Christianity Outside the Box
- Thread starter earl
- Start date
hmmm, mine are narrow and deep. However, they are fed by tributaries...Hey Q, I'm actually in favor of channels. It's just mine are pretty wide.earl
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
I could as easily say you have it within a box of your own fabrication.
And when it comes to substantiating claims ... why do you it should matter to me in the least to set about proving anything at all to you? In walking through the enemy's camp, can you blame me if I do not stop very long for tea?
Namaste Thomas,
Would you say that to Moses, while he was telling you about the burning bush. Or how about to Jonah with his story about the big fish? Or maybe Jesus, when he related to you his experiences?
What you do to the least of me you do to me...
Looks like we've all have pounded our nails in the cross...
The difference is Wil, they would be telling me what they personally believe.
Whereas Andrew is telling me what other people believed ... and I am accusing him of slander. To substantiate his claim, all he has to do is present some evidence ... but he can't. Because there isn't any.
The only thing being nailed here, my friend, is the truth.
Thomas
I can substantiate every claim I make about Christian doctrine.
You can't substantiate any claim you make about Christian doctrine.
Thomas
But isn't that the crux of the biscuit Thomas?
Aren't you and I both regurgitating information that has been passed on from on high? We both read our books, go to our teachers, listen to sermons, and develop our own understandings.
Are we not truly relating what others believed and now we do as well?
What is the difference? He points to his books, cloaked in mystery, myth, questionable facts, I point to mine, you point to yours...do any of us have a pedestal to stand on that is truly better supported than others.
If we were to look it up, how many anti Theosophy books are out there, vs. rants and tomes against Christianity and Catholocism?
Do you think for a minute Andrew doesn't believe?
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Thomas, if you could read the astral light ... you might be surprised at just who has been doing the nailing all along.
2100 years ago the ecclesiasts had a different name, but they reacted to the New Revelation (the New Dispensation) the same way. They were the sanhedrin -- and so I hear, they didn't give the New Teachings any warmer a reception than YOU have.
When Christ asked St. Francis to "rebuild my church," which church do you suppose he was talking about?
2100 years ago the ecclesiasts had a different name, but they reacted to the New Revelation (the New Dispensation) the same way. They were the sanhedrin -- and so I hear, they didn't give the New Teachings any warmer a reception than YOU have.
When Christ asked St. Francis to "rebuild my church," which church do you suppose he was talking about?
lunamoth
Episcopalian
It seems like we often debate the points of authority of our traditions. I would not argue that the Tradition of Christianity for Christians is more (or less) authoratative than the authorities Andrew cites for Theosophy. We all get messed up and irritated when one side claims authority for the other, and pretty much says 'your authority is wrong, corrupt, duplicitious, etc..'
Maybe another way to approach it rather than from a view of authority is from a view of trust. I've seen BB make this point elsewhere and I think it is a very good one. I look at my own tradition and while on the one hand there are points where it challenges me to trust, and perhaps I don't fully trust it, the much greater weight is on the idea that there are 2000 years of great minds applied and wisdom earned to be found in that Tradition. Seems foolish and unneccesary to scrap the whole thing, and where I might not understand or agree, it gives me a place to examine my beliefs and maybe actually learn something (whether or not I can ever give 'intellectual assent' to whatever the issue is).
How can I ever grow, be transformed, if never challenged? If I can incorporate my every belief, no matter how fuzzy or weak or even wrong, into my 'religion,' then I will never get beyond my own limited thinking.
I'm not trying to make a case for sheep-like following of anything the old men say. I think religion grows and changes too, at least in some respects.
Maybe another way to approach it rather than from a view of authority is from a view of trust. I've seen BB make this point elsewhere and I think it is a very good one. I look at my own tradition and while on the one hand there are points where it challenges me to trust, and perhaps I don't fully trust it, the much greater weight is on the idea that there are 2000 years of great minds applied and wisdom earned to be found in that Tradition. Seems foolish and unneccesary to scrap the whole thing, and where I might not understand or agree, it gives me a place to examine my beliefs and maybe actually learn something (whether or not I can ever give 'intellectual assent' to whatever the issue is).
