GENIUS FORUMS

Kelly Jones wrote: Reedsch,
Do you distinguish between finite and not-finite, in purely logical terms?

It would be exceedingly difficult not to.

Your claim to the ultimate high ground keeps slipping between your fingers, because once you jerk the foundation of finiteness out from under any argument then everything is fair game. In other words, any claims attributable to the Absolute (including Jesus' own) become no greater or lesser than any others.

In my very humble opinion, the only reliable way to discern God's design is to examine the functioning of nature. His/Her intentions remain subject to conjecture and belong to art, poetry, and philosophy (of which theology is but a branch).

reedsch wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote: Do you distinguish between finite and not-finite, in purely logical terms?

It would be exceedingly difficult not to.

O.k.

Your claim to the ultimate high ground keeps slipping between your fingers, because once you jerk the foundation of finiteness out from under any argument then everything is fair game.

I haven't done that. All concepts are finite, but what they point to isn't necessarily finite. "Finite" points to the meaning of things, relative to "not-finite" which points to the meaning of the "thing" that has no beginning or end.

Similarly, the argument i'm using is finite in its existence, but its meaning is about the Infinite.

In other words, any claims attributable to the Absolute (including Jesus' own) become no greater or lesser than any others.

Just because all things exist in the same way, doesn't mean that truth and falsehood are the same in meaning.

In my very humble opinion,

Give me directness and truthfulness any day.

the only reliable way to discern God's design is to examine the functioning of nature.

I can't think why you believe that God itself has a purpose. To me, Nature functions simply as cause and effect. There's no conscious intention in causation.

Otherwise the Universe would be one huge consciousness, and everything would share the same experiences and thoughts. That's not the case.

-----

I have a question for you. If you distinguish between finite and not-finite, then why define "Creator of all things" as finite? Namely:

- "designer" as opposed to "not-designer"
- "thing with intentions" as opposed to "thing without intentions"

His/Her intentions remain subject to conjecture and belong to art, poetry, and philosophy (of which theology is but a branch).

What's the pay-off in believing that God is a thing with intentions and design capabilities?

Are you in a relationship with a woman? Employed?

Kelly Jones wrote: I can't think why you believe that God itself has a purpose. To me, Nature functions simply as cause and effect. There's no conscious intention in causation.

So wherefrom therefore does intention arise? Are you saying there is no intent in a beaver lodge? A bee hive? Actually the existence of intention I find as interesting as awareness itself.

Kelly Jones wrote: Otherwise the Universe would be one huge consciousness, and everything would share the same experiences and thoughts. That's not the case.

BINGO, who says it's not the case? Your finite boundaries are quite fluid upon closer inspection. You are changing all the time. Your existence coud not be sustained for long as a unitary being, either physically or psychologically.

Kelly Jones wrote: I have a question for you. If you distinguish between finite and not-finite, then why define "Creator of all things" as finite? Namely:

What's the pay-off in believing that God is a thing with intentions and design capabilities?

We can only refer to the Infinite using finite terms and concepts. I understand why you chafe at this, but don't get distracted by the flashing lights. What are words? Nothing but vibrations...what is anything but vibrations? Matter and energy are the same thing.

I think it is natural to attempt to discern the source of intention and design, after all something can not come from nothing. I don't conceive of God as a thing though.

Kelly Jones wrote: Are you in a relationship with a woman? Employed?

Are you checking me out? Just teasing. My life is complicated, it depends on how you define "relationship" and "employed' :-D

Reed:

The classic rejoinder is (can anyone attrribute this quote?): If God is All Good then He/She is not All Powerful, if God is All Powerful then He/She is not All Good. This is a tough one to refute, logically.

God’s omniscience would make free will illusory. Contrarily, if he did not know, he would not be omniscient. God’s omnipotence makes his commands arbitrary. Contrarily, if they are based on fundamental principles that cannot be changed, he is not omnipotent. Wikipedia cites Edward R. Wierenga and Philip L. Quinn with the thoughts, if that helps any.

If you do not believe in Christian thought, these words may be completely meaningless to you, but another contradiction is how could Jesus Christ transcend death and promise us the same?

Isaiah 55: 8-11 states: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

If God is good and evil at the same time, as he is all things, what makes you so sure that evil is “wrong”? You might say, why do people have to die? If what Christ promised is true, we never die…that is spiritually, so struggling and death may be evil to finite beings but if the Ultimate Reality is that one transcends the finite to the Infinite, the finite’s definition of good and evil become irrelevant. Further, if the suffering and death of one who does believe in this transcendence leads another to find that leap of faith in their own universe, then it was for good, no? So, Ultimately All is good.

We could argue murder, war, etc…but the answer is still the same. Not all will find this transcendence for one has to enter the “narrow gate”.

Reed:

I agree that Jesus' work is buried in the accumulated garbage of 2000 years. It is a shame that he did not himself write, what do you think the reason for that was? He was an educated man, however there is no reference I can think of to him actually passing his wisdom on in black and white.

He expected people to seek the truth for themselves.

Selected parts of Matthew 16: 13-28

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"

Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

Kelly:

I can't think why you believe that God itself has a purpose. To me, Nature functions simply as cause and effect. There's no conscious intention in causation.

I just do not see where this lack of purposelessness comes into play. Yes, I understand cause and effect, but no purpose? This is a thought Sue shares, but I do not. As to what the purpose is, however, I can only speculate and that is to discover God despite and through all the finite temptation of things.

Kelly:

Otherwise the Universe would be one huge consciousness, and everything would share the same experiences and thoughts. That's not the case.

Reed:

BINGO, who says it's not the case?

Yes, who says it’s not the case? If you look at infinity over the long haul and if what Jesus Christ states is true, once we come to understand God we would become part and parcel of this one huge consciousness. If you never sought this out or never got past the stage of animal, you would become food for the lion, gazelle and others to come.

Kelly:

God doesn't draw lines and say, stay here, for the rest is not for you. God is just plain old ordinary whatever-I-am. Total liberation from drapery, from pretentious states-of-mind and being-something-or- other. God is the wildest, loose, unanchored, abysmal flexibility, because God is everything. No stiff heavy doctrinal bossy-boots could hold it all back.

I'm here, but then everything is always here.

By your own admission, there exists one big consciousness - if you believe God to be everything and equate yourself as part of the “everything”. Did I miss something here? God does not draw lines, we do. If we do not see past these lines, we do not ever confess to this notion that God is all things, therefore, it is us who choose to remain unconscious to it all…and become food for those that come afterwards.

passthrough wrote: If what Christ promised is true, we never die…that is spiritually, so struggling and death may be evil to finite beings but if the Ultimate Reality is that one transcends the finite to the Infinite, the finite’s definition of good and evil become irrelevant. Further, if the suffering and death of one who does believe in this transcendence leads another to find that leap of faith in their own universe, then it was for good, no? So, Ultimately All is good.

I have been to enough Christian funerals to hear the pitch: you don't have to die, believe in Jesus and you get eternal life.
A completely self-referential proposition.

