Nontheistic Christianity

[wil]

Hi Nick –

According to my belief system, such attributes as getting angry (the Christian God gets angry, which causes me to not believe in Him) are not associated with the Absolute.

Actually that's a common misconception with regard to Christianity, to do with the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. The link takes you to a useful resource for getting to grips with the Catholic concept of Biblical hermeneutics, if you're interested.

Thomas

Namaste Thomas,

But doesn't this misconception come from literal fundamental understandings?

Some know it as allegory but others think that Adam and Eve HEARD G!d WALKING in the garden and hid because they were ashamed they were naked.

Your theologians and heirarchy are aware, but still does not disseminate it to the masses. (no pun intended) BTW I'm not putting your church in the boat by itself, Protestants are at fault teaching the bible as the inerrant word of G!d as well.

 

[earl]

Hey Nick. When you speak of a "hierarchy," you seem to be implying a "hierarchy" of revealed truth. So, then you're implying Gautama-if "higher" in your hierachy-found more it than Jesus. earl

 

[sonoman]

Adepts? Somebody doesn't understand Jesus' teachings which instruct followers to not call any human being their master. God alone is our master says Jesus. Gautama Buddha never found God so how can anyone who believes in God ever put Buddha above Jesus?

 

[wil]

Wil,

We agree again!

...--> I believe there is a huge number of such levels. To refer back to the comparison of the Adept Jesus and the Adept Gautama Buddha, I believe the Adept Jesus is one level below the Adept Gautama, in a type of hierarchy.

startin to become an issue...

Now as far as getting to my adept is better than your adept or my Christ is better than your Buddha... I'm not ready to enter that fray...

And actually don't see the reason to start.

After all our secretaries, ear witnesses and eye witnesses have some issues.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Earl,

I would not use the terminology of levels of revealed 'truth.' Rather, it is ascending levels of consciousness and understanding. I definitely see Gauatama as having reached a higher level of consciousness than Jesus. Also, according to my belief system, there are other 'former-humans' who have reached the level of consciousness that is just above Gautama's present level. I see it as a continuous line of steps, reaching up to infinity, in a seemingly endless parade of beings.

I believe the Bible disinguishes different levels of angel, archangels, seraphim, cerabim (sp), etc. (Holy moly, even Thomas himself agrees with this one.) These different levels agree nicely with the idea of a hierarchy.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil,

You said,

"...as far as getting to my adept is better than your adept or my Christ is better than your Buddha... I'm not ready to enter that fray..."

--> I was not trying to get into a "Buddha is better than Christ" debate. That was not my intention at all. I am sorry if it came across that way. I was merely delineating how Jesus and Gautama fit into my (and other people's) belief systems.

I was showing you how I, too, believe in the idea of various levels of Christ Consciouness, and I was only giving you some examples.

 

[earl]

Earl,

I would not use the terminology of levels of revealed 'truth.' Rather, it is ascending levels of consciousness and understanding. I definitely see Gauatama as having reached a higher level of consciousness than Jesus. Also, according to my belief system, there are other 'former-humans' who have reached the level of consciousness that is just above Gautama's present level. I see it as a continuous line of steps, reaching up to infinity, in a seemingly endless parade of beings.

I believe the Bible disinguishes different levels of angel, archangels, seraphim, cerabim (sp), etc. (Holy moly, even Thomas himself agrees with this one.) These different levels agree nicely with the idea of a hierarchy.

How do you know Gautama had a higher level of understanding? earl

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

... I just don't need no sprinkles of water to become converted

Really this is where I just don't get you. A 'sprinkle of water' was good enough for Him, and it seemed pretty important to the Apostles, too (cf Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:9, Luke 2:21, John 1:32, 1 Corinthians 1:17, Acts 2:38 "But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.")

Nor do you correctly present the doctrine you decry. Baptism is not about conversion, that is something other, something prior. You don't get baptised to be converted. Baptism is by the gift and grace of the Holy Spirit, an incorporation into the Body of Christ — the flock of the Son.

Without it, you are not part of His body — it's a condition He instituted, an initiation he sacramentalised ... not one man made up, so don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.

