Do you call yourself a Christian?

[juantoo3]

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.

Ah, but as the Preacher reminds us, there is a time and a purpose...

Arrogance for the raw sake of arrogance in pretty obviously out of place. But try telling that to the next arrogant butthead that gets in your face, and see how far it takes you...

If one wishes to draw inference from natural law, then force must be met with force. Whether unmovable object or immeasurable force, something must give. One can surrender, roll over, play dead, and let the opposition do their happy dance on your head...or you can do something about it, even if futile. Nothing says "sucker" like premature surrender. At least those that go down fighting earn the respect of their victors.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Cyberpi!

What would Jesus do?

Good question. Since I am not Jesus, I can't answer it. Seems to me the Aramaic idiom that Jesus used refers to not beginning a hateful thing with one's neighbor...but that if a neighbor begins a hateful thing, one has the right, duty and obligation to nip it in the bud. Of course, that translation requires looking into the cultural context...along with a stiff dose of common sense...which means it is not an interpretation that is widely held. Christians were never meant to be doormats, and that is *not* what Jesus taught.

Nor would I expect, in accord with this teaching, for any other legitimate religion to play the role of doormat either.

Does that answer the question well enough?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Ah, but as the Preacher reminds us, there is a time and a purpose...

Arrogance for the raw sake of arrogance in pretty obviously out of place. But try telling that to the next arrogant butthead that gets in your face, and see how far it takes you...

If one wishes to draw inference from natural law, then force must be met with force. Whether unmovable object or immeasurable force, something must give. One can surrender, roll over, play dead, and let the opposition do their happy dance on your head...or you can do something about it, even if futile. Nothing says "sucker" like premature surrender. At least those that go down fighting earn the respect of their victors.

Yep. The big ones eat the little ones, so the little one's gotta be fast. That's the law of the fish: you better move your ass.

I like my ego. My ego works for me. Everybody's telling me I gotta give up my ego. Why? So someone else can control me? I don't think so brother.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

but when it comes to that "love your enemy" stuff...nah, he didn't really mean that.

Thank you sir, can I have another. *Smite*

Thank you sir, can I have another. *Smite*

Thank you sir, can I have another. *Smite*

Thank you sir, can I have another. *Smite*

Thank you sir, can I have another. *Smite*

Thank you sir, can I have another. *Smite*

Thank you sir, can I have another. *Smite*

You're right! This makes so much more sense! Gee, what waaaas I thinking???

Thank you sir, can I have another. *Smite*

...

Context...I can love my enemies all day long...just as soon as they lower their weapons. I can tend their wounds, I can feed them, I can help raise their families, I can treat them as a neighbor, maybe even a brother...

But raise a weapon and threaten mine, and all bets are off. I am not Christ, and I don't play Him on TV.

 

[juantoo3]

Love it, China Cat!

I like my ego. My ego works for me. Everybody's telling me I gotta give up my ego. Why? So someone else can control me? I don't think so brother.

ROFLMAO...Thank you! Thank you so much for giving words to a thought I have long held!

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well, my point really is that if a person is not going to consider context, just take everything straight out literal and stick to the "because it says so" mentality, how come the literal interpretation of "love your enemies", "turn the other cheek" gets a pass?

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

Well, my point really is that if a person is not going to consider context, just take everything straight out literal and stick to the "because it says so" mentality, how come the literal interpretation of "love your enemies", "turn the other cheek" gets a pass?

I do look at context, and I do not take it all literal, and I explained the cultural idiom (figure of speech) in post 141 addessed to Cyberpi. So I guess I'm not the one to ask. That's probably why my answers piss so many people off...

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I do look at context, and I do not take it all literal, and I explained the cultural idiom (figure of speech) in post 141 addessed to Cyberpi. So I guess I'm not the one to ask. That's probably why my answers piss so many people off...

Right. Well, I realize that Pi was referencing your quote, but I think I made clear that my response wasn't aimed at you. I know who the literalists are, and I don't just lump everyone into one basket.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

Right. Well, I realize that Pi was referencing your quote, but I think I made clear that my response wasn't aimed at you. I know who the literalists are, and I don't just lump everyone into one basket.