How can I ever grow, be transformed, if never challenged? If I can incorporate my every belief, no matter how fuzzy or weak or even wrong, into my 'religion,' then I will never get beyond my own limited thinking.
I'm not trying to make a case for sheep-like following of anything the old men say. I think religion grows and changes too, at least in some respects.
I am not saying this is personally the case for anyone, but when in the face of new and more convincing information it becomes time to rethink or scrap that old tradition.
If we didn't, I hate to point to the obvioius but women's rights (or lack thereof), slavery, and who knows what else would be commonplace as they were set in thousands of years of tradition.
What we are dealing with in Christianity is folks that refuse to update a book for 1700 years even if things change. Yes we are slowly categorizing sections as allegorical, metaphorical, and mythological...but it is yet to be written commonly in the margins, or as a forward to the scripture. With all to the contrary many believe the book to be the inerrant word of G!d, and the Gospels to be written by the Apostles, because, the lord said it and I believe it.
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Those things were set in the economy and culture of their day. They are no more Christian tradition (or principles) than they are democratic tradition (or principles). People used all kinds of things to justify these injustices that they found convenient or best for their personal gain, yes including the Bible. Just as people try to justify things today because they are 'in the Bible.'
Sorry wil, that dog don't hunt.
Namaste luna,
You don't think that religious tradition is set in the economy and culture of the day? That tradition wasn't, isn't used to justify, for personal gain?
sniff, sniff woof woof.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
So, Laurie, mob rules?lunamoth said:
I never said "scrap the whole thing." Didn't suggest that in the least. I just argue against dogmas etched in stone ... and I argue that for once, if you can't walk outside and just bear witness to the Divine Feminine all around you (and understand this as an EQUAL part of the Divine, every bit EQUAL to the "Divine Masculine") -- then you're the one that needs to substantiate your view, not the rest of us (Christian or otherwise) who can read the writing on the wall.
But like I said, if it ain't etched in stone somewhere, there are those who will NEVER see -- even though they can't even produce the stone, much less the `Finger,' Whom or which did the supposed etching.
"Take it on Faith," they say, yet when someone steps forward with precisely this quality, it comes down to PROVE IT TO ME ... and gee, I thought matters of Faith couldn't be proven to begin with!
Yes of course we do. It's called evidence.
A historian claims to have found the missing link ... a scientist claims to have conquered cold fusion ... a mathematician claims to have cracked Fermat's Theorem ... do we just believe them because they say so?
It's not a question of faith in such cases — we accept in good faith that which we receive because there's evidential supporting material, be it objective or subjective.
But if someone claims something with no evidence whatsoever, then I'm entitled to counter with the claim that it is spurious.
I don't doubt Andrew believes it, I'm just saying prove it if he wants me to accept it.
I've been questioned myself enough for what I claim, I don't see why I'm not allowed to question anyone else.
Andrew is entitled to believe in what he likes ... he is not entitled to insist that others believed as he does, if all the evidence is to the contrary, and thereby insist that my faith is a lie, or in his words 'churchianity'.
This conversation began when he accused my faith of lying. I'm just defending what I believe, and what all the available evidence supports.
Thomas
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Did anyone actually read my post?
Anyway, wil, yes of course religions are set in their time and culture and should be read that way. But this is still going off-course in the discussion about tradition. Perhaps we just mean different things when we refer to tradition?
My post was not trying to criticize anyone, but perhaps I struck a nerve with my sentence about incorportaing anything at all that I want into my own religion. If so I apologize. Please know that I was really just thinking about my own experience and what I have found useful.
Anyway, wil, yes of course religions are set in their time and culture and should be read that way. But this is still going off-course in the discussion about tradition. Perhaps we just mean different things when we refer to tradition?
My post was not trying to criticize anyone, but perhaps I struck a nerve with my sentence about incorportaing anything at all that I want into my own religion. If so I apologize.
Please know that I was really just thinking about my own experience and what I have found useful.