Look neither high nor low tis in your midst.

"without me you can do nothing" John 15:5
I believe that ... and it is to Him I look for the Way. If we didn't need Him, why did He bother?

I am sorry Wil, but that's why I contend with you, I suppose. It seems to me those those things which appeal to you, you accept, and other things which don't appeal, you seek to invalidate their authenticity ... it's a two-edged sword, Wil, because one ends up deciding what's valid and what's not according to one's own inclination ... given enough people, every single word will be invalidated at some point.

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Earl,

This comes from the idea that Jesus was a reincarnation of Maitreya Bodhisattva. As you may know, Maitreya will be the next Buddha, when Gautama vacates the post. If Maitreya indeed was Jesus (and I think there is reason to at least consider the possibility), then the higher level consciousness of a Buddha (Gautama), as opposed to the lower level of consciousness of a Buddha-to-be (Maitreya/Jesus) becomes apparent.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Thomas,
First of all, I want to thank you for not insulting me, as you have done in the past.

No problem. Let's not dwell in the past, you gave as good as you got, as I recall.

Oh really? Let's take a look ...
... I need no links to 'interpret' this for me.

Oh dear ... well what can I say ... bit of a quandry really, because actually there's stuff in the link which answers your objection ... again, it's quite a common one ... but OK.

Thomas

 

[sonoman]

Where there's no consciousness of God, there's no "higher" consciousness. The thing about the so-called "Adepts" in the world is that the nations that produce these fellows lag far behind the nations that have relied on Christ as their spiritual leader. Seems to me evidence of higher consciousness would be seen in the nations that claim such doctrines, e.g. India or Tibet. These nations if they held truth above everyone else would be leading the world but are they?

 

[Thomas]

Thomas,
I want to thank you again for not insulting me.

Really ... once is more than enough.

Does this mean you no longer think I have the brain-power of a horse?

Oh dear, did I imply that? I am sorry if I burdened you with that impression ... It's not the kind of comment I'd make, I'm sure, my dad was a horseman, and according to him horses are far smarter than we often suppose ... but I do wonder what you must think of me, if what you say above is how you perceive the Bible...

Hey ho ...

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hey Wil —

I'm firing back answers quite quickly again, and you can see I'm probably getting tetchy with it, too ... and I think I'm having a 'pop' at you more than I should (ol' Tom's popped out of the box ... so I'm tucking him away).

Despite appearances, I do believe your heart's in the right place, even if I wonder where your head is at ... so apologies, and I shall back away from the keyboard ... deep breath ... and r—e—l—a—x ...

... was it you talking about breaking out the whisk(e)y elsewhere? I'm a Bushmills man, myself ... Black Label, if anyone's thinking ... but in your honour, I'd be more than happy to crack open a bottle of Makers Mark.

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

Thank you for finally, finally admitting that you insulted me.

"It's not the kind of comment I'd make..."

--> Ah, the denial quickly sets in. OK, I accept that you have not apologized for anything. If you wish to continue to deny that you insulted me, so be it.

It is important for people to know that your belief system allows you to insult me, while mine does not allow me to insult you.

 

[earl]

Earl,

This comes from the idea that Jesus was a reincarnation of Maitreya Bodhisattva. As you may know, Maitreya will be the next Buddha, when Gautama vacates the post. If Maitreya indeed was Jesus (and I think there is reason to at least consider the possibility), then the higher level consciousness of a Buddha (Gautama), as opposed to the lower level of consciousness of a Buddha-to-be (Maitreya/Jesus) becomes apparent.

that's alot of assumin'. earl

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

The cursing of animals? Placing emnity between men and women? Multiplying the pain of all women's childbirth? Cursing the ground people walk on? Causing thorns and thistles to appear as a kind of punishment? Being driven out of the Garden of Eden?

I need no links to 'interpret' this for me. God got mad. No, He got downright vindictive. I believe in no such God.

Nick,
You could have quoted from Exodus for plenty of examples of wrath. Why pick on Genesis? Of course neither book is about a "Christian" God, any more than a Muslim God or a Jewish God, but Genesis pre-dates all of these.