You did. Fair enough. And Thanks.

 

[wil]

On the whole love your enemy thing...

I teach Sunday school typically with Middle Schoolers and High Schoolers. We live in an interesting area around DC, some come from innercity or edge of city schools, gun violence, drug dealing, living at the edge is common, others come from quite safe, upper middle-upper income neighborhoods. All in all a great bunch of kids, the diversity is amazing and the issues they face are so different. Some looking at scholarships and colleges, others trying to get to school safely and board up their houses from the last break in.

We discussed bullying and solutions. Now we've got some toughs and wanna be toughs, kids who I know are quite different when not in our building, so it makes the discussions awful interesting as well.

But one kid says he used to have problems with bullying and harrassment, but it has all gone away. Because when someone says something to him, he stands there and says, "It's ok for you to think that" I was floored.

This was a kid that 'never listened' and always acted out in class. But here he is repeating and using something I taught four or five years ago when teaching elementary kids... We did and exercise where they paired up and said whatever they wanted and the response was to look at the individual with love, practice seeing the Christ in everyone, knowing G-d is involved in every situation and calmly saying "It's ok if you thnk that". My kids were pretty good at getting pretty rough and nasty trying to break the others view...they enjoyed playing both sides...but I never realized this child took that class to heart and was able to use it over and over in school. He said that they don't see reason to pick on him if he doesn't respond...and other kids have utilzed similar techniques...

Love your enemy is a powerful tool....but you have to use it.

 

[taijasi]

This is beautiful, wil. It's wonderful when we see that children have not only taken a lesson to heart, but that they've also made it Real, by practicing it!

I like to try to Imagine what egolessness *might* be like, since as others here have noted, it's not something in our everyday experience - at least not all day, every day.

Along those lines, I'm watching all 10 of the Star Trek movies again, because I love them so much, especially the characters of the original series. Spock remains my favorite, and here's one reason why: Near the beginning of one of these movies (Wrath of Khan?), Admiral Kirk is speaking to Spock in private, reluctant to *assume control* of the Enterprise, and of Commander Spock's young cadets. And he's kind of walking on eggshells.

I sort of imagine Spock cracking a mental smile (since we certainly don't *see* it), and he responds something like, "Jim, you are proceeding along false premises, being afraid to bruise my ego. I am a Vulcan, I have no ego to bruise. The Enterprise is yours."

Spock may be a fictitious character on TV, but Leonard Nimoy does a damn good job, imo, of portraying what egolessness might be like - at least among the Vulcans. I continue to try to take a lesson.

Still, in terms of discussion and intra/inter-faith dialogue, I certainly agree that it's no fun being a doormat!! It doesn't matter whether one is Christian, New-Ager, Muslim or syncretist! There are no `buts' when it come to Respect.

For good discussions on egolessness, we can also look at the Buddhist perspective and practices. In fact, this is the first tradition that come to my mind when I think of "ego-mastery" or "ego-transcendence." And if we need some good examples of *turning the other cheek* in the modern world, just look at formerly-Buddhist Tibet, the Communist Chinese invasion, and the tragedy that has befallen the monks, nuns, and people of that country. They have been practicing this teaching of Christ's .... for *decades*.

~Zag

 

[juantoo3]

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?

Pray tell, which other of these "Christs" descended to hell, preached to those in chains and loosed them, arose from the dead on the third day and by His resurrection assured those who believe in Him that the promises of abiding in heaven were valid? I don't remember any of these other Christs doing anything remotely like this...

Buddhists, for example, have an overwhelmingly peaceful history,

Ceylon... India... how many martial arts were / are developed under the auspices of Buddhism? Buddhism is not immune, as I often hear. Besides, as seems to be in keeping with the ulterior motive behind this line of questioning, this is avoiding the original point. Strawmanning, I believe was the term offered earlier? The institutions of Christianity, and all other major world faiths, are fallible because they are constructed of fallible humans. Is this argument that Buddhists are not fallible? I would hardly see why, else they would not need Buddhism to aid them in their walk.