Ultimately, all Is.

passthrough wrote: When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

We've been down this road before. He is the Son of Man. He is the Son of God. Son of Man = Son of God. When he admitted that he was Son of God he did not subsequently deny that he was Son of Man did he? (also check out biblical references to his very much human childhood and upbringing).

If I am a son of a dog and you are my brother, then you are the son of a dog too, and we are both dogs, get it? Christians do all kinds of philosophical gymnastics to deny their own divinity.

Anyway, there was an article in a Jewish newspaper some while back, I wish I'd kept it. The author was trying to understand his own visceral reaction to Jesus worship. It dawned on him that the Jews had spent a large part of their history battling idol worship, and this what he was reacting to: Jesus worship is simple idolatry. No Man is God. While I also enjoy dueling bible quotes, no arguments can be won by invoking mythology.

passthrough,

Reed said: The classic rejoinder is (can anyone attrribute this quote?): If God is All Good then He/She is not All Powerful, if God is All Powerful then He/She is not All Good. This is a tough one to refute, logically.

I don't see any issue or contradiction with this. Unless one plays with the definition of "good."

passthrough: God’s omniscience would make free will illusory.

False: God could feasibly see all, including the choices you will make.

God’s omnipotence makes his commands arbitrary. Contrarily, if they are based on fundamental principles that cannot be changed, he is not omnipotent.

False: God could be all-powerful without exercising this power on a case by case basis. My boss at work is all-powerful, but allows me local decision-making.

If you do not believe in Christian thought, these words may be completely meaningless to you, but another contradiction is how could Jesus Christ transcend death and promise us the same?

These do not comprise a contradiction. He promises us the same path to everlasting life that he demonstrates.

Isaiah 55: 8-11 states: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

This is an interesting quote, but has naught to do with Jesus. It speaks of God, the Father.

If God is good and evil at the same time, as he is all things, what makes you so sure that evil is “wrong”?

Evil is wrong for certain individuals, and not as a whole.

You might say, why do people have to die? If what Christ promised is true, we never die…that is spiritually,

Christ "promised" everlasting life for those who follow him. Not for everyone.

so struggling and death may be evil to finite beings but if the Ultimate Reality is that one transcends the finite to the Infinite, the finite’s definition of good and evil become irrelevant.

Basically, yes. That is one way to look at it. But I would add "if" one transcends the finite.

Further, if the suffering and death of one who does believe in this transcendence leads another to find that leap of faith in their own universe, then it was for good, no? So, Ultimately All is good.

I agree, no matter what we may think, at the level of "Ultimately" indeed all is good. All is just fine.

We could argue murder, war, etc…but the answer is still the same. Not all will find this transcendence for one has to enter the “narrow gate”.

True.

Kelly: I can't think why you believe that God itself has a purpose. To me, Nature functions simply as cause and effect. There's no conscious intention in causation.

passthrough: I just do not see where this lack of purposelessness comes into play. Yes, I understand cause and effect, but no purpose? This is a thought Sue shares, but I do not. As to what the purpose is, however, I can only speculate and that is to discover God despite and through all the finite temptation of things.

I agree, passthrough. The "Ultimate Reality" of simply cause and effect is a little dry for me. It does not seem to me Ultimate or all-encompassing. For one, it does not allow for purpose.

Kelly:Otherwise the Universe would be one huge consciousness, and everything would share the same experiences and thoughts. That's not the case.

Reed:BINGO, who says it's not the case?

Yes, who says it’s not the case?

Yes, who says it's not the case? The universe being one huge consciousness does not preclude the idea that everything within it could not continue to have its own experiences and thoughts.

pass: If you look at infinity over the long haul and if what Jesus Christ states is true, once we come to understand God we would become part and parcel of this one huge consciousness.

We could even be "part and parcel" without understanding.

Reed:
Before we even begin, I led you somewhere I didn’t mean to go.

The point to all of this was good and evil and how it could be defined. I agree with you that one does not have to die to realize this epiphany, but the fact remains that the conception of good and evil are irrelevant in this world when you understand what Reality is. I was using Jesus Christ as an example of one who not only understood what Reality is but transcended pain and suffering (that which may be considered evil) and did not move from that understanding of Reality.
Perhaps I don’t understand what your issues are with good and evil.

You stated:

It appears the whole concept of good and evil is irredeemably relative.

My point was that the definition of good and evil is dependent on the context: whose ox is being gored.

We are compelled to define good and evil, but can our definition be absolute i.e. shorn of all contextual basis?

I wonder if intent is the true measure of evil.

While it is true that good and evil need to be defined in the secular world to maintain order lest defined evil commits carnage on the populous of those attempting good, if we have come to that place in life where we begin to understand even the most remote knowledge of God, evil as we might define it holds no ground in the Infinite because good will ultimately prevail.

There was a story told to me one time about two daughters of a man who abused them and abused drugs and alcohol, which I would consider evil. One of the daughters succumbed to the evil and became evil herself, while the other transcended her experience and went on to a better life. She built character by perseverance while the other one died, figuratively speaking.

Can good and evil be absolutes, yes and most likely should be, but are their mitigating circumstances? Here is where your argument of intent shines forth. What if the abusive father had a brain tumor that affected his ability to control his actions and because he had very little money, he could not afford proper healthcare to discover these things? Is he still evil? Most certainly what he did was evil, but is he evil?

On the other hand, was his daughter evil? She did not have a tumor but she did have mitigating circumstances, the abuse, however, she had scienter. Does this make her situation different from her father’s? Her sister transcended the evil.

Ultimately, all Is.

To be sure, but then we get into the notion of consciousness and unconsciousness, and what happens to those who are unconscious? Heaven and Hell question except that I don’t believe in either one, at least the standard Christian version of them…at this point. Truthfully, to me, Hell is an absence of God. If you are unconscious, you may or may not do evil things, but if one is self-aware they tend to grow in wisdom and gain a better insight into the absolutes of good and evil. In most literary works I have read, those that are wise, gravitate toward the good for evil is a selfish act.

Passthrough:
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

The whole point of this quote I referenced was to explain perhaps why Jesus Christ did not write, he wanted others to seek out the truth for themselves.

Jesus worship is simple idolatry. No Man is God. While I also enjoy dueling bible quotes, no arguments can be won by invoking mythology.

There is no Jesus worship here, Jesus stated that there is no one good but God. However, he is a path one can emulate to seek wisdom on a higher plain. Some choose Buddha, some choose Mohammed, while still others choose none. To me the technicalities of each of these ways and means get very skewed, such as Heaven and Hell, Nirvana, Reincarnation and the like. When it all comes down to it, what is the message they all send…that’s what’s important…and most often the message is goodness and self-less love for mankind.

I read a timeline of the Catholic History from 1 AD forward and found it very interesting in that a lot of the Gospels were written much later on, which I knew, but they were added onto several centuries later and translated and retranslated from Hebrew to Latin while originals were lost. Someone even claimed that Mary had Jesus in secret because Joseph abandoned her after he got her pregnant. Then it follows with a succession of popes and monks and the like that have to add their own flavor to everything, so it goes without saying that any religion can get out of control…and has, as far as I am concerned.

Quote:
Reed said: The classic rejoinder is (can anyone attrribute this quote?): If God is All Good then He/She is not All Powerful, if God is All Powerful then He/She is not All Good. This is a tough one to refute, logically.

