Do you call yourself a Christian?

[Quahom1]

...ah, the arrogance of enlightenment. I remember it well. Think I'll stick with Juan's humbling realizations...we fall far short.

 

[taijasi]

...ah, the arrogance of enlightenment. I remember it well. Think I'll stick with Juan's humbling realizations...we fall far short.

Not arrogance, self-realization. And yeah, Juan did well to point out that along with roses & rainbows, comes the shadow (self). That's part of the realization too!

As for the arrogance of thinking that our path is the right one, and that others will eventually come 'round and be - whatever-it-is-that-we-are-which-they-also-are-but-just-don't-know-it-yet - ah well. That pretty well speaks for itself.

Kinda like those doors in high-class restaurants, or wild wild west saloons. They go *both ways*.

~Zag

 

[wil]

One says the first sign that you aren't enlightened is thinking you are...

The Dali Lama says you know you are enlightened when everyone you see, you see as enlightened.

My preacher says he goes to the mall to see how far he has to go.

Another Dali Lama quote I like, was at the beginning of 'The One', "If you can't see G-d in the next person you meet, quit looking"

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

...ah, the arrogance of enlightenment. I remember it well. Think I'll stick with Juan's humbling realizations...we fall far short.

I dunno which is worse: The arrogance of enlightement or the arrogance of ignorance. One is elitist and condescending, the other makes a virtue of ignorance.

Chris

 

[Paladin]

In my exploration it is true that I have an interest, an affinity, an acceptance of religions other than Chrisitanity. And I don't believe that Hindu's and Bhuddists and Athiests are going to Hell. And I don't believe in a new and improved version of Zeus.

But I do call myself a Christian.

As I see Jesus's teachings and his life as something to learn from and emulate. Of all the gurus/teachers, he is the one I put on the top of my list.

Now I don't know if he accomplished all the healings, or whether he rose from the dead, or if he even existed. But none of that detracts from my love of the spirit of Jesus, and being able to learn from the stories.

So I call myself a Christian.

Now you may not call me a Christian, but my question is, Do you call yourself a Christian and why?

My Dear Friends,

It seems as if a decade has passed since we first began this thread. Along with another thread on heresy, we have explored a vast region of belief. During this time I have been in a secret misery as it were, struggling between belief and non belief. In a very real sense, I began to understand St. John of the Cross for the first time. With the rest of you, I put forth my opinions and ideas, that at the time seemed at least somewhat important. Imagine my chagrin to see how little importance my own cherished ideas have.
In these last few months I began to feel as if I had been stripped of all reason and understanding. Confidence and certitude have flown as surely as a flock of frightened crows. But it is out of this dark night that I think a little light has dawned.
Still feeling pretty raw and vulnerable right now, but after much study, meditation and prayer I have come to a decision and have contacted a local parish here in town to begin the first step of the Rites of Christian Initiation for Adults. It is my intent to convert to Catholicism. I have not discussed this with anyone else except my dear wife Susan, but I wanted those of you whom I consider part of my spiritual household to know.
Thank you for all that you have shared here on this board, and on this forum

All my love

Mark

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Wow Mark! I'm envious in the very best way! Can you articulate some of what went into your decision?

Chris

 

[earl]

Bless you on your continued journey, Mark. It matters not what we (or others) call ourselves, but to answer the call and allow Spirit to guide you where it will. take care, earl

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Zagreus!

Thank you for your heartfelt reply. Considering the awkward start I have had with both Taijasi and yourself, I will make a token effort. Please, be advised, I am wary of any path that looks to claim "the truth," for one and all. One must admit, with even cursory experience with universalism and / or Theosophy, that that is precisely the premise and platform from which they level their "proselyzation." I do not say this to be hurtful, merely experientially factual.

It is quite common to hear the retort, "yeah, but Christianity does it too!" Perhaps, but it seems untoward, Christian or otherwise, to be condemning others with the exact same tactics that are being distained. It really becomes a matter of hypocracy..."do as I say, not as I do"...which is the very essence of what Jesus (whether as G-d or man) warned against.