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>

With absolutely no offense intended to brothers and sisters of the Hindu faith, with something on the order of 2 million texts that are held as sacred to some degree, I would predict that there is a little something for everyone. I would also caution, that to "incorporat(e) other philosophies and ideologies into their rubric" randomly would be to risk diluting the underlying message. But then, perhaps that is the point of this question...

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.

But of course, you were there and walked with the man. He spoke to you and clued you in on the deepest secrets of the faith before they were even committed to writing...</sarcasm>

The "inventions" you speak of, were "invented" by persons a lot closer to the source than you. I suppose you are one to get your financial advice from your hair stylist...me, I'll get my financial advice from a financial advisor. Likewise, I think I'll get my spiritual clues a little closer to the source.

"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.

Funny, it seemed to me the attitude in general from universalists, and reflected in your posts, is that heaven is reserved for the chosen few...universalists.

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.

How can you claim to be fair when you haven't even correctly viewed or presented the other side? If G-d plays favorites, I am inclined to think He favors those who gravitate towards Him, those who deliberately seek Him...regardless of legitimate path. And whether you wish to continue to impose an incorrect bias on my words, allow me to spell out specifically what religions (*plural!!!*) are legitimate: Monotheist religions including Zoroastrainism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and one might include Hinduism under this heading; intellectual philosophies such as Buddhism and Confuscianism; certain forms of traditional Paganism, Pantheism, Shamanism, Animism, Taoism. Those that instinctively observe and follow the Noahide Laws, as Judaism rightly observed. What I see, and I am not G-d nor do I speak for Him, is that human inventions for the elevation and promotion of humans, are those that fall short and therefore are illegitimate. This would especially include those attempts by humans to condense the G-d given variety into some bland mush that is not suitable for consumption, stamp their seal of approval on it with a condescending attitude towards any who dare oppose their "intellectually" derived pseudo-religiousity, and lie in wait for political authority to pounce at the opportunity to compel all to their point of view.

In this, I must disagree with China Cat...not only do two wrongs not make a right...but it sure seems ironic that an attempt at religion should harbor, tactically and deliberately, some of the very methods they claim to distain in others.

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).

Yeah, and carrots and brocolli do not feel, and trees do not communicate, and being in touch with "spirit" means only sentient beings...because *only* those beings we determine are sentient can have spirit.

*Not*

Frugivores perhaps, are "*living proof* that nature does NOT demand...sacrifice." But Vegans are every bit as obligated to what I mentioned, plants have feeling and spirit too. Merry Meet.

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.

How quaint, an appeal to the heart, after such an intellectual offering. Give 'em the hard sell, then appeal to their emotions. Behavioral psyche at its most subtle...

Gotta luv 'em, juan, gotta luv 'em...

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

On the whole love your enemy thing...

I teach Sunday school typically with Middle Schoolers and High Schoolers. We live in an interesting area around DC, some come from innercity or edge of city schools, gun violence, drug dealing, living at the edge is common, others come from quite safe, upper middle-upper income neighborhoods. All in all a great bunch of kids, the diversity is amazing and the issues they face are so different. Some looking at scholarships and colleges, others trying to get to school safely and board up their houses from the last break in.

We discussed bullying and solutions. Now we've got some toughs and wanna be toughs, kids who I know are quite different when not in our building, so it makes the discussions awful interesting as well.

But one kid says he used to have problems with bullying and harrassment, but it has all gone away. Because when someone says something to him, he stands there and says, "It's ok for you to think that" I was floored.

This was a kid that 'never listened' and always acted out in class. But here he is repeating and using something I taught four or five years ago when teaching elementary kids... We did and exercise where they paired up and said whatever they wanted and the response was to look at the individual with love, practice seeing the Christ in everyone, knowing G-d is involved in every situation and calmly saying "It's ok if you thnk that". My kids were pretty good at getting pretty rough and nasty trying to break the others view...they enjoyed playing both sides...but I never realized this child took that class to heart and was able to use it over and over in school. He said that they don't see reason to pick on him if he doesn't respond...and other kids have utilzed similar techniques...

Love your enemy is a powerful tool....but you have to use it.

Awesome! If you can find a way to make it work, more power to ya!