I don't see any issue or contradiction with this. Unless one plays with the definition of "good."
Quote:
passthrough: God’s omniscience would make free will illusory.

False: God could feasibly see all, including the choices you will make.
Quote:
God’s omnipotence makes his commands arbitrary. Contrarily, if they are based on fundamental principles that cannot be changed, he is not omnipotent.

False: God could be all-powerful without exercising this power on a case by case basis. My boss at work is all-powerful, but allows me local decision-making.

Carl, Reed was asking for a possible quote reference for the statement he brought up. I was simply summarizing the quote and citing him a reference that I had found. I was just trying to help him out.

Carl:

This is an interesting quote, but has naught to do with Jesus. It speaks of God, the Father.

Yes you are correct, it just happened to be placed under the Jesus comment - I suppose I should have edited better. The quote actually referred to the complexities of understanding God in finite terms that Reed referred to which was again repeated in Jesus’ words later when Peter wanted to spare Jesus of his death. I think the repetition of these words further solidifies this truth and that it not only has to do with God but should be applied to us as well, at least in as much as we can know these things.


Carl:

These do not comprise a contradiction. He promises us the same path to everlasting life that he demonstrates.

But it could be a contradiction to one who does not believe in Jesus Christ’s existence. What do these folks here think of eternal life anyhow? I cannot get a fix on it. It is one thing to acknowledge Heaven being before you, living it and transcending death to be conscious of Infinity forever and another for all things to cease once your brain stops functioning.

Carl:

Christ "promised" everlasting life for those who follow him. Not for everyone.

Yes, and I struggle with it…I wish I didn’t and then I wouldn’t have as many problems as I have with Christian organized religion. Although I follow him…or try to the best of my ability, I have a hard time with those whose paths follow the same philosophy but were raised in a Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic etc household and are not “Christians”.

I try to think of it this way, I have tried to study Buddhism but there is something about it’s dogma that stops me…and so I stick with what I think is Truth - Christianity. I just can't get away from the realization I have that this is Truth. But if I put myself into the shoes of a Buddhist, who has only known Buddhism, how equally hard would it be for them to change.

John 10: 14-18 ~
"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

Do you interpret this to mean the Gentiles of his day or some type of future connection? At some point, the whole thing becomes moot because only the individual can find their way to God. Further, Jesus didn’t say how he would call them and how they would respond, except they would hear his voice and listen.

Biblical commentary suggests that the fathers of the church had to make a determination if an actual conversion from Judaism and the Gentiles – pagans to Christianity must take place, and thus it was determined so. But here again, is this man’s doing or Jesus Christ through God? A question that begs an answer but won’t get one because of the ambiguity present.

Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?"

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

And one last thing is that some other types of religions recognize Jesus as a prophet and his teaching are equal to many of their religious. So, you see why I have a struggle with this one.

Carl:

We could even be "part and parcel" without understanding.

Do you not mean without some understanding? Wouldn't it take some conscious effort to follow the ways of Christ, to achieve some level of understanding of the Nature of God through Christ’s teaching, though but a sliver it may be, through prayer, reflection and revelation through living?

Accepting Christ just so that you will get eternal life if you don’t comprehend the magnitude of what you are doing is meaningless, no? I also have a problem with this “once saved, always saved” kind of mentality too. Accepting Christ, wearing a crucifix to signify your Christianity and then blowing someone’s brains out in a gang war just goes against the grain of what he taught, and yet there exist some Protestants who believe this...the Catholics, of course, have a check off list for the confessional – that is a whole other topic, but I can understand that line of thinking better than the former.

passthrough wrote:Carl:

Quote:
Christ "promised" everlasting life for those who follow him. Not for everyone.


Yes, and I struggle with it…I wish I didn’t and then I wouldn’t have as many problems as I have with Christian organized religion. Although I follow him…or try to the best of my ability, I have a hard time with those whose paths follow the same philosophy but were raised in a Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic etc household and are not “Christians”.

It is possible that Jesus lied.
.

passthrough wrote: CG: These do not comprise a contradiction. He promises us the same path to everlasting life that he demonstrates.

pt: But it could be a contradiction to one who does not believe in Jesus Christ’s existence.

I don't see how. The statement, whether or not one believes it, is non-contradictory. It is not as though he is saying one thing and doing another.

What do these folks here think of eternal life anyhow? I cannot get a fix on it.

They don't believe in it, at least not in Christian terms. They believe that once the body dies, everything that was that person dissipates like a cloud. However, molecules of what were the person may be recycled into other living things, and in that sense, one lives on. And the influence of that person. I think that is what Kevin is talking about in the Reincarnation thread.

However, there is no proof either way, as far as I know.

It is one thing to acknowledge Heaven being before you, living it and transcending death to be conscious of Infinity forever and another for all things to cease once your brain stops functioning.

Indeed.

CG: Christ "promised" everlasting life for those who follow him. Not for everyone.

pt: Yes, and I struggle with it…I wish I didn’t and then I wouldn’t have as many problems as I have with Christian organized religion. Although I follow him…or try to the best of my ability, I have a hard time with those whose paths follow the same philosophy but were raised in a Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic etc household and are not “Christians”.

What do you mean to have the same philosophy (as Christian) but be raised Buddhist, etc? Why would you have a hard time with such people?

I try to think of it this way, I have tried to study Buddhism but there is something about it’s dogma that stops me…and so I stick with what I think is Truth - Christianity. I just can't get away from the realization I have that this is Truth. But if I put myself into the shoes of a Buddhist, who has only known Buddhism, how equally hard would it be for them to change.

Not sure what you mean by Christianity, actually. There are so many sects, so many interpretations. So many ways of understanding Christ, for instance, and The Way.

John 10: 14-18 ~
"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

Do you interpret this to mean the Gentiles of his day or some type of future connection?

This seems to me a very garbled passage. Garbled by church fathers, perhaps. Only by the most extreme abstraction and extraction can I apply it to my life, or to any real spiritual principle.

At some point, the whole thing becomes moot because only the individual can find their way to God.

Exactly.

Further, Jesus didn’t say how he would call them and how they would respond, except they would hear his voice and listen.

Best to replace "them" and "they" with first person terms and apply the entire concept to oneself. What is it to be led to higher mind? What leads one, and what follows?

Biblical commentary suggests that the fathers of the church had to make a determination if an actual conversion from Judaism and the Gentiles – pagans to Christianity must take place, and thus it was determined so. But here again, is this man’s doing or Jesus Christ through God? A question that begs an answer but won’t get one because of the ambiguity present.

Yep. Christianity veered when the "fathers of the church" got hold of it, and terms like "determination" and "conversion" came into the picture. Christianity divorced itself from its own root. It became politics and the religion of control and greed. It became largely satanic.

Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?"

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

That is pretty true.

And one last thing is that some other types of religions recognize Jesus as a prophet and his teaching are equal to many of their religious. So, you see why I have a struggle with this one.

There is at root essentially only one religion.

pt: If you look at infinity over the long haul and if what Jesus Christ states is true, once we come to understand God we would become part and parcel of this one huge consciousness.