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?

I can see where one might suggest this. I don't happen to agree, but then one would accuse of bias. So what's the point in arguing? I see Jesus (and the whole Bible for that matter) teaching common sense. Common sense says deal with the wolf at the door, not spend time worrying about wolves that might or might not be in the field. Why spend time on vain imaginings and fantasies? When one's ox is in the ditch, you get him out.

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.

I thought I had just got done saying something very similar? Why pointing my own back at me? Because, in the case of self-defense in combination with common sense, it requires a look at the flip side of the same coin? I know there are stories of pocket Bibles stopping bullets, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. Equip an army with pocket Bibles only, and see how far they get against an army equipped with firearms. The 4th Crusade should give a clue how well that theory works. (*The Children's Crusade, it flopped!)

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 apologize for any misunderstanding, but if ever there was an attempt at pseudo-religion of convenience...universalism is all that and more.

Methinks it quite remarkable that my application of logic, reason and common sense to a path of love and tolerance should be considered in any way comparable.

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."

While I too have had the good fortune of knowing many people of many walks who exemplify love, I have to caution myself here in what it is, precisely, that you mean by "follower of Christ" outside of a Christian context. Specifically, what it is you mean by "Christ?" I pause to say, but I am thinking that the Christ "they" follow is not the *Christian* Christ, by your own admission. If so, we are talking apples and oranges, with no comparison possible. Not because my eyes, ears and mind are closed, but because I see very clearly the...misuse...of the term "Christ" in this context. I see a deliberate confusion of the term, (and I suspect nefarious reasons as to why).

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.

Despite the objections by some to combative and competitive terminology...what better way to test one's mettle? That is to say, what better way to see if one's religious philosophy has merit, and is valid to what situations present themselves? Sure, one could go through life and expose themselves only to what confronts them directly. But the scholar, the seeker, looks beyond their own personal experiences to include the experiences of others, to hone their "sWord" of faith. I may not ever bear a child as a man, but I can include the experiences of women in childbirth to measure my religious beliefs...as but only one meager example. If my religious beliefs do not measure up, then something is amiss, no?

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.

Commonality between faiths is one thing, seeking to mitigate them all to that commonality at the expense of what individuates them seems to me more than dishonest. I say this with love, not an accusation. My experiences make me wary, and I have to this point found no contrary evidence, at least once the smoke clears and the dust settles...

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.

Perhaps, but not by me. I have learned, through ongoing study, that all religions stem from a simple tribal shamanism.

What, or How, Spirit has manifested in the meantime, if or when, to each as each required, is so far unprovable.

Yet, the fact remains, there is great diversity in religious expression.

The fact remains, humans have been looking to some form or expression of G-d, globally and across time, until fairly recently. And this ubiquitous search was ongoing amongst peoples who couldn't be bothered with chasing fantasies, their very lives depended on not being distracted in such manner.

Repeatedly you have objected to what you perceive as an effort to dispense with the square corners, and stuff square pegs into round holes

Yes, and I will continue to do so. I find it quite intolerant, suggesting that square corners should be rounded to fit a more modern mold. If G-d meant for everybody to be the same, He would have given us all "relatively" identical religion all along.

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.

Very well, we'll see.

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.

OK...

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.

OK...

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.

I can agree with this, to a point. "To hell with the axe" sounds good, and I am certain many would jump at the opportunity. To me, it seems a surrender of common sense. Did not Jesus advise those he sent out to buy a sword, knowing they would be travelling in dangerous territory with brigands and thieves? We are not Jesus...as much as I wish I could be, I am not. I fall short, I need Him to help me. He helps those who help themselves. I do not live in a fairyland...I live in a real world. A real world that, sadly, all too often has brigands and thieves. I will keep my sword, if you don't mind. It helps keep my mind sharp, and on the lookout, as John advised us in Revelations.

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!