I think a lot has to do with situation and circumstance. What is the level of enmity? What is the chosen weapon? What alternatives are there? I am sure there are other variables...as Max Ehrman put it, "as much as possible, without surrender, be at peace with all men." That has always been one of my favorite lines from the Desiderata. I can befriend anybody who is willing to befriend, even if they don't know it yet. And my best friend might one day be my enemy (I'm sure a lot of us can attest to this.) So "love your enemy" is not a bad thing, and certainly where it is feasible, it is preferable.

When one is under assault though, it is problematic to say the least, to try to love the one assaulting you.

 

[wil]

There is the story of the priest who when confronted by a mugger turned around and saw the gun and said....But brother, I love you! To which the mugger turned and left.

Or another where the little preacher woman when turning over her money told the robber what church she preached in...and that same man came back to her years later sat in the back rows and slipped out at the end of service until he got up the nerve to come clean and apologize.

Of course you gotta have a lot of love. That kind of response can't be fake, you gotta take it to heart. Anyone read Portrait of a Master? about St. Francis?

 

[taijasi]

Pray tell, which other of these "Christs" descended to hell, preached to those in chains and loosed them, arose from the dead on the third day and by His resurrection assured those who believe in Him that the promises of abiding in heaven were valid? I don't remember any of these other Christs doing anything remotely like this...

That's the thing about memory. It can only function, if it has seen before. Perhaps you haven't seen or read about the archetypes of all traditions, upon which Christianity, like the others, is based. China Cat has. Earl has. I think wil has, and I certainly have. Start with Mithraism, maybe check out Wikipedia. Also consult an article or two on Gnosticism - at least for the main themes, and not so much the nitty gritty. Without a doubt, it's in the details that we find divergence. But as for the general themes, which is what you're asking about, you will find a common thread.

So to answer your question: ALL of them.

[For certain, in a comparative context, this could be a really neat discussion. It could focus on how the differences of religion and practice, seem to best suit the people of different climes and times, and how this is surely evidence of something more than randomness at work ... or simply Humanity's creative attempt to find meaning and give purpose to life. We can see the big picture, and make this a topic worth discussing, on some thread or another. If the focus on God's omnipresence and universality does not appeal, then perhaps an exploration of God's diversity and specificity will! At the end of the day, might even ask, aren't these complementary?]

Ceylon... India... how many martial arts were / are developed under the auspices of Buddhism? Buddhism is not immune, as I often hear.

Nope. That's why I said "overwhelmingly peaceful" - and not absolutely so. Indeed, no one's perfect.

I would also caution, that to "incorporat(e) other philosophies and ideologies into their rubric" randomly would be to risk diluting the underlying message.

To be certain, randomly doing this would present dangers. It's not done that way though, fortunately.

But of course, you were there and walked with the man. He spoke to you and clued you in on the deepest secrets of the faith before they were even committed to writing...

Who's to say.

The "inventions" you speak of, were "invented" by persons a lot closer to the source than you. I suppose you are one to get your financial advice from your hair stylist...me, I'll get my financial advice from a financial advisor. Likewise, I think I'll get my spiritual clues a little closer to the source.

Now now, there's no need to be rude. And again, you're making assumptions (humorous, saracastic jabs aside). You know otherwise?

Funny, it seemed to me the attitude in general from universalists, and reflected in your posts, is that heaven is reserved for the chosen few...universalists.

THANK YOU, juantoo3 ... *finally* something definite and easy enough to address!!! lol

No, this is certainly NOT what I want to suggest, since it is not what I believe. And I have NEVER heard this from anyone who was interested in the mysticial, esoteric, Gnostic, New Age, syncretic, or Universalist teachings. What I hear, and believe, is that Heaven is not only a *state of mind*, or level of consciousness, but that it is also large enough to include the believers - and faithful - of every tradition. Simon and Garfunkel seem to give this a nod in one of the popular songs of the day: Mrs. Robinson. Perhaps you've heard it?

If G-d plays favorites, I am inclined to think He favors those who gravitate towards Him, those who deliberately seek Him...regardless of legitimate path.

So far so good.