CG: We could even be "part and parcel" without understanding.

pt: Do you not mean without some understanding?

Technically, being part of "this one huge consciousness" does not entail being conscious of it. And by your term I assume you mean the mind of God. But yes, if one wishes to be conscious of it, then some intention and effort is required.

Wouldn't it take some conscious effort to follow the ways of Christ, to achieve some level of understanding of the Nature of God through Christ’s teaching, though but a sliver it may be, through prayer, reflection and revelation through living?

Indeed. Perhaps I did not understand your original premise. Being part of the larger whole is a given. Such things as consciousness and eternal life are not.

Accepting Christ just so that you will get eternal life if you don’t comprehend the magnitude of what you are doing is meaningless, no? I also have a problem with this “once saved, always saved” kind of mentality too.

This is part of the dogma of corrupt Christianity, in some of its many flavors.

Accepting Christ, wearing a crucifix to signify your Christianity and then blowing someone’s brains out in a gang war just goes against the grain of what he taught, and yet there exist some Protestants who believe this...the Catholics, of course, have a check off list for the confessional – that is a whole other topic,

This is more of the result of the institutionalizing and rationalizing of the original word, for personal gain.

Reedsch,

K: I can't think why you believe that God itself has a purpose. To me, Nature functions simply as cause and effect. There's no conscious intention in causation.

R: So wherefrom therefore does intention arise? Are you saying there is no intent in a beaver lodge? A bee hive? Actually the existence of intention I find as interesting as awareness itself.

Intention is caused to arise, just as anything is. What causes intention is everything it isn't (not-intention).

There is no intention in the lodge of a beaver, because it is inanimate, passive and without consciousness. But the beaver has a tiny amount of intention to build its lodge. It appears to be a conscious and self-coordinated animal, rather than a passive and unconscious wood structure.

K: Otherwise the Universe would be one huge consciousness, and everything would share the same experiences and thoughts. That's not the case.

R: BINGO, who says it's not the case? Your finite boundaries are quite fluid upon closer inspection. You are changing all the time. Your existence coud not be sustained for long as a unitary being, either physically or psychologically.

Think about it, Reedsch. If everything shared the same consciousness, then every possible thought and experience would be simultaneous and unchanging. It is logically impossible, because the "appearance of everything" is a contradiction in terms.

An appearance is necessarily bounded by "what doesn't appear". Everything cannot be bounded.

K: I have a question for you. If you distinguish between finite and not-finite, then why define "Creator of all things" as finite?

R: We can only refer to the Infinite using finite terms and concepts. I understand why you chafe at this, but don't get distracted by the flashing lights. What are words? Nothing but vibrations...what is anything but vibrations? Matter and energy are the same thing.

I've already pointed out that the existence of concepts are finite, but their meaning (what they point to) isn't necessarily. So, why do you define the "Creator of all things" as itself finite? I'm not talking about a word, but the meaning of the word.

R: I think it is natural to attempt to discern the source of intention and design, after all something can not come from nothing. I don't conceive of God as a thing though.

Basically, your question is "what causes things to exist?" The only logical answer is "causes". No particular cause or thing can be responsible for all things.

God (creator of all things) is all causes. This includes intention and not-intention.

K: What's the pay-off in believing that God is a thing with intentions and design capabilities? Are you in a relationship with a woman? Employed?

R: Are you checking me out? Just teasing. My life is complicated, it depends on how you define "relationship" and "employed' :-D

Believing that God is a form of some kind, is always to please someone. Hence my probing to find out what pay-off you were getting. By relationship, i was referring to an egotistical relationship, of course. Employment means, being paid to do something that distracts one from becoming as wise as possible.


.

passthrough wrote:

God’s omniscience would make free will illusory. Contrarily, if he did not know, he would not be omniscient.

Omniscience is not knowing all things, since that is logically impossible (see reply to Reedsch, above). Omniscience means knowing the nature of all things, or that which is true for all things.

Free will is an illusion because nothing is free from the touch of cause and effect, including any God you care to think about. There's no real freedom at all.

God’s omnipotence makes his commands arbitrary. Contrarily, if they are based on fundamental principles that cannot be changed, he is not omnipotent.

What black hole are you dragging this from?

Omnipotence means "all power". This definition cannot mean anything but cause and effect. Cause and effect "commands" only insofar as nothing can escape causation. That's not arbitrary command, but absolute.

Causation isn't sitting in a fortified kingdom, buzzing the rest of the world with its memos and agendas. It is apparent in everything, and present everywhere.

If you do not believe in Christian thought, these words may be completely meaningless to you, but another contradiction is how could Jesus Christ transcend death and promise us the same?

Life and death are meaningless because causation is always at work. Whatever dies is dying because of causation - so nothing has really died. Whatever is born does so because causation is still at work. This is how anyone can transcend life and death.

If God is good and evil at the same time, as he is all things, what makes you so sure that evil is “wrong”?

Take "good" to mean reliable, and "evil" to mean unreliable. In that sense, something finite is evil, and the Infinite is good. This is just what i've said countless times on this thread.

You might say, why do people have to die? If what Christ promised is true, we never die…that is spiritually, so struggling and death may be evil to finite beings but if the Ultimate Reality is that one transcends the finite to the Infinite, the finite’s definition of good and evil become irrelevant. Further, if the suffering and death of one who does believe in
this transcendence leads another to find that leap of faith in their own universe, then it was for good, no? So, Ultimately All is good.

Nothing is inherently bad or good. There are just causes.

Good and bad are subjective (based on values, which are also causes).

If one values stupidity, then one calls that good. If one values knowing what is ultimately reliable, then one calls that good.

There's ultimately no difference between the two options, but understanding this arises only by way of the second option. That is the "narrow gate" leading to "transcendance".

Not all will find this transcendence for one has to enter the “narrow gate”.

It is narrow because there is no room for error.

R: It is a shame that he did not himself write, what do you think the reason for that was?

P: He expected people to seek the truth for themselves.

If that were the correct answer to Reedsch's question, Jesus wouldn't have spoken at all.

Kelly to Reedsch: I can't think why you believe that God itself has a purpose. To me, Nature functions simply as cause and effect. There's no conscious intention in causation.

P: I just do not see where this lack of purposelessness comes into play. Yes, I understand cause and effect, but no purpose? This is a thought Sue shares, but I do not. As to what the purpose is, however, I can only speculate and that is to discover God despite and through all the finite temptation of things.

There is no purpose to God because that attributes a finite quality to God. It ignores the truth that God is responsible for purpose and not-purpose.

Kelly to Reedsch: There's no conscious intention in causation.

P: If you look at infinity over the long haul and if what Jesus Christ states is true, once we come to understand God we would become part and parcel of this one huge consciousness.

Two points:

- If consciousness is defined as absolutely everything, including not-intention, unconsciousness, and purposelessness, then yes, all things are part of consciousness. That's just logical.

- Understanding God's nature does not make us "become part and parcel" of everything. That's always been true. It merely reveals this eternal truth, so that our delusional belief that things ultimately exist is broken. One just becomes conscious of one's true self.

It's very down-to-earth.