I have tried to read Tielhard...I'm afraid he went right over my head. I'm certain his was a brilliant mind. Perhaps too brilliant. Anyway, he is just a scad outside the boundary of my minds ability to grasp.

Like I have said elsewhere, I do believe the message of Christ, though bathed in Love, is measured in common sense. I am a firm believer in the KISS principle...the Bible wasn't written for egomaniac intellectuals, it was written for everybody...that includes the poor, the dumb, the uneducated and the otherwise disenfranchised.

I speak as an intellectual to be heard by intellectuals and not to be talked down by intellectuals...given the choice between intelligence and wisdom, I will choose wisdom *every* time.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Zagreus!

Thank you for your heartfelt reply. Considering the awkward start I have had with both Taijasi and yourself, I will make a token effort. Please, be advised, I am wary of any path that looks to claim "the truth," for one and all. One must admit, with even cursory experience with universalism and / or Theosophy, that that is precisely the premise and platform from which they level their "proselyzation." I do not say this to be hurtful, merely experientially factual.

It is quite common to hear the retort, "yeah, but Christianity does it too!" Perhaps, but it seems untoward, Christian or otherwise, to be condemning others with the exact same tactics that are being distained. It really becomes a matter of hypocracy..."do as I say, not as I do"...which is the very essence of what Jesus (whether as G-d or man) warned against.

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?

I can see where one might suggest this. I don't happen to agree, but then one would accuse of bias. So what's the point in arguing? I see Jesus (and the whole Bible for that matter) teaching common sense. Common sense says deal with the wolf at the door, not spend time worrying about wolves that might or might not be in the field. Why spend time on vain imaginings and fantasies? When one's ox is in the ditch, you get him out.

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.

I thought I had just got done saying something very similar? Why pointing my own back at me? Because, in the case of self-defense in combination with common sense, it requires a look at the flip side of the same coin? I know there are stories of pocket Bibles stopping bullets, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. Equip an army with pocket Bibles only, and see how far they get against an army equipped with firearms. The 4th Crusade should give a clue how well that theory works. (*The Children's Crusade, it flopped!)

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 apologize for any misunderstanding, but if ever there was an attempt at pseudo-religion of convenience...universalism is all that and more.

Methinks it quite remarkable that my application of logic, reason and common sense to a path of love and tolerance should be considered in any way comparable.

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."

While I too have had the good fortune of knowing many people of many walks who exemplify love, I have to caution myself here in what it is, precisely, that you mean by "follower of Christ" outside of a Christian context. Specifically, what it is you mean by "Christ?" I pause to say, but I am thinking that the Christ "they" follow is not the *Christian* Christ, by your own admission. If so, we are talking apples and oranges, with no comparison possible. Not because my eyes, ears and mind are closed, but because I see very clearly the...misuse...of the term "Christ" in this context. I see a deliberate confusion of the term, (and I suspect nefarious reasons as to why).

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.

Despite the objections by some to combative and competitive terminology...what better way to test one's mettle? That is to say, what better way to see if one's religious philosophy has merit, and is valid to what situations present themselves? Sure, one could go through life and expose themselves only to what confronts them directly. But the scholar, the seeker, looks beyond their own personal experiences to include the experiences of others, to hone their "sWord" of faith. I may not ever bear a child as a man, but I can include the experiences of women in childbirth to measure my religious beliefs...as but only one meager example. If my religious beliefs do not measure up, then something is amiss, no?

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.

Commonality between faiths is one thing, seeking to mitigate them all to that commonality at the expense of what individuates them seems to me more than dishonest. I say this with love, not an accusation. My experiences make me wary, and I have to this point found no contrary evidence, at least once the smoke clears and the dust settles...

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.

Perhaps, but not by me. I have learned, through ongoing study, that all religions stem from a simple tribal shamanism.

What, or How, Spirit has manifested in the meantime, if or when, to each as each required, is so far unprovable.

Yet, the fact remains, there is great diversity in religious expression.

The fact remains, humans have been looking to some form or expression of G-d, globally and across time, until fairly recently. And this ubiquitous search was ongoing amongst peoples who couldn't be bothered with chasing fantasies, their very lives depended on not being distracted in such manner.