N
Nick_A
Guest
So then it seems obvious that the Catholic Church has done the same and gradually lost its essential meaning and purpose so that on the surface it has become just another facet of Christendom. That is why Simone could never call herself Catholic even though she experienced the depth of its essential Christian meaning and purpose..
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Thomas, I will point you in the right direction. Besides Osiris-Isis-Horus, you will find that in Greece the Father-Mother-Son Trinity of Powers included Ouranos-Gaia-Kronos. The legend, being two different expressions of UNIVERSAL Truth, is essentially the same. Try reading Wikipedia on Kronos ... for more info.
In India, you can visit ANY VILLAGE YOU LIKE, and you will find the same Father-Mother-Son TRINITY, but with hundreds - maybe thousands - of variations. I'm sorry you're too damn lazy to check facts for yourself. I'm sorry you're so stuffy that all you can manage is the thumping of your Papal Bull ... but buddy, I've given you two specifics now, and a whole COUNTRY full of other leads. Go do some investigation on your own, and stop pretending you're incapable.
Why did I bother? It is NEVER good enough for you. "There are none so blind ..."
In India, you can visit ANY VILLAGE YOU LIKE, and you will find the same Father-Mother-Son TRINITY, but with hundreds - maybe thousands - of variations. I'm sorry you're too damn lazy to check facts for yourself. I'm sorry you're so stuffy that all you can manage is the thumping of your Papal Bull ... but buddy, I've given you two specifics now, and a whole COUNTRY full of other leads. Go do some investigation on your own, and stop pretending you're incapable.
Why did I bother? It is NEVER good enough for you. "There are none so blind ..."
Hi Nick —
I admire and respect your loyalty to and faith in Simone Weil, I will not argue with that.
Indeed, who can tell where that my lead? She is certainly held in high regard by our theologians — indeed even Pope Benedict refers to her, as I recall — her voice is part of the weave of the whole ... is suppose one looks to the garment, and chooses ones thread therefrom.
To wax lyrical with Earl, for a moment ... I have swum in the great waters, now I strike up one of its rivers — The Tiber — in search of its voice.
Each to his or her own calling, I suppose, each swims towards the voice they hear, in the hope of finding the light at its source.
Thomas
I admire and respect your loyalty to and faith in Simone Weil, I will not argue with that.
Indeed, who can tell where that my lead? She is certainly held in high regard by our theologians — indeed even Pope Benedict refers to her, as I recall — her voice is part of the weave of the whole ... is suppose one looks to the garment, and chooses ones thread therefrom.
To wax lyrical with Earl, for a moment ... I have swum in the great waters, now I strike up one of its rivers — The Tiber — in search of its voice.
Each to his or her own calling, I suppose, each swims towards the voice they hear, in the hope of finding the light at its source.
Thomas
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
For clarity's sake, Thomas, since it is YOUR Catholic Church which invented the Father, Son & Holy Spirit Trinity -- a full 5 centuries after Christ ... I ask you to prove that any Christians before the 5th Century councils believed as you suggest. I state what should be OBVIOUS, and I can back it up by showing what people of other cultures believed.
Your Church found it necessary to invent the dogma of a virgin birth, because it could not understand the Mystery of the Cosmic Virgin ... and because it could not, or would not, deal with the right function, purpose and place of sex -- either 1500 years ago, OR TODAY.
I will say the touché for you ... since you haven't the sport to do so yourself.
Light indeed:
Your Church found it necessary to invent the dogma of a virgin birth, because it could not understand the Mystery of the Cosmic Virgin ... and because it could not, or would not, deal with the right function, purpose and place of sex -- either 1500 years ago, OR TODAY.
I will say the touché for you ... since you haven't the sport to do so yourself.
Light indeed:
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Since you have responded,Thomas, to another post since the above quoted 'challenge' of Andrew I can only conclude that your passage through that corrupt and murderous institution known as the Catholic Church is solely one of promotion and not of inter anything. Now your devious call for a space to soapbox becomes evidently as corrupt as the church you are at pains to defend.
tao