Kelly: God doesn't draw lines and say, stay here, for the rest is not for you. God is just plain old ordinary whatever-I-am. Total liberation from drapery, from pretentious states-of-mind and being-something-or- other. God is the wildest, loose, unanchored, abysmal flexibility, because God is everything. No stiff heavy doctrinal bossy-boots could hold it all back. I'm here, but then everything is always here.


Passthrough: By your own admission, there exists one big consciousness - if you believe God to be everything and equate yourself as part of the “everything”. Did I miss something here?

Yes. I never said that Everything = consciousness. Everything is the totality of all things, which includes consciousness and not-consciousness.

God does not draw lines, we do. If we do not see past these lines, we do not ever confess to this notion that God is all things, therefore, it is us who choose to remain unconscious to it all…and become food for those that come afterwards.

When one understands the nature of Ultimate Reality, that is only enlightening one's own mind.

It doesn't mean that everything else, conscious and unconscious, magically becomes enlightened as well. The true nature of oneself, and of everything else, is revealed to the enlightened mind (this is what omniscience means) --- but is not revealed to all those things thereby.

Hakuin, the Zen master, wrote about this:

Only a few hundred yards from here is a beach. Suppose that someone is bothered because he has never experienced the taste of sea water and decides to sample it for himself. He sets out for the beach but before he has gone a hundred paces he stops and comes back; then he starts out again but this time he returns after he has taken only ten steps. He will never know the taste of sea water that way, will he? But if he keeps going straight ahead without turning back, it doesn't even matter if he lives far inland in a landlocked province such as Shinano, Kai, Hida, or Mino, he will still eventually reach the sea. Then, by dipping his finger in the water and tasting it, he will know in an instant what sea water tastes like the world over, because it is of course the same everywhere, in India, China, the great southern sea or the
great northern sea.

Those Dharma patricians who explore the secret depths are like this too. They go straight forward, boring into their own minds with unbroken effort, never letting up or retreating. Then the breakthrough suddenly comes, and with that they penetrate their own nature, the natures of others, the nature of sentient beings, the nature of the evil passions and of enlightenment, the nature of the Buddha nature, the god nature, the Bodhisattva nature, the sentient being nature, the non-sentient being nature, the craving ghost nature, the contentious spirit nature, the beast nature - they are all of them seen in a single instant of thought. The great matter of their religious quest is thus completely and utterly resolved.

There is nothing left. They are free of birth and death. What a thrilling moment it is!

Now, would Hakuin say "Dharma patricians" (plural) if only one individual needs to become enlightened, for all to be?


-------

Elizabeth:

It is possible that Jesus lied.

I could only offer my opinion and not fact, but I would say it was a contextual matter. It is something I am trying to work through.

In addition to the sheep in another lot, here is another…
Matthew 10: 34-42 states

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. [The ultimate case for detachment]

"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."

Reed:

Christians do all kinds of philosophical gymnastics to deny their own divinity.

Then they do not understand, read this:

"If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

Carl:

What do you mean to have the same philosophy (as Christian) but be raised Buddhist, etc? Why would you have a hard time with such people?

Perhaps I didn’t phrase that quite right…Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindu all follow a path that they learn as young children. It is hard for me to understand that if these people follow a way consistent with Christ’s teaching and recognize him as a prophet how they could be denied. Now the Jews and possibly the Muslims have the same God, the same God of Christianity, however, Buddhists and Hindu to my knowledge do not…if I am wrong about this please correct me.

However, the Buddhists do acknowledge Jesus as a prophet and those who study the Tao Te Ching seem to have the right idea…I don’t know. You are asking me to explain something I struggle with.

Truly only God can reveal himself to man in order for him to believe…so I just cannot bring myself to say that if you do not convert to Christianity you will not have eternal life. First of all, it’s not for me to say, and second, this type of enlightenment is one of the spirit…who are we to judge a man?

Carl:

Not sure what you mean by Christianity, actually. There are so many sects, so many interpretations. So many ways of understanding Christ, for instance, and The Way.

Can you briefly explain what you mean here?

Carl:

This seems to me a very garbled passage. Garbled by church fathers, perhaps. Only by the most extreme abstraction and extraction can I apply it to my life, or to any real spiritual principle.

Yes it is ambiguous, but it is one of few that show signs that there are others outside the flock of Judaism that he will call…So I guess it is one of those things that does not demand too much thought over.

Carl:

Best to replace "them" and "they" with first person terms and apply the entire concept to oneself. What is it to be led to higher mind? What leads one, and what follows?

OK: Further, Jesus didn’t say how he would call me and how I would respond, except I would hear his voice and listen. I would say my spirit. The Holy Spirit leads me and I follow. But is this notion of a Holy Spirit lost on this board? Although this is where you do tend to lose a lot of people.

Carl:

Yep. Christianity veered when the "fathers of the church" got hold of it, and terms like "determination" and "conversion" came into the picture. Christianity divorced itself from its own root. It became politics and the religion of control and greed. It became largely satanic.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "satanic", but definitely misguided. I have been reading a book on Theresa of Avila, a Carmelite mystic. After reading Acent to Mount Carmel by St. John of the Cross, I am beginning to see a pattern in what Jesus may have actually been attributed to saying. The keys are detachment from worldly things and people, perseverance through struggle, and keep your eyes focused on the bigger picture, letting nothing be in between you and God.

Carl:

There is at root essentially only one religion

.

Tell me your thoughts about it.

Kelly:

Employment means, being paid to do something that distracts one from becoming as wise as possible.

One has employment so one can live. It does distract from the time one has available to meditate on higher plains. Further I don’t believe that employment stops a man from thinking and becoming wise. Life situations are sometimes good teachers.

Kelly:

What black hole are you dragging this from?

Kelly as I told Carl before, I was only summarizing the quote for Reed as I had found the correct version of the statement he was trying to make above and giving him a citation. I suppose next time, I will just send Reed a link instead. Sorry for the confusion here.

Kelly:

Life and death are meaningless because causation is always at work. Whatever dies is dying because of causation - so nothing has really died. Whatever is born does so because causation is still at work. This is how anyone can transcend life and death.

The word used “this” is a vague reference, can you explain what you think of eternal life?

Kelly:

Take "good" to mean reliable, and "evil" to mean unreliable. In that sense, something finite is evil, and the Infinite is good. This is just what i've said countless times on this thread.

A very interesting theory I’ll have to mull over. But then can no finite thing be good? In the Christian sense, Jesus said no one was good except God, he included himself here.

Kelly:

If that were the correct answer to Reedsch's question, Jesus wouldn't have spoken at all.

While he was alive, he spoke, he taught, he healed, he performed miracles, the Truth was before them, why should he write. If they couldn’t get it from what they saw, then they were hopeless. Obviously he didn’t write, so there has to be a reason…I feel I am justified in my statement…because

At that time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled."

"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."

And throughout the Gospels, he has relied on others to spread the word. And sent the Holy Spirit thereafter to enlighten and give them courage to do things they were not very equipped to do.

There is no purpose to God because that attributes a finite quality to God. It ignores the truth that God is responsible for purpose and not-purpose.

You lost me here.

