost like animosity. But if you're invoking Judeo-Christian religious imagery (this IS a Christian forum, isn't it, on which we're exploring this topic), then I'm not sure I agree with your sentiment. I don't see God as someone vying against Humanity for any kind of Supremacy at all! I believe we are co-creators WITH God, and that we are here on Earth to learn to do on a smaller scale what God already knows how to do on a Grand one.

I have no problem with the idea that in time, we too shall learn to Create on a larger scale - even a Divine one. The only way this could supplant God's place, position, or power, is if such was exclusive to begin with, rather than inclusive - all-embracing. So again, it's back to a theological question of roles, and Humanity's evolving relationship with the Divine. Certainly it is not static, but a question that I think is worth asking is just what is meant by self-mastery.

Ooops, that's just a little ahead of myself, universalism doesn't have that political mandate they are seeking, yet. Until then, the latest act is propaganda to obscure the reality behind the motivation (tell people how tolerant universalism is when it is remarkably intolerant). Oh yeah, and gloss over the fact that in order to compel every faith into a politicized union, they will of necessity have to surrender key elements of their culture and faith walk, regardless of how longstanding or effective / efficient it is as a moral guide for the respective populaces.

No sir, I advocate allowing each to be as G-d created them to be...unlike the universalist intolerance that demands all to acquiesce, and bow to *one* human leader. Boy oh boy, if that isn't prophetic fulfillment, I don't know what the hell is.

Besides being very clearly intolerant, it is definitely a display of anger. I don't think you want to dialogue about it, do you?

Perhaps Jesus was on crack when he spoke the words as recorded in John 10:16. Then again, perhaps not. The scripture, like everything else human, is open to interpretation. And here I hear a message loud and clear: Christ, like God, is the ultimate Universalist. Neither the single note, nor one instrument, does not a symphony make. You can blow your horn, even burst your eardrums, but unless you're Gabriel or Miles Davis, it's best to let the Conductor take over.

Something about the leader of the band (having died) ... and sad as that song may be, I think He lives on, too. It is the part about imitation, and being a living legacy. Perennialist, Christian, or otherwise, this should be all that matters ... as best one understands it.

~Zag

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

My point in this discussion, and others like it, is that Christianity is nothing special without a Divine Messiah, there is nothing to distinguish it or set it apart from other religions. At no time since I have participated on this forum have I been seen to disparage any specific, legitimate path, although it is easy enough to see where I do take casual shots at "smorgasbord" and "melting pot" pseudo-religions. Another story for another day.

I find the "specific legitimate path" thing a little prickly, Juan. I'll leave that alone, though.

Before this conversation ends I want to say that I do understand your position. My main effort here was to try to explain my thinking on whether or not it's legitimate for me to take the label Christian. If it seems that I'm lacking a coherent postion, coming down on multiple sides of the issue, it's because I am. Like I said, it's a dilemma for me, and I don't have a clear answer or position. I do utilize a buffet approach to spirituality, but I'm neither a syncretist nor a true universalist, and the bulk of my ideas contain components of my own original thought, so it's not like I'm only borrowing stuff from various traditions and collaging it together.

If it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth I really wasn't, just trying to find some points in common in an attempt to explain what I'm thinking at the moment. Just thinking out loud really. I appreciate your input, I read what you wrote and I'm considering it carefully.

All the best to you and yours in the New Year.

Chris

 

[seattlegal]

I find the "specific legitimate path" thing a little prickly, Juan. I'll leave that alone, though.

Before this conversation ends I want to say that I do understand your position. My main effort here was to try to explain my thinking on whether or not it's legitimate for me to take the label Christian. If it seems that I'm lacking a coherent postion, coming down on multiple sides of the issue, it's because I am. Like I said, it's a dilemma for me, and I don't have a clear answer or position. I do utilize a buffet approach to spirituality, but I'm neither a syncretist nor a true universalist, and the bulk of my ideas contain components of my own original thought, so it's not like I'm only borrowing stuff from various traditions and collaging it together.