Repeatedly you have objected to what you perceive as an effort to dispense with the square corners, and stuff square pegs into round holes

Yes, and I will continue to do so. I find it quite intolerant, suggesting that square corners should be rounded to fit a more modern mold. If G-d meant for everybody to be the same, He would have given us all "relatively" identical religion all along.

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.

Very well, we'll see.

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.

OK...

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.

OK...

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.

I can agree with this, to a point. "To hell with the axe" sounds good, and I am certain many would jump at the opportunity. To me, it seems a surrender of common sense. Did not Jesus advise those he sent out to buy a sword, knowing they would be travelling in dangerous territory with brigands and thieves? We are not Jesus...as much as I wish I could be, I am not. I fall short, I need Him to help me. He helps those who help themselves. I do not live in a fairyland...I live in a real world. A real world that, sadly, all too often has brigands and thieves. I will keep my sword, if you don't mind. It helps keep my mind sharp, and on the lookout, as John advised us in Revelations.

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!

I have tried to read Tielhard...I'm afraid he went right over my head. I'm certain his was a brilliant mind. Perhaps too brilliant. Anyway, he is just a scad outside the boundary of my minds ability to grasp.

Like I have said elsewhere, I do believe the message of Christ, though bathed in Love, is measured in common sense. I am a firm believer in the KISS principle...the Bible wasn't written for egomaniac intellectuals, it was written for everybody...that includes the poor, the dumb, the uneducated and the otherwise disenfranchised.

I speak as an intellectual to be heard by intellectuals and not to be talked down by intellectuals...given the choice between intelligence and wisdom, I will choose wisdom *every* time.

 

[Paladin]

Wow Mark! I'm envious in the very best way! Can you articulate some of what went into your decision?

Chris

Well Chris, when I began a period of recovery nine years ago I decided that I needed to throw away everything I knew. I became open to everything God had to offer, as a child might. Since that time I have studied and practiced many things. I think the conversations we have had here in the last few months really began the decision process. Do you remember how we all talked about eclectic spirituality? I began to consider what Thomas talked about, as I have always been a big Thomas Merton fan. I wanted to know what it was driving people to the Cross. What was it I am missing? I dearly love the teachings that the Buddha left for us, and practiced them deeply, but there was still something for me to discover about Christianity, something I had eschewed for so many years because of what I saw as distasteful practice of the right wing. Yet for all the cringing I did when I heard someone go about Jesus, I felt I needed to know one way or the other if there was anything to it, something I had overlooked.
Have you ever gone looking for something, your keys perhaps, and because you couldn't find them, you found yourself looking in the same spot over and over, as if they might magically appear if you pulled open that drawer one more time?
Thats what it felt like.
Now, I think I have a grasp of what it was I was missing. In reading the words of the great Christian mystics I found a lanquage nearly identical to Lao Tsu, Hui Neng, and others. Except here was something that took me beyond even their teachings, wonderful though they were. There was a connection there in the old Christian writings that touched my heart/mind in a way that even deep Zen meditaion could not.
Maybe I'm just hardwired somehow to need this, and maybe others need a different path, I surely don't know. As a matter of fact there is a dearth of things I no longer know, but somehow it seems okay. It seems okay to be completely ignorant and in touch with part of myself that is still innocent in a way. This part of me that feels content to ponder the mystery of Christ. I may never get to say "I know" again ever, but in my heart, that feels okay.

Peace
Mark

 

[InLove]

Love to you, Mark. I rejoice that you have entered into the next part of your journey, and I have no doubt that your peace will grow. There may be rough spots, but just remember that no matter how much you learn, the heart of a child is where it all starts. I'll be here for you if you ever need, and I know that others will be, as well.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Paladin!

My dear brother,

Oh my! I am sorry to hear of your crisis of faith, I hope I was in no way instrumental in causing any damage. We have had wonderful discussions together, and I trust that will continue.