And whether you wish to continue to impose an incorrect bias on my words, allow me to spell out specifically what religions (*plural!!!*) are legitimate:

You may so presume if you like, but that is all you do along these lines.

I am not G-d nor do I speak for Him

To be certain, and the point could be pondered for a lifetime. And yet, every day, millions do not recognize it, and things just get worse from there. That's, EGO for ya - or arrogance, in the extreme.

human inventions for the elevation and promotion of humans, are those that fall short and therefore are illegitimate.

I disagree! Humanism has so many positive features and benefits that in the face of no religion at all, pure atheism or materialism, I'd take Humanism ANY day. Add a healthy dose of Spirituality to this philosophy (which many Humanists as a practice already do, and intuitively so) ... and you have yourself a perfectly viable "religion," in every sense of the word. Of course, as you yourself point out, none of us has the Divine Authority to rubber-stamp such a description as *God-Approved*.

That's why we must simply test out such notions, try them in the crucible of the Heart and of daily practice, and see if they bear fruit. If so, then we have our answer, we have the approval and backing we seek. But yes, if we wait around for something to come along and chisel them into a stone tablet again ... then man, I think that beard's gonna get pretty long.

This would especially include those attempts by humans to condense the G-d given variety into some bland mush that is not suitable for consumption, stamp their seal of approval on it with a condescending attitude towards any who dare oppose their "intellectually" derived pseudo-religiousity, and lie in wait for political authority to pounce at the opportunity to compel all to their point of view.

Here goes the railing again, the grinding of the axe. I hear a lot of complaining, and certainly a very general jab at something-or-another, but precious few specifics, or presentations of a more positive, enlightened understanding.

Also, when you mention the whole political authority thing, are you perhaps referring to George Bush's deplorable tactic of using the Christian Convervatives a tool for his own (Party's) political agendas, and the obvious sell-out of every last shred of possible alliance with them along the lines of the `Values' we hear preached so publicly ... yet all the while this talk about `Faith-based-initiatives' and the wrangling and haranguing over things like *Prayer in schools* and the public display of the Mosaic Code in public places? Please specify which of these is driving you nuts, or is it the whole mish-mash of disgusting, hypocritical, under-handedness?

How quaint, an appeal to the heart, after such an intellectual offering. Give 'em the hard sell, then appeal to their emotions. Behavioral psyche at its most subtle...

Gotta luv 'em, juan, gotta luv 'em...

Even if it kills you, or at least, is convenient at the moment. Or at least, so long as ego doesn't get in the way. Yeah, God will Christians, or Catholics (as one member insists) out of us all, whether we like it or not, and whether we want it or not - or perhaps, even if HE has to drag us kicking and screaming. I guess this is what matters, yes?

"My words," you will point out? Sarcastically so, yes they are.

~Zag

 

[cyberpi]

Kindest Regards, Cyberpi!

Good question. Since I am not Jesus, I can't answer it. Seems to me the Aramaic idiom that Jesus used refers to not beginning a hateful thing with one's neighbor...but that if a neighbor begins a hateful thing, one has the right, duty and obligation to nip it in the bud. Of course, that translation requires looking into the cultural context...along with a stiff dose of common sense...which means it is not an interpretation that is widely held. Christians were never meant to be doormats, and that is *not* what Jesus taught.

Nor would I expect, in accord with this teaching, for any other legitimate religion to play the role of doormat either.

Does that answer the question well enough?

I was wondering because you seem to imply that a person that you judge as arrogant somehow hurts you... that you would feel so provoked as to want to punch a person in the face. From what I read, you would punch Jesus in the nose. As I read it, Jesus brought about mayhem not because he was the source of the mayhem but because he provided judgement. People did not like to hear what he had to say. So they accused him of blasphemy and murdered him.

If you are saying that you are NOT like Jesus and that you are a sinner, with that confession I certainly would be forgiving. I have sinned too. Otherwise I would rebuke you after you punched someone, and then I suspect I would be next. Or maybe I would be first? Would you at least first use your words and say to the person why you were judging arrogance?

If instead you really are saying that you don't know what Jesus would do, then I would probably open a bible and look for some examples, to which I suspect by your words I would be the next to be punched.