Read carefully: the "enmity" is between the serpent and the woman, not between the man and the woman. The consequences of knowing the difference between good and evil were that people could no longer live in blissful ignorance. That paradise of innocence was effectively closed to them. This is not God's fault, this is an eternal truth. Genesis isn't history.

Of course few Christians believe in a wrathful God. People tend to project on to God what they know in themselves. In patriarchal societies it seemed obvious God was a man, for example. People have limited imaginations and limited understanding, but they use the language at their disposal.

Anyway, nice meeting you virtually again.
Cliff

 

[Thomas]

It is important for people to know that your belief system allows you to insult me, while mine does not allow me to insult you.

Oh, but you have done in the past ... but then none of us are perfect, and for my part I harbour no resentments ... it's all water under the bridge, as they say ...

However, as you seemed to be burdened by the past still, let me relieve you of that, and accept herewith my full and unconditional apology for all and any slight or insult in the past.

In friendship, might I offer the same advice that was offered me? It doesn't do to be too thin-skinned around here ... you'll end up holding grudges against a lot of people, believe me!

Thomas

 

[wil]

Namaste Thomas,

Don't worry about getting 'tetchy', I also know your heart is in the right place, and that my understandings sometimes push your buttons.

Hi Wil —


Really this is where I just don't get you. A 'sprinkle of water' was good enough for Him, and it seemed pretty important to the Apostles, too ...Baptism is by the gift and grace of the Holy Spirit, an incorporation into the Body of Christ...Without it, you are not part of His body — it's a condition He instituted, an initiation he sacramentalised ... not one man made up, so don't blame me, I'm just the messenger...

Now isn't that funny. I seem to remember John (the man) baptising first and saying there will be one who comes after me that won't use water, he'll baptise by the holy spirit... If Jesus did anything for us he elimnated the need for an intermediary.

"without me you can do nothing" John 15:5
I believe that ... and it is to Him I look for the Way. If we didn't need Him, why did He bother?...

again I agree fully. Although I don't think we all needed him. Krishna sufficed for Hindus, Moses for Jews, Buddha for Buddhists, us Christians did not get the level of understanding we needed from the other teachers, we needed Jesus, (who in turn wasn't sufficient for the followers of Mohamed (pbuh) or the Bahaulla)

I am sorry Wil, but that's why I contend with you, I suppose. It seems to me those those things which appeal to you, you accept, and other things which don't appeal, you seek to invalidate their authenticity ... it's a two-edged sword, Wil, because one ends up deciding what's valid and what's not according to one's own inclination ... given enough people, every single word will be invalidated at some point.

Thomas

Again we agree. I run into many Christians who are not willing to follow Jesus #1 & 2 commandments, who don't believe they can do better because he went on young in life, who pick and choose, face it we all do. Isn't that why for 1700 years there was a Catechism, don't read the book, only the sections we've selected for you that you need?

Folks for centuries used the bible picking and choosing to keep folks enslaved, used Paul to keep women out of power, used it to discriminate in many ways as the bible says so.

I haven't learned ancient Greek, Koine, Hebrew, Aramaic, Coptic. I'm not picking and choosing as to my inclinations. But am reading folks who have doctarates of theology, have dedicated their lives to study with other theologians, folks exploring for explorations sake not to butress up their church doctrine. Folks who let the dust settle where it will. I read Spong, Jesus Seminar, look forward to reading these other folks. And the glory is none of it turns me away from the bible or Jesus, none of it pulls the rug out from under me, my faith is strong that my salvation is in those words, despite the manueverings by man over the centuries.

 

[DT Strain]

Thomas,
When you have the time, I do hope you'll have a chance to list the erroneous assumptions to which you referred in the "Christianity Without God" book.
Thanks
-Daniel

 

[Dogbrain]

Isn't that why for 1700 years there was a Catechism, don't read the book, only the sections we've selected for you that you need?

Can you point to the documents wherein such a policy was implemented by the Orthodox? Are you truly so ignorant as to think that the errors attributed to Rome are universal to all of Christianity.