I would say The Path of Uncertainty can also be a legitimate path of discovery.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, China Cat!

Before this conversation ends I want to say that I do understand your position. My main effort here was to try to explain my thinking on whether or not it's legitimate for me to take the label Christian.

Labels are just labels, that is one lesson I learned from outside of Christianity. It is a longstanding discussion, whether the label is appropriate...and it seems to me after all the points of view were presented, that it really doesn't matter. Hypothetically, you can call yourself anything you want, and I am free to see things differently. People seem to create definitions as they go when it comes to religious labels; orthodox, liberal, conservative, conformist, non-conformist, reform, ultra-conservative reactionary, whatever. Yes, even universalist.

If it seems that I'm lacking a coherent postion, coming down on multiple sides of the issue, it's because I am. Like I said, it's a dilemma for me, and I don't have a clear answer or position.

Ah, but this too, is a sign of seeking. Can you see the difference? It is one thing to look at all of the variety of religion, even to learn lessons from them, as Paul admonished in the book of Romans, and as we just got through quoting Phillipians. Hold fast that which is good. Not whittle everything down to a common denominator to make a greater number of people subservient to one master. And the pick'n'choose types I speak of, are those that manufacture their own and try to spread it as some kind of New Age insight for the enlightened. These kind are amicable enough, I can get along with them...I simply don't agree with their methodology for the reasons I've mentioned.

I do utilize a buffet approach to spirituality, but I'm neither a syncretist nor a true universalist, and the bulk of my ideas contain components of my own original thought, so it's not like I'm only borrowing stuff from various traditions and collaging it together.

Here I see the underlying drive of a seeker, a student, a person sincerely looking for connection and association with the IS. How can I find fault with that? It is the same motivation that drives me.

If it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth I really wasn't, just trying to find some points in common in an attempt to explain what I'm thinking at the moment. Just thinking out loud really. I appreciate your input, I read what you wrote and I'm considering it carefully.

Unless you are this new person Zag as an alter-ego, which I doubt based on the differences in the two styles of writing, I don't see you putting words in my mouth. You have had moments that border on arrogance, I am not telling you anything you don't already know. But I have not seen that displayed since I joined this discussion. This really has been a fantastic exchange of views...until a certain air of superiority popped up in just the last few posts, and not by your hand. Look closely, look at how I was accused of various views, falsely. More than once. The poster began with an arrogantly false presumption and built on it from there, in an effort to...what? make me look a fool? Why?

That is why my tone in reply...

All the best to you and yours in the New Year.

Thank you. I wish the same for you and yours!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Seattlegal!

I would say The Path of Uncertainty can also be a legitimate path of discovery.

Indeed, as long as it doesn't become an end destination...

 

[seattlegal]

Kindest Regards, Seattlegal!


Indeed, as long as it doesn't become an end destination...

Hey, it'll keep a person from "sitting on their laurels," so to speak. It's a way to help avoid inertia and laziness.

 

[earl]

"New Age" is now it seems an over-used name that signifies little given the diversity of notions typically falling under that label. What the "new age" seemed to harken in was a growing desire among individuals for spirituality-a personal, experientially-base connection to the Divine whether based in an organized religion or not-as opposed to settling just for dogma. In fact, I dare say that the renewed interest in contemplative aspects of several religions that had been buried in centuries of neglect probably is related to just this thrust. I am more interested in contemplative insights and approaches than dogma per se-though like to examine various religions' belief structures via the contemplative lens. Do different contemplative approaches lead to different ends? Don't know, though they can and often do lead to similar experiences/conclusions. I am most certainly a believer in and an advocate of each individual walking the path that calls to them as I firmly believe one's innate attraction is an intuitive response-a "call from our soul" if you will which should be honored-until called to yet another direction. For some though that will mean trying out multiple lens at the same time. There are many time-honored ways to release self and/or surrender self to the "God of our understanding" and, though as that article I'd linked re Christianity and the perennial philosophy noted, we can be self-delusional-re anything, as that article also intimated, outcome or "fruit" is always a useful measuring stick. Some prefer to see their path as exclusively correct (& in my opinion it probably is-for them). Others take a different perspective. My lens is the one referred to as the perennial philsopohy-just a fancy way of saying that I love trying to find God in as many places as possible. have a good one, earl