That said, I am happy for you in that you seem to have chosen a path, and I trust that path is appropriate for you.

Doubt for some can stimulate growth, doubt for others can hinder growth, always the unanswerable questions stimulate us and drive us onward. We reach for that we know is there, that we can't quite see, can't quite touch, can't quite wrap our minds around. Somehow, I think G-d knew what He was doing in all of this...but be darned if I have figured it out!

I wish you and yours the very best! Good Luck!

From a really hairy tick.

 

[Paladin]

In Love,

You will always be to me a shining example of what is possible with great faith and Gods grace, thank you.

Juan,

If you were instrumental in my crisis of faith, then I owe you a great debt. It was this wrestling with questions too large for my simple soul that has opened another door for me. Many thanks brother.

Peace
Mark

 

[taijasi]

Please, be advised, I am wary of any path that looks to claim "the truth," for one and all. One must admit, with even cursory experience with universalism and / or Theosophy, that that is precisely the premise and platform from which they level their "proselyzation." I do not say this to be hurtful, merely experientially factual.

We might as well get off to a better start, then, by looking carefully at what is actually claimed. My understanding and experience is that Gnostics, esotericists, Theosophists and possibly universalists ... don't say, "Here, *this* is the truth." What they claim is that there is One Truth which underlies all religons. It is the foundation, upon which all have been erected.

Clearly then, this Foundation is Divine, originating with God (or Gods, Godhead, the Source, etc.), if you accept the premise upon which any of the religions have been built. In other words, NO MAN (or person) has created this Foundation. Catholics might think of it as the Rock, upon which Christ built His Church ... yet here the reference to the man, St. Peter, becomes involved. But the point is, what a Theosophist, or universalist may claim - AT MOST - is that other texts, other Prophets and Messengers, and other teachings besides those found in Christianity are valid, helpful and true.

If connections can be drawn, and commonalities seen, then it is equally true that differences can be highlighted, and that each text, Prophet or teaching can be celebrated for its unique and particular value. At best, a universalist may point toward the idea (upheld by some as a definite fact) that a Universal Truth exists. S/he *cannot* hand that to you, or say, "This is it." We cannot mistake the finger for the moon. The Tao that can be named, is not the Eternal Tao.

So the proselytism consists, not in handing one a bible, a religious tract, or even expousing certain doctrines as *supposedly ultimate truth*. You can lose my attention and interest in about 2 seconds if that's where you start.

On the other hand, if you say something like, "Truth is within us all, we simply need to seek in order to find it," or even, "Once you find Truth within, it then becomes your duty, your Sacred obligation, to LIVE that Truth" ... ahhh, THEN you have piqued my curiosity and my interest. I do not believe we can hammer out Ultimate Truth, and prepare it in convenient pamphlet form for easy ingestion. It takes serious soul-searching, and a great deal of chewing on, of contemplation, across an entire lifetime (if not hundreds, or thousands). Tell me you *have it here, in this or that package* ... and I'll know immediately that your fulluvit.

"yeah, but Christianity does it too!"

And two wrongs don't make a right! Sure, there are self-ordained ministers, prophets, messiahs and entire sects which are convinced they are both God's gift to the world, *and* somehow in possession of God's ultimate truth. If people of different spiritual inclinations are just gonna sit around and try to one-up themselves ... then they're gonna get nowhere fast. I think I, Brian posted a joke about this somewhere recently - having to do with denominational differences, and the absurdity of all. It's a classic!

Common sense says deal with the wolf at the door, not spend time worrying about wolves that might or might not be in the field. Why spend time on vain imaginings and fantasies? When one's ox is in the ditch, you get him out.

I look at as, if you happen to be in one of those situations where your patience is being tested, and tolerance strained, then the wolf represents giving in - and losing patience, losing tolerance. We can be stubborn as an ox, and hold to the old ways, or we can get back to the business of plowing the field, preparing the harvest.