One just becomes conscious of one's true self.

Jesus Christ said:

On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

I am just not far enough along on the path to be completely conscious of this fact…attachments in life have a way of muddying those waters...attachments to mistakes I have made in life, but maybe some day I will.

Quote:

God does not draw lines, we do. If we do not see past these lines, we do not ever confess to this notion that God is all things, therefore, it is us who choose to remain unconscious to it all…and become food for those that come afterwards.


Now, would Hakuin say "Dharma patricians" (plural) if only one individual needs to become enlightened, for all to be?

I have a bad habit of using plural, rather than singular, of course you make sense. I enjoyed the story; it is very encouraging…now if I could just quit walking backwards ;-)

passthrough wrote: CG: What do you mean to have the same philosophy (as Christian) but be raised Buddhist, etc? Why would you have a hard time with such people?

pt: Perhaps I didn’t phrase that quite right…Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindu all follow a path that they learn as young children. It is hard for me to understand that if these people follow a way consistent with Christ’s teaching and recognize him as a prophet how they could be denied. Now the Jews and possibly the Muslims have the same God, the same God of Christianity, however, Buddhists and Hindu to my knowledge do not…if I am wrong about this please correct me.

At root all those religions have the same values, I would say. For instance, I have seen many versions of the saying having to do with treating one's neighbors as one would have them treat you. The branches, or manifestation of these religions do vary. Especially the outermost branches, onto which have been grafted largely satanic beliefs.

CG: Not sure what you mean by Christianity, actually. There are so many sects, so many interpretations. So many ways of understanding Christ, for instance, and The Way.

pt: Can you briefly explain what you mean here?

I am not versed in the many variations of beliefs in Protestant, Catholic, Episcapalian, Baptist, Unitarian, Jehovah's Witness, Morman, etc brands of Christianity. But I know there are variations a'plenty. However, at root Jesus is a symbol for Christ and Christ is a symbol for one's own higher self. And The Way is sometimes taken very simplistically to mean just believe that Jesus died for your sins and you will go to Heaven. Instead it is a lifelong path consisting of the work of self-perfection, that is, to become Christ-like.

CG:Best to replace "them" and "they" with first person terms and apply the entire concept to oneself. What is it to be led to higher mind? What leads one, and what follows?

pt: OK: Further, Jesus didn’t say how he would call me and how I would respond, except I would hear his voice and listen. I would say my spirit. The Holy Spirit leads me and I follow. But is this notion of a Holy Spirit lost on this board? Although this is where you do tend to lose a lot of people.

That is fine, your spirit and the Holy Spirit. I don't think the names matter, as long as one is working on a right relationship between what is lower and what is higher. And what does it matter what others on this board think of it?

Carl: There is at root essentially only one religion.

Tell me your thoughts about it.

One truth, therefore one religion.

By root I'm speaking at the esoteric core, not at the official seat of each religion, such as Pope/Vatican, Dalai Lama, etc. The esoteric core is the root from which each religion sprung, and which has remained untainted by satanic influence.

Carl G wrote:Instead it is a lifelong path consisting of the work of self-perfection, that is, to become Christ-like.

Actually like this definition. The problem is that the word has accumulated so much baggage that it is almost useless; a semantic quibble prehaps. It's also encumbered by the whole Hebrew concept of God, which I do not find in the least bit liberating: "do it My way or else!" The Buddhists are not nearly so guilt-ridden.

From a practical standpoint, Jesus left precious little in the way of supporting infrastructure to actually implement his "path to God". Just one book which is terribly inadequate. No apprenticeship, no formal training by elders, no folkways as exist in many other cultures that have an esoteric tradition. In essence you are on your own, which is not very effective. The Taoist tradition is richer, after all it was here long before Moses and continues in an unbroken line.

Here is a practical example of what I am talking about: walking on water. Jesus did it (and I do not for a moment deny that he did), and he tried to show Peter how to, and Peter was initially successful but had some issues...which is not all that unusual, fledgling birds do not fly on the first flap of their wings either. Anyway, how many Christians have actually walked on water since? Is is part of the Christian esoteric tradition? No, it is a dead letter

reedsch wrote:CG: Instead it is a lifelong path consisting of the work of self-perfection, that is, to become Christ-like.

r: Actually like this definition. The problem is that the word has accumulated so much baggage that it is almost useless; a semantic quibble prehaps.

It hasn't "accumulated so much baggage" for me, and is therefore far from useless, to me.

It's also encumbered by the whole Hebrew concept of God, which I do not find in the least bit liberating: "do it My way or else!" The Buddhists are not nearly so guilt-ridden.

The church, or the dogma put forth by the church, may be guilt-promoting, but the concept, if taken as I stated it, is not. Nor do not find it encumbered by "a Hebrew idea of God." Not at all. In fact, I wonder if there is a genuine teaching of any stripe which does not promote self-perfection.

From a practical standpoint, Jesus left precious little in the way of supporting infrastructure to actually implement his "path to God". Just one book which is terribly inadequate. No apprenticeship, no formal training by elders, no folkways as exist in many other cultures that have an esoteric tradition. In essence you are on your own, which is not very effective. The Taoist tradition is richer, after all it was here long before Moses and continues in an unbroken line.

Well, this is simply not true. Christianity does have an esoteric tradition. Gnostic and Essene, among numerous other mystery schools, represent the root.

Here is a practical example of what I am talking about: walking on water. Jesus did it (and I do not for a moment deny that he did), and he tried to show Peter how to, and Peter was initially successful but had some issues...

I don't regard this as a "practical example."

which is not all that unusual, fledgling birds do not fly on the first flap of their wings either.

Yes. And, an ability to host miracles is not necessarily a taught thing. It is not part of the work of self-perfecting, though it can be a result. Anyway, miracles are demonstrations which are co-created with the higher, for specific reasons. There may have been a reason for Jesus to walk on water, but none for Peter.

Anyway, how many Christians have actually walked on water since?

Unknown. Also unknown is how many actual Christians have existed. One percent of those labelling themselves as such?

Is is part of the Christian esoteric tradition? No, it is a dead letter

You sound a little angry towards Christianity. Do you feel it has let you down, or something?

Carl:

At root all those religions have the same values, I would say. For instance, I have seen many versions of the saying having to do with treating one's neighbors as one would have them treat you. The branches, or manifestation of these religions do vary. Especially the outermost branches, onto which have been grafted largely satanic beliefs.

Now that you explain it this way, I can understand how you can see the satanic beliefs being grafted. It is curious how they are, too. Mysticism has its place but it is also an area that one must truly be strong to avoid being deceived. I am not so much a proponent of “satan” as a real and thriving being, but the evil that is part of Totality can be used for good and bad purposes…the bad leading someone from the truth, the good, however, leading someone to the truth. [Note: truth within Truth]

In my own life, I have seen evil manifest itself…it draws you in and if you do not have a strong foundation, you become forever lost in it. It is one reason why I believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings. No matter how lost you become, if you go back to the basic tenets of what he taught, become self-aware and change, you grow. Romans 5: 1-5 is my flagstone.