 

[seattlegal]

"My lens is the one referred to as the perennial philsopohy-just a fancy way of saying that I love trying to find God in as many places as possible. have a good one, earl

That's great, earl. I look at the universe as an awesome work of art. One can sometimes get a shadow of a glimpse of the artist in the artwork.

 

[flowperson]

When one considers what is still being discovered every day about the Earth and the universe around us, I would tend agree with Earl and the perennial approach. I find myself constantly revising my impressions of spiritual guidance, simply because I must to maintain my daily balance.

New beliefs bloom in me and from me as they are grown inside of me and then burst out through things that I am compelled to sometimes create. Tying myself to a single set of beliefs is not possible for me.

But basic Judeo-Christian beliefs and mythos does seem compatible with much of what I believe symbolically. There is a mystical continuity there for me that carries me along.

flow....

 

[taijasi]

What a wonderful thread this is, of Dauer's: The Differences Between Interfaith and Intrafaith Dialogue ... and especially the post from Snoopy (as of Jan. 2, since I can't hotlink it yet). Even as a fledgling thread, its value - at least for me - is immeasurable!

Seems relevant here, and as I read each post, one word, one concept, seems to stand out for me: Community!

Peace,

~Zag

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Unless you are this new person Zag as an alter-ego, which I doubt based on the differences in the two styles of writing, I don't see you putting words in my mouth. You have had moments that border on arrogance, I am not telling you anything you don't already know. But I have not seen that displayed since I joined this discussion. This really has been a fantastic exchange of views...until a certain air of superiority popped up in just the last few posts, and not by your hand. Look closely, look at how I was accused of various views, falsely. More than once. The poster began with an arrogantly false presumption and built on it from there, in an effort to...what? make me look a fool? Why?

First, I don't do the alter-ego thing. There was a time many years ago when I first started posting to a BB that I tried that. It seemed like a fun idea, but I very quickly became bored with it. It's hard enough to write, plus it felt dishonest.

Next, I understand that I come off as being arrogant. I'm often sarcastic, occasionally fascetious, crude, lewd, and nothing is sacred enough to me that I won't have some fun with it. OTOH, though, I try very hard to be real. I'm a complex person, and I try to convey how I actually am. I'm no Buddha, man! When I get pushed I push back, as you know.

Lastly, I think if people would allow each other a little space to express themselves without getting all defensive or self-righteous we would all, in time, work our shoulder chips down to managable size. One problem is that people outside traditional spirituality have been rubbed raw in ways that take time, patience, and understanding to work through. When they finally have the opportunity to turn the tables and be the one to say "I'm right and you're wrong" they can't resist. If well-meaning traditionalists could just find it in their hearts to turn the other cheek a couple of times on that I think the frustration could dissipate. Or, I could be completely wrong.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, China Cat!

First, I don't do the alter-ego thing. There was a time many years ago when I first started posting to a BB that I tried that. It seemed like a fun idea, but I very quickly became bored with it. It's hard enough to write, plus it felt dishonest.

This is good. I see a tremendous difference between "did I read you to say this...?" and "you said this!" (when I pretty obviously did not)

Next, I understand that I come off as being arrogant. I'm often sarcastic, occasionally fascetious, crude, lewd, and nothing is sacred enough to me that I won't have some fun with it. OTOH, though, I try very hard to be real. I'm a complex person, and I try to convey how I actually am. I'm no Buddha, man! When I get pushed I push back, as you know.