None of this means we have to get walked on, but then, the way to solve a problem is not to throw kerosene on the fire. It's not even to "fight fire with fire." An eye for an eye, makes the whole world blind. The very best way to "show up" or defeat an opponent in an argument, is to show them just how silly the argument is to begin with, save in the purely philosophical or rhetorical sense. One can be quite productive, even amusing; the other, isn't worth wasting our proverbial breath on!

I apologize for any misunderstanding, but if ever there was an attempt at pseudo-religion of convenience...universalism is all that and more.

Please give me your definition, brief and succinct, of universalism. Commentary optional ...

Specifically, what it is you mean by "Christ?" I pause to say, but I am thinking that the Christ "they" follow is not the *Christian* Christ, by your own admission. If so, we are talking apples and oranges, with no comparison possible. Not because my eyes, ears and mind are closed, but because I see very clearly the...misuse...of the term "Christ" in this context. I see a deliberate confusion of the term, (and I suspect nefarious reasons as to why).

Christ, to me, and as I use the term here, refers to the Lord of Love, and Master of Masters, the embodiment of the 2nd Aspect of Godhead. The best thing about discussing this on the Liberal Christian forum, is that you can't tell me that's wrong. At best, you can say, "Oh! That's not what Christ means to me."

And you are free to suspect anything you like, if you derive some sort of pleasure or meaning from it. The conspiracy of Love, yes I *do* think it's real. It means a great deal to me, but the only nefarious part is the very real crusade to stop it. Some oppose because they have chosen to do so, even knowing better. Others truly don't know what they do, and are in this sense genuinely ignorant, yet are forgiven anyway (else Christ's utterance on the Cross was empty and pointless). Most of us, I think, know we are capable of more, and are trying to learn from our mistakes, yet we are still responsible insofar as we transgress ... and must "answer" for it. So remission of sins, and penance, mean something very real to me, just not in the Roman Catholic sense.

Despite the objections by some to combative and competitive terminology...what better way to test one's mettle? That is to say, what better way to see if one's religious philosophy has merit, and is valid to what situations present themselves? Sure, one could go through life and expose themselves only to what confronts them directly. But the scholar, the seeker, looks beyond their own personal experiences to include the experiences of others, to hone their "sWord" of faith. I may not ever bear a child as a man, but I can include the experiences of women in childbirth to measure my religious beliefs...as but only one meager example. If my religious beliefs do not measure up, then something is amiss, no?

Very good points ... *absolutely*!

Commonality between faiths is one thing, seeking to mitigate them all to that commonality at the expense of what individuates them seems to me more than dishonest. I say this with love, not an accusation. My experiences make me wary, and I have to this point found no contrary evidence, at least once the smoke clears and the dust settles...

Yes, I guess it's about whether we want to celebrate what we have in common, or what distinguishes us. We can choose, and it will grow equally tiresome to harp upon either extreme. No two people on the planet are truly identical. No two are utterly unconnected. We all meet somewhere in the middle. Trite, but true.

I find it quite intolerant, suggesting that square corners should be rounded to fit a more modern mold. If G-d meant for everybody to be the same, He would have given us all "relatively" identical religion all along.

We are *totally* on the same page ... like, uh, totally, dude.

I do believe the message of Christ, though bathed in Love, is measured in common sense.

See? Here's a wonderful point of similarity between Christianity and Buddhism. We don't hafta talk about Nirvana and Heaven, or look at variations between the concepts of Soul/Anatman between the two. The Buddha taught moderation, and his own spiritual experiences (luxury & excess, then extreme asceticism, and finally balance) emphasize the Middle Way as extremely practical, often more so than the Compassion of the Buddhas - which is nonetheless an ideal.

peace out,

~Zag

 

[seattlegal]