Carl:

I am not versed in the many variations of beliefs in Protestant, Catholic, Episcapalian, Baptist, Unitarian, Jehovah's Witness, Morman, etc brands of Christianity. But I know there are variations a'plenty. However, at root Jesus is a symbol for Christ and Christ is a symbol for one's own higher self. And The Way is sometimes taken very simplistically to mean just believe that Jesus died for your sins and you will go to Heaven. Instead it is a lifelong path consisting of the work of self-perfection, that is, to become Christ-like.

Yes. This is a wonderful way of explaining it. I believe this because the Jewish peoples seemed to have reached a point during Christ's time and perhaps even today as the Christians are now. The dogma and rules have overtaken the message and people are worshipping these at church and going home to live as they please. People arrange their church time around on Saturday so they can go to a movie later and then sleep in on Sunday morning. It is like an obligation versus a way of life.

You say you are not versed, and yet, it appears that you are fond of Christianity at its most basic foundation. Are you a self-taught Christian?

Carl:

That is fine, your spirit and the Holy Spirit. I don't think the names matter, as long as one is working on a right relationship between what is lower and what is higher. And what does it matter what others on this board think of it?

Only to the extent of my trying to understand what they are talking about. A lot of people here are studied in Eastern religious thought which is quite different in its execution, such as established states of Nirvana and levels of this and that. To me, getting engrossed in these technicalities confuses the real Truth. I was raised Catholic, and it’s like the saints, Mary worship and Purgatory…what does this have to do with what Christ taught? What does Christ's way have to do with any of this technicality of religions…it’s all man-made, and subject to being disqualified.

Reed:

From a practical standpoint, Jesus left precious little in the way of supporting infrastructure to actually implement his "path to God". Just one book which is terribly inadequate. No apprenticeship, no formal training by elders, no folkways as exist in many other cultures that have an esoteric tradition. In essence you are on your own, which is not very effective. The Taoist tradition is richer, after all it was here long before Moses and continues in an unbroken line.

I disagree. First of all, if you wish to become a religious man, especially in the Catholic church, you go to seminary and there is a lot more learning to be had after that, but it is to be a leader here on earth.

I attended Catholic schools until I graduated from highschool. All throughout we had theology classes every day to learn and live the Catholic faith. We then were expected to attend church on Sundays and all holy days of obligation.

This all “allegedly” stemmed from the first Pope Peter the Apostle who was given the keys to the kingdom and "whatsoever he held bound on earth was bound in heaven and whatsoever he loosed on earth was loosed in heaven." So all teachings and development of Christianity was placed into the hands of these men. Acts of the Apostles is the beginning of the formation or rules of the church and the Pauline epistles continue it on. So, there is structure.

If you are speaking of spiritual development, yes, I agree you are completely alone because only you can follow the right path to God. Sue had said She had not been brought up in a religious environment and yet she knew something else was out there. It goes to that quote:

"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."

Anything else has a tendency to turn into worshipping the tradition or means to the end rather than the end itself. In that inadequate book you mention, read Matthew 5 -7, the Sermon on the Mount and see if this does not lay it all out. His way is simple but very difficult to master.

Reed:

Anyway, how many Christians have actually walked on water since?

Carl:

Unknown. Also unknown is how many actual Christians have existed. One percent of those labelling themselves as such?

Ouch, truth is painful ;-)

passthrough wrote:

You say you are not versed, and yet, it appears that you are fond of Christianity at its most basic foundation. Are you a self-taught Christian?

No. I have been involved with core groups. And, to a lesser extent with some of the outer branches.

Passthrough,

What's your real name?

passthrough wrote:Kelly: Employment means, being paid to do something that distracts one from becoming as wise as possible.

Passthrough: One has employment so one can live.

That's a bit sus, don't you reckon?

Passthrough: God’s omnipotence makes his commands arbitrary. Contrarily, if they are based on fundamental principles that cannot be changed, he is not omnipotent.

Kelly: What black hole are you dragging this from? Omnipotence means "all power". This definition cannot mean anything but cause and effect. Cause and effect "commands" only insofar as nothing can escape causation. That's not arbitrary command, but absolute.

Causation isn't sitting in a fortified kingdom, buzzing the rest of the world with its memos and agendas. It is apparent in everything, and present everywhere.

Passthrough: Kelly as I told Carl before, I was only summarizing the quote for Reed as I had found the correct version of the statement he was trying to make above and giving him a citation. I suppose next time, I will just send Reed a link instead. Sorry for the confusion here.

Ok.

What did you think of the reply i gave?

Kelly: Life and death are meaningless because causation is always at work. Whatever dies is dying because of causation - so nothing has really died. Whatever is born does so because causation is still at work. This is how anyone can transcend life and death.

Passthrough: The word used “this” is a vague reference, can you explain what you think of eternal life?

I'll try. I see "eternal life" as endless and beginningless reincarnation. Incarnation just means "in-the-flesh". So, eternal life is the endless creation of finite things.

Kelly: Take "good" to mean reliable, and "evil" to mean unreliable. In that sense, something finite is evil, and the Infinite is good. This is just what i've said countless times on this thread.

Passthrough: A very interesting theory I’ll have to mull over. But then can no finite thing be good? In the Christian sense, Jesus said no one was good except God, he included himself here.

Exactly, and he claimed to be the Son of God.

Finite things aren't inherently good, because they don't inherently exist. They're only good relative to some other finite thing - hardly a reliable situation.

Reed: It is a shame that he did not himself write, what do you think the reason for that was?

Passthrough: He expected people to seek the truth for themselves.

Kelly: If that were the correct answer to Reedsch's question, Jesus wouldn't have spoken at all.

Passthrough: While he was alive, he spoke, he taught, he healed, he performed miracles, the Truth was before them, why should he write. If they couldn’t get it from what they saw, then they were hopeless. Obviously he didn’t write, so there has to be a reason…I feel I am justified in my statement…because:

"At that time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled."

"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."

And throughout the Gospels, he has relied on others to spread the word. And sent the Holy Spirit thereafter to enlighten and give them courage to do things they were not very equipped to do.

Perhaps you meant "he expected people to test the truth of his words, and always be willing to know the truth" ?

Kelly: There is no purpose to God because that attributes a finite quality to God. It ignores the truth that God is responsible for purpose and not-purpose.

Passthrough: You lost me here.

I define God as the Infinite (everything). That means that God is responsible for everything. The Infinite is not confined to intention or purpose, for where then would not-intention, and not-purpose come from?

Kelly to Reedsch: There's no conscious intention in causation.

Passthrough: If you look at infinity over the long haul and if what Jesus Christ states is true, once we come to understand God we would become part and parcel of this one huge consciousness.

Kelly: Two points:

- If consciousness is defined as absolutely everything, including not-intention, unconsciousness, and purposelessness, then yes, all things are part of consciousness. That's just logical.

- Understanding God's nature does not make us "become part and parcel" of everything. That's always been true. It merely reveals this eternal truth, so that our delusional belief that things ultimately exist is broken. One just becomes conscious of one's true self.

Passthrough: Jesus Christ said:

On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

I am just not far enough along on the path to be completely conscious of this fact…attachments in life have a way of muddying those waters...attachments to mistakes I have made in life, but maybe some day I will.