Not a whole lot different than myself, I simply try as best I know how to maintain a modicum of decency, around here especially. I am not above pushing back either, as I am certain you are aware.

Lastly, I think if people would allow each other a little space to express themselves without getting all defensive or self-righteous we would all, in time, work our shoulder chips down to managable size. One problem is that people outside traditional spirituality have been rubbed raw in ways that take time, patience, and understanding to work through. When they finally have the opportunity to turn the tables and be the one to say "I'm right and you're wrong" they can't resist. If well-meaning traditionalists could just find it in their hearts to turn the other cheek a couple of times on that I think the frustration could dissipate. Or, I could be completely wrong.

I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong on this...but I don't have the time or aptitude to play psychologist to every individual either. It is my experience, here and in the world at large, that arrogance is like fire. Surrender to it and it only gets worse. It only responds to arrogance, like the schoolyard bully. One can continue coughing up their lunch money everyday and go hungry, or get enough cajones to punch the dolt in the face and put him in his place. Standing up for oneself, family, nation and religious belief against arrogant opposition, is most decidedly correct in my opinion. Spirit has not convicted me otherwise. In fact, spirit has led me to this in spite of the many sermons I have heard through the years to the contrary. Christians, or those followers of any legitimate faith, are *not* doormats to be walked all over by upstarts that think some amalgamation of everybody will solve the woes of the world. Where such people see heavenly bliss and Edenic paradise...I see Armaggedon and WWIII. That's prescient vision for ya!

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

It is my experience, here and in the world at large, that arrogance is like fire. Surrender to it and it only gets worse. It only responds to arrogance, like the schoolyard bully. One can continue coughing up their lunch money everyday and go hungry, or get enough cajones to punch the dolt in the face and put him in his place. Standing up for oneself, family, nation and religious belief against arrogant opposition, is most decidedly correct in my opinion. Spirit has not convicted me otherwise. In fact, spirit has led me to this in spite of the many sermons I have heard through the years to the contrary.

Well, you're probably right. I don't do a whole lot of cheek rotation myself! It's funny that we're using the word arrogant. All my adult life I've been accused of being arrogant. Most of the time I think it's because people don't like that I think my way is better than what they're trying to get me to do. Of course they think their way is better too, but I'm the one who's arrogant.

Chris

 

[cyberpi]

I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong on this...but I don't have the time or aptitude to play psychologist to every individual either. It is my experience, here and in the world at large, that arrogance is like fire. Surrender to it and it only gets worse. It only responds to arrogance, like the schoolyard bully. One can continue coughing up their lunch money everyday and go hungry, or get enough cajones to punch the dolt in the face and put him in his place. Standing up for oneself, family, nation and religious belief against arrogant opposition, is most decidedly correct in my opinion. Spirit has not convicted me otherwise. In fact, spirit has led me to this in spite of the many sermons I have heard through the years to the contrary. Christians, or those followers of any legitimate faith, are *not* doormats to be walked all over by upstarts that think some amalgamation of everybody will solve the woes of the world. Where such people see heavenly bliss and Edenic paradise...I see Armaggedon and WWIII. That's prescient vision for ya!

What would Jesus do?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

What would Jesus do?

This isn't aimed at anyone, but...yeah, what would Jesus do?

I find it interesting how some folks will accept the literal interpretation of all kinds of stuff in the Bible- no matter how whacky or improbable, but when it comes to that "love your enemy" stuff...nah, he didn't really mean that. Take up the cross? Sure. God hates ****? Sure. Sun standing still, global deluge, dudes that lived 900 years, literal creationism? Heck yeah, because it says so. Love your enemies...uh, no. Amazing how obsessed with the authoritarian stuff people are. Ten Commandment monuments: gotta have 'em. Civilization as we know it will collapse...my gosh!!! How about a beatitude monument? Uh...no.

Chris