My Dear Friends,

It seems as if a decade has passed since we first began this thread. Along with another thread on heresy, we have explored a vast region of belief. During this time I have been in a secret misery as it were, struggling between belief and non belief. In a very real sense, I began to understand St. John of the Cross for the first time. With the rest of you, I put forth my opinions and ideas, that at the time seemed at least somewhat important. Imagine my chagrin to see how little importance my own cherished ideas have.
In these last few months I began to feel as if I had been stripped of all reason and understanding. Confidence and certitude have flown as surely as a flock of frightened crows. But it is out of this dark night that I think a little light has dawned.
Still feeling pretty raw and vulnerable right now, but after much study, meditation and prayer I have come to a decision and have contacted a local parish here in town to begin the first step of the Rites of Christian Initiation for Adults. It is my intent to convert to Catholicism. I have not discussed this with anyone else except my dear wife Susan, but I wanted those of you whom I consider part of my spiritual household to know.
Thank you for all that you have shared here on this board, and on this forum

All my love

Mark

There is strength in vulnerability. (1 Corinthians 1:18-31, Romans 8:26, 2 Cor 12:9-10) God's Holy Spirit is a wonderful instrument of transformation. I welcome you as a brother in Christ.

 

[cyberpi]

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.

Both really. Fighting fire with fire? That thinking is: Do unto others as they do unto you. Similar to a reward / punishment or a carrot / stick approach. Works for animal training. Either beat it or bribe it into submission, alignment, or agreement. Love the dog that loves you and hate the dog that hates you. The apathetic or inactive form is an interesting study too: Do NOT do unto others as they do NOT do it unto you.

Hopefully you are aware of the Golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The inactive version is good too: Do NOT do unto others as you would NOT have them do unto you.

But I think your trouble is with what you call the door-mat version: Do NOT do unto others what they do unto you. For the negative it is viewed as turn the cheek, but sounds more like play dead. Simply don't care or judge. The pro-active: Do unto others what they do NOT do unto you. is interesting. That could be many actions including the criminal or heartily giving without return.

More commonly I see something worse: Do NOT do unto others what you would have them to do unto you. Call it apathy, greed, or the jackpot. Bsically, don't give a rip for others but to still desire their service. The pro-active: Do unto others what you would NOT have them do unto you. That one pretty well covers criminal activity.

I listed eight variations because I see fuziness over: 1. action versus inaction, 2. of judging good actions versus being reactionary to the judgement of others, and 3. of hypocricy versus seeking justice, fairness, or equality.

Fighting fire with fire? What about stopping with water? While you might be calling someone else's judgement or actions a Fire, I consider using any form of energy a Fire. There is action or there is inaction. Fire propels the car, it propels the computer, it propels the body, and it propels the tongue. I produce fires daily by burning hydrocarbons and even influencing others to produce fires. Note that Jesus was baptized and he baptized others with Fire too. It is a capability to effect change. As far as I see, all actions here on Earth require some type of exothermic or exoentropic fire. In that sense the Golden rule calls for fire. Love is a fire. Fire has negative imagery of unintended damage, but fire simply causes change. It causes change whether it was intended or unintended, self propagating or controlled. So then what is water? I view the quenching of fire as an endothermic but exoentropic reaction... a method of shutting off the fire. Kind of like confession and forgiveness.

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.