When I read that being 'judgemental' is wrong and that condemning someone for their words is necessary, then I am concerned. Is that Love or hypocrisy?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Cyberpi!

When I read that being 'judgemental' is wrong and that condemning someone for their words is necessary, then I am concerned. Is that Love or hypocrisy?

Just curious...have you ever heard the saying, "straining at gnats and swallowing camels?"

Are you suggesting that practicing tough love; setting somebody straight, particularly one who has made it a point to impose their view with inordinate vigor, is acting hypocritically?

I do find it interesting, one who objects vigorously to being included in the collective "we," yet appears to hold no objection to asking someone to speak for Jesus. Is that Love or hypocracy?

 

[cyberpi]

Kindest Regards, Cyberpi!

Just curious...have you ever heard the saying, "straining at gnats and swallowing camels?"

Are you suggesting that practicing tough love; setting somebody straight, particularly one who has made it a point to impose their view with inordinate vigor, is acting hypocritically?

To answer your question: Is the punch the tough love or the inordinate vigor? Maybe both?

Maybe I should ask what would cause you to judge a person to be arrogant. As I read it an arrogant person is someone who displays a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. I might not know who the arrogant one was but when the first punch is thrown over someone's words, then I know. That said, if anyone punched you or bullied you with physical force then I would be rebuking them. Words are easily rejected and thrown away... happens regularly. But they are selected and chosen by the listener. A broken nose is a little harder to reject. It is chosen by the person that throws the punch.

 

[juantoo3]

To answer your question: Is the punch the tough love or the inordinate vigor? Maybe both?

Maybe I should ask what would cause you to judge a person to be arrogant. As I read it an arrogant person is someone who displays a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. I might not know who the arrogant one was but when the first punch is thrown over someone's words, then I know. That said, if anyone punched you or bullied you with physical force then I would be rebuking them.

Did I step through a looking glass somewhere and didn't realize it?

The only time I mentioned "punch" was directly in relation to schoolyard bullies taking one's lunch money. Now, if you are referring metaphorically to "punch" as standing up for oneself, then you're darn tootin' I'm going to defend myself. I do not see hypocracy in that. If you do see hypocracy in self-defense, it is your issue; I will not make it mine.

Now, if by some error of misunderstanding you have taken to believe I suggest physical violence in retaliation for a disputation over religious or other views, then I can see your point and even agree. That is not what I said. One can surely see that I equate arrogance to fire; fight fire with fire, fight arrogance with arrogance. Do unto others...as they have demonstrated they wish to be done unto. The flip side of the same coin. This is common sense, a natural human response of self-preservation. I'll pray for forgiveness for being human later.

Words are easily rejected and thrown away.

Yet they can echo in the sub-conscious for a lifetime. I am well aware that words can injure, sometimes worse than weapons of steel.

 

[taijasi]

Now, if by some error of misunderstanding you have taken to believe I suggest physical violence in retaliation for a disputation over religious or other views, then I can see your point and even agree. That is not what I said. One can surely see that I equate arrogance to fire; fight fire with fire, fight arrogance with arrogance. Do unto others...as they have demonstrated they wish to be done unto. The flip side of the same coin. This is common sense, a natural human response of self-preservation. I'll pray for forgiveness for being human later.

Doesn't this really equate to saying, I'll "pick and choose" the elements from Christian teaching, from what Jesus said to do, that I happen to like ... and discard what isn't convenient, easy, or "natural?" Something about the rosy, rainbow parts, since that other, "dark side, shadow element" is unpleasant to deal with?

Funny thing, if there was ONE Teaching, out of everything Jesus said, which MOST characterized His Message ... I would have thought it was the Golden Rule. I would have thought that THIS part, rather than all that intellectual, quibbly, theological, angels-on-pinheads stuff - appealed to the HEART. Surely THIS, whether or not we take seriously, or seek to practice, the Golden Rule, would matter more than just about anything else the man said.

Hear Hear for the religion of convenience! And who needs that stuff old G.K. Chesterton said anyhow! I guess he was on crack when he said:

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting;
it has been found difficult and left untried."
​

*In a PIG's eye he was.*

I have had the good fortune to know many, many people in my short lifetime (a gift, this alone) ... who readily spring to mind, when I hear the word "disciple." Or if we say, "follower of Christ," again, there are many people, both in my personal acquaintance, and in popular literature, media, or of general renown, who I usually imagine.