Attachments are like sign-posts. They are still manifestations of the Infinite. So, the most logical attachments to form are sign-posts to the Infinite (which is present everywhere).

Passthrough: By your own admission, there exists one big consciousness - if you believe God to be everything and equate yourself as part of the “everything”. Did I miss something here?

[snip]

God does not draw lines, we do. If we do not see past these lines, we do not ever confess to this notion that God is all things, therefore, it is us who choose to remain unconscious to it all…and become food for those that come afterwards.

Kelly: Now, would Hakuin say "Dharma patricians" (plural) if only one individual needs to become enlightened, for all to be?

Passthrough: I have a bad habit of using plural, rather than singular, of course you make sense. I enjoyed the story; it is very encouraging…now if I could just quit walking backwards ;-)

I mistakenly assumed you believed in mass consciousness.

Carl G wrote:

Here is a practical example of what I am talking about: walking on water. Jesus did it (and I do not for a moment deny that he did), and he tried to show Peter how to, and Peter was initially successful but had some issues...

I don't regard this as a "practical example."

which is not all that unusual, fledgling birds do not fly on the first flap of their wings either.

Yes. And, an ability to host miracles is not necessarily a taught thing. It is not part of the work of self-perfecting, though it can be a result. Anyway, miracles are demonstrations which are co-created with the higher, for specific reasons. There may have been a reason for Jesus to walk on water, but none for Peter.

Anyway, how many Christians have actually walked on water since?

Unknown. Also unknown is how many actual Christians have existed. One percent of those labelling themselves as such?

Carl, you are obfuscating. I am pointing out something very tangible. Jesus came into this world the same way you did, thru the birth canal of a human female. And for the sake of argument, we will concede not only that he walked on water, but he was able to show at least one other person how to do the same.

I don't know if you are familiar with esoteric traditions of other cultures, but things of this nature are not unknown: materializing objects, returning from the dead, teletransportation, healing, and a variety of other events. Taoism has a well-established tradition of eternal life. There is one thing new in Christianity in particular that stands out for rme, but Jesus' "miracles" are not among them.

My point was that if Christianity was a mature practice, it would have institutionalized much of what Jesus was able to do in order to pass down his wisdom. Otherwise you'd have to admit that showing Peter how to walk on water was little more than a gimmick to impress the natives.

Carl G wrote:

Anyway, how many Christians have actually walked on water since?

Unknown. Also unknown is how many actual Christians have existed. One percent of those labelling themselves as such?

Judging who is a Christian and who is not seems to be one of the favorite passtimes for the followers of the Book. It's also one of the most utterly futile.

Carl G wrote:

Is is part of the Christian esoteric tradition? No, it is a dead letter

You sound a little angry towards Christianity. Do you feel it has let you down, or something?

I graduated from Christianity to the next level. It has served it's purpose for me. My concern is that people seem to be getting stuck at that level, like thinking that High School is all there is. It seems plain that it will be superseded. It has sunk to the level of mythology and superstition for most of humanity. In terms of mythological constructs it is not such a bad one, but that does not obscure the fact funamental fact that it is has exceeded its useful life (look at Europe where it has become quite antiquated).

reedsch wrote:I graduated from Christianity to the next level. It has served it's purpose for me. My concern is that people seem to be getting stuck at that level, like thinking that High School is all there is. It seems plain that it will be superseded.

So what are you now? A Super-Christian?

reedsch wrote:From a practical standpoint, Jesus left precious little in the way of supporting infrastructure to actually implement his "path to God".

Do you think "First the Kingdom of God" is "precious little"?

Just one book which is terribly inadequate.

I don't find any deficiency in Jesus's leavings. His audience was largely made of animal and hell beings (family-oriented children and hot-headed mystics).

No apprenticeship, no formal training by elders, no folkways as exist in many other cultures that have an esoteric tradition. In essence you are on your own, which is not very effective.

Christianity also has this, it's the same as going to university now (or seminaries). It's called a vocation, or "having a calling". It's interesting to see how the daunting realities of Christ's vocation were diluted over time. The solitary apostle's life was basically homeless martyrdom, which got watered down into hermitic or monastic life, and this in turn was leeched drastically by defining the dedicated Christian as a charity-working missionary or "pastor" oriented purely to family-care.

Christianity is the "dog in the manger" that Christ warned against. That's definitely a "folkway".

The Taoist tradition is richer, after all it was here long before Moses and continues in an unbroken line.

Nature is even richer, since it contains all lines.

Here is a practical example of what I am talking about: walking on water. Jesus did it (and I do not for a moment deny that he did), and he tried to show Peter how to, and Peter was initially successful but had some issues...which is not all that unusual, fledgling birds do not fly on the first flap of their wings either. Anyway, how many Christians have actually walked on water since? Is is part of the Christian esoteric tradition? No, it is a dead letter

Why not join Circus Soleil, for surely these amazing stunt-performers are the wisest of the wise?

I think Jesus' "walking on water" is a metaphor for transcending the mire of delusion. Just like the Buddha lotus.


_

reedsch wrote: Carl: You sound a little angry towards Christianity. Do you feel it has let you down, or something?

reedsch: I graduated from Christianity to the next level.

I didn't know there was a next level. What is it?

It has served it's purpose for me.

Religion in general certainly isn't for everyone. But as religions go, Christianity is fine, if one allows it to grow along with one.

My concern is that people seem to be getting stuck at that level, like thinking that High School is all there is.

Stuck in High School? Yes, you are a bit down on it.

But Christianity isn't all at High School level. No, becoming Christ-like is big-folks work.

It seems plain that it will be superseded. It has sunk to the level of mythology and superstition for most of humanity.

Ah, mistaking the corrupt institution for the genuine teaching. Then sure, throwing the baby out with the bath water might make sense...

In terms of mythological constructs it is not such a bad one, but that does not obscure the fact funamental fact that it is has exceeded its useful life (look at Europe where it has become quite antiquated).

Judging the divine word by its popularity among generally insane beings. You really do have a chip on your shoulder.

This is all deuling mythologies.

I offer a couple of salient observations:
#1, there is no definitive proof, nor any way to prove, any of these assertions
#2, there is sufficient evidence to support just about any assertion one would care to make.

SO, pick a belief which has the best positive net result, and leads to the best use of your limited time on this marvelous blue planet.

Christianity as it has been proacticed for the last 2 millenia is primarily the invention of 1 man: Saul. He created most of the theological infrastructure. It has its virtues for sure. But its limitations have become quite clear as well. I may even become, in highly modified form, one of the foundation stones for the next level. Someone once observed that the argument is not between science and religion, but between modern science and 2000-year-old science.

So what are you now?

We growing up to be gods, that is our lot. A few have made it already (Jesus included). Humans are halfway between angels and animals, but it's pretty clear the direction we are moving.

reedsch wrote:SO, pick a belief which has the best positive net result, and leads to the best use of your limited time on this marvelous blue planet.

Agreed.

Humans are halfway between angels and animals, but it's pretty clear the direction we are moving.

Towards animals?

I wonder what percentage of visitors to this board believe that quoting the Bible actually proves something?