I am well aware that words do NOT injure, so you and I are differently well aware. Oh no! Different. I am finding quite a few in the 'hearing a word causes injury' camp. Is a reaction truly an injury chosen by the speaker? I find that a lack of communication causes far greater harm... even wars. I submit that God's will is that the words that can injure are the ones personally spoken. If someone else's words can hurt a person, then how does that person hope to survive death? Words can cause change. Words can inform or mislead, but I submit it is up to the listener to set up the firewall, sort through words and accept or reject them.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well Chris, when I began a period of recovery nine years ago I decided that I needed to throw away everything I knew. I became open to everything God had to offer, as a child might. Since that time I have studied and practiced many things. I think the conversations we have had here in the last few months really began the decision process. Do you remember how we all talked about eclectic spirituality? I began to consider what Thomas talked about, as I have always been a big Thomas Merton fan. I wanted to know what it was driving people to the Cross. What was it I am missing? I dearly love the teachings that the Buddha left for us, and practiced them deeply, but there was still something for me to discover about Christianity, something I had eschewed for so many years because of what I saw as distasteful practice of the right wing. Yet for all the cringing I did when I heard someone go about Jesus, I felt I needed to know one way or the other if there was anything to it, something I had overlooked.
Have you ever gone looking for something, your keys perhaps, and because you couldn't find them, you found yourself looking in the same spot over and over, as if they might magically appear if you pulled open that drawer one more time?
Thats what it felt like.
Now, I think I have a grasp of what it was I was missing. In reading the words of the great Christian mystics I found a lanquage nearly identical to Lao Tsu, Hui Neng, and others. Except here was something that took me beyond even their teachings, wonderful though they were. There was a connection there in the old Christian writings that touched my heart/mind in a way that even deep Zen meditaion could not.
Maybe I'm just hardwired somehow to need this, and maybe others need a different path, I surely don't know. As a matter of fact there is a dearth of things I no longer know, but somehow it seems okay. It seems okay to be completely ignorant and in touch with part of myself that is still innocent in a way. This part of me that feels content to ponder the mystery of Christ. I may never get to say "I know" again ever, but in my heart, that feels okay.

Peace
Mark

Yeah, there's an element of Christianity that's unique. I think it lies in embracing the essential duality instead of trying to escape or transcend it. There is polemic duality and cooperative duality. Christianity contemplates the latter in a uniquely western way that you don't get from any of the eastern traditions. Thomas and I have talked about that, and I think it's part of what Juan is thrashing on about, although I wouldn't put words in his mouth (or anything else).

I'm very happy for you and your good thing. In many ways I wish I could do the same as you, but I can't.

Chris

 

[lunamoth]

My Dear Friends,

It seems as if a decade has passed since we first began this thread. Along with another thread on heresy, we have explored a vast region of belief. During this time I have been in a secret misery as it were, struggling between belief and non belief. In a very real sense, I began to understand St. John of the Cross for the first time. With the rest of you, I put forth my opinions and ideas, that at the time seemed at least somewhat important. Imagine my chagrin to see how little importance my own cherished ideas have.
In these last few months I began to feel as if I had been stripped of all reason and understanding. Confidence and certitude have flown as surely as a flock of frightened crows. But it is out of this dark night that I think a little light has dawned.
Still feeling pretty raw and vulnerable right now, but after much study, meditation and prayer I have come to a decision and have contacted a local parish here in town to begin the first step of the Rites of Christian Initiation for Adults. It is my intent to convert to Catholicism. I have not discussed this with anyone else except my dear wife Susan, but I wanted those of you whom I consider part of my spiritual household to know.
Thank you for all that you have shared here on this board, and on this forum

All my love

Mark

Hi Mark, I've just come across this amazing post of yours. I think I understand at least a little what you mean by the dark night of the soul. I'm deeply moved by what you've shared here. Look for a PM from me.

Laurie

 

[lunamoth]

Yeah, there's an element of Christianity that's unique. I think it lies in embracing the essential duality instead of trying to escape or transcend it. There is polemic duality and cooperative duality. Christianity contemplates the latter in a uniquely western way that you don't get from any of the eastern traditions. Thomas and I have talked about that, and I think it's part of what Juan is thrashing on about, although I wouldn't put words in his mouth (or anything else).

Well said Chris. This is what I sense too.

 

[flowperson]

Hello Mark:

I was moved by what you had to say and can only wholeheartedly agree with the path that you have decided upon. Since I've been stumbling along a similar path for the better part of the last twenty years, I would urge you to continue to seek. There are answers and there is harmony in Christianity, but I have always been surprised by them when I have happened upon them. Disciplines and enforcements are never the gateways to hidden understandings, but the offering up of the self to the altar of spiritual understanding is. There is only one in the end.

I am reminded of a blessing used quite often by a pastor of mine during some very difficult times in my life.

"G-d go with you. May He walk where you walk, comfort you when you hurt, guide you when you must make choices...and surprise you with His love for you, who you are, and what you do."

flow....