Not every one of these even called, or calls, themselves Christian, but if any one of them were asked, Do you seek (or would you like) to be Christ-like? ... I believe each one of them would reply YES. And funny thing, not a one is the least bit concerned about policing the religious airwaves, and pronouncing judgment, assessing legitimacy or even "defending their stance."

Sparring, if it occurs, will either be purely sportive, or else it will occur because there is some object in mind. Regardless as to what led up to the melee or maelstrom, there is something being disputed - even if we are using tongues for swords, rather than steel.

On a thread that seems to inquire if one finds Christ and Christ's Teachings central to one's spiritual path, I note that there is a good deal being said about other faiths, other paths, other religions, and even the possibility that there is something Universally in common, or shared amongst these.

Juantoo3, a great deal of energy is being expended to express dissatisfaction with the notion that all religions may proceed from a common source, and with a central meaning or purpose behind all of them. Repeatedly you have objected to what you perceive as an effort to dispense with the square corners, and stuff square pegs into round holes ... and I think you make it clear that the kind of universalism you despise is that which treats religion (especially the Christian tradition) as if everything's a nail, and just needs a good bit of hammering. It sounds to me like you're highlighting the need to appreciate the diversity of tools in God's workbox, in our OWN workbox, and the fact that the various religions do not exist simply so that we can come along and hammer them together into some kind of discombobulated, unproportional conglomeration. And I agree.

This is where, with as much objectivity and neutrality I can muster, yet as a devoted follower of the Mystery Tradition - and the Ageless Wisdom - I must take two steps back and suggest a couple things.

One, please don't kill the messenger. Or to put it a bit more humbly, please try to appreciate that none of us is any more perfect than you are, nor are we necessarily any more practiced (let alone perfected) at the art of convesation, diplomacy and good tact. Often, we perceive others through the distortions of our *own* psychological or religious lens, and so it comes as no surprise that others end up doing the same thing. Despite our best efforts in what starts out as genuine Good Faith, we end up second-guessing our neighbor, if not also ourselves. We fall short ... of the Ideal, and even of our own greater potential.

It is easy, if not necessarily comfortable, to substitute "I" for the words "us" and "we" above. It's not about finding loopholes. It's about I-dentification, walking a mile in another person's shoes, empathy, sympathy (in whatever dose seems appropriate), and Compassion. I know I have the "yes yes yes, don't lecture me" mentality as much as the next guy, but this business about "always wanting to be right" just tends to get in the way. I would gladly trade it in for a single ounce of humilty ... but it seems the ego-hooks often beat me to the *punch* (ahhhhh) ... faster than I can - err, get there, to umm - trade it in.

So the other thing maybe worth considering, is that hopefully, with any luck, we're reaching a point of "let bygones be bygones." This means to hell with the axe. It means the abandonment of the personal agenda. It means the re-dedication, anew, in the clear, calm light of (

)

to whatever it is that you, we, me, us, holds sacred, and dear, and Holy. We have to do this part on our own.

~~~~~

Teilhard de Chardin spoke in his writings about `Omega Point.' If all of Creation proceeded from the Alpha (or aleph), and has proceeded to the present form of diversity and multiplicity of expression which we now find ... then might it be headed to an `Omega Point' wherein unification and at-one-ment become realized? Not unsurprisingly, Teilhard as a Jesuit priest believed that the Omega Point was Christ, since one of Jesus' utterances was supposed to be that he was the Alpha and the Omega.

I find this idea intriguing, stimulating, encouraging, and even restorative. It brings Hope to me, which sometimes I can find lacking, at least in terms of the world around me ... or even within myself. Omega both personally, on a smaller scale, and for all of Humanity, on a larger scale, seems an uplifting idea. And it continues to catch on, even 5 decades after Teilhard's death. His ideas about the noosphere, too, are very popular, and often come up in discussions about cyberspace, or the digital agora, the forum!

Love and Light,

~Zag