Okay for so long ive pondered about what will happen after we die. Personally I think heaven, because of my religion, but I still wonder what will happen to get there, or what other things could happen. So if u got any ideas about it, or something like it post here.

@Snow
Easy, I'm not a Christian. But you're wrong about the Christian doctrine. According to Christianity you don't go to heaven or Hell because you're good or bad. All of humanity is destined for Hell, since no human is perfectly good and therefore doesn't deserve the right to enter Heaven. Our only chance is to accept a grand narrative about Jesus methaphysically reconciliating God with mankind by dying on a cross. Because if it weren't for Jesus, God was so angry with all humans that he was ready to send them all straight to Hell. However Jesus could only achieve half of his mission of saving mankind. The other half is for humans to believe in this story, and if we don't, it would mysteriously mean that we are rejecting God, so we'll go to Hell. Simple.

................................
Here's a take from a Hinduism point of view (Bhaktivinoda Thakura)

“Deliberating on the virtues and faults of this world, some moralistic monotheists concluded that the material world is not a place of pure happiness. Indeed, the sufferings outweigh the pleasures. They claim that the material world is a prison to punish the living entities. If there is punishment, then there must be a crime. If there were no crime, then why would there be any punishment? What crime did the living entities commit? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being, the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from that garden into the material world filled with sufferings. Because of their offense, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offense, God Himself took birth in a humanlike form, took on His own shoulders the sins of His followers, and then died. All who follow Him easily attain liberation, and all who do not follow Him fall into an eternal hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes Himself, and thus liberates the living entities. An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this.”

“To accept this mixed-up religion one must first believe these rather implausible things: ‘The living entity's life begins at birth and ends at death. Before birth the living entity did not exist, and after death the living entity will no longer stay in the world of material activities. Only human beings have souls. Other creatures do not have souls.’ Only extremely unintelligent persons believe this religion. In this religion the living entity is not spiritual in nature. By His own will God created the living entities out of matter. Why are the living entities born into very different situations? The followers of this religion cannot say. Why is one living entity born into the house of a person devoted to God, and another living entity born into a wicked atheist's house? Why is one person born in a situation where he is encouraged to perform pious deeds, and he performs pious deeds and becomes good? Why is another person born in a situation where he is encouraged to sin, and he sins and becomes bad? The followers of this religion cannot answer all these questions."

"Their religion seems to say that God is unfair and irrational. Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why do birds and beasts not have souls like human beings? Why do the human beings have only one life, and, because of their actions in that one life are rewarded in eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell? Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion completely unacceptable.”

“The followers of this religion have no power to worship God selflessly. In general their idea is that by cultivating fruitive work and speculative philosophy one should work to make improvements in the material world and in this way please God. By building hospitals and schools, and by doing various philanthropic works, they try to do good to the world and thus please God. Worship of God by performing fuitive work (karma) and by engaging in philosophical speculation (jnana) is very important to them. They have no power to understand pure devotional service (suddha-bhakti), which is free of fruitive work and philosophical speculation. Worship of God done out of a sense of duty is never natural or unselfish. "God has been kind to us, and therefore we should worship Him." These are the thoughts of lesser minds. Why is this not a good way to worship God? Because one may think, "If God is not kind to me, then I will not worship Him." In this way one has the selfish, bad desire to get God's kindness in the future."
...........................................

The problem with Christianity is that it is clueless about what Jesus taught. Having understood nothing of what Jesus said, they decided that believing in Jesus meant believing in him in the flesh and the historicity of his coming instead of believing in what he said and who he was as the ultimate identification with God. Yes Jesus was the only way to the father in the sense that there’s only one way to be united with God and it is to be pure of heart and this is the one and only God’s nature. Implying that God himself is bound by his very nature and cannot be untrue to himself. Since God and the Holy spirit is one, attaining “holiness” or “sainthood” or “enlightenment” or “free from selfish desires”, you become God. That is the message convergent from all religions. Jesus never meant that believing in a narrative about himself or a church doctrine will take you straight to heaven. The implications of such simplification are beyond the unreasonable as it proves itself to be false beyond doubt.

Think about it, why would Jesus ask so much from us, like loving our neighbor like ourselves, wasting his time teaching humanity about how to act, think and feel if he knew we were utterly incapable of doing what he said?

Last edited: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 at 10:42:00 PM

@Hoplite

 

 

Misunderstood your question at first. What happens if you cut a piece of flesh from your body and throw it away? Now don't take it too far, an analogy has its limitations, it can't be stretched in all directions. Anyway thanks for your kind words all along. But I am not Buddha or Jesus and there will come a time when your infinite questions will beat me easily. I never claimed to be a guru or to know it all, just repeatedly that not knowing it all is not an excuse for believing absurdities.

 

Last edited: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 at 5:43:59 AM

Good post stan.

 

 

as if having faith in christ somehow substituted for following his example through action .

So much easier to go to church and say the right thing, and to nod your head when others say the right thing...and then, when the requisite time has been satisfied...to set aside the "spiritual realm" and to rejoin the "rat race", the "real world" and do the opposite.

How many christians have there ever really been? Christians in the mold of the christ?

And this part:

 

 

these moralistic monotheists were called the jews...and remembering history, they didn't have it very good at the time when they were formulating their ontological explanations...

They were subjugated, tormented, enslaved, dispossesed. The material world was a prison ...for them. Often, it literally was a prison. The jews made sense of their lowly existence in a way that allowed them to reconcile their unhappy state with their need to believe (like all cultures must believe) that they were somehow "the chosen." nietzsche called it a reversal of values...they took the master morality, and stood it on its head. All that their masters were...strong, warring, sexual, overflowing with food and drink and passion...they were not. And in the reevaluation of morals, these things became branded as bad. Their opposites...meekness, self-denial, self-abnegation, fasting, abstinence...all traits forced upon them by their masters...these became virtues. They are the virtues born of the resentment of the powerful. In time, this ontology, tweeked by the christians, became the powerful...which is a kind of irony which too often becomes hypocrisy...the kind of hypocrisy we experience seemingly daily on the news. Think tom delay/ralph reed...for a current example.

You cannot fault people their glorifying stories...especially when the stories are the only thing which give them hope in a horrible situation.

But I fault people for losing sight of the historical origins of this tale.

^Interesting concept this 'reversal of values'.

Is it wrong that I wish the jew's masters had been meek, self-denying, self-abnegating asexuals.

:)
probably...

 

Thanks Stink

I must say that even though I don't agree with the Jewish beliefs, I have no desire to debunk their faith, because they are today very tolerant, respectful of other religions and most of all they don't try to convert others. Over the course of this religious debate I have become more aware of the devastating impact and potential dangers of evangelization and I have become more radical about this hideous practice of conversion shared by Muslims and Christians. And I know this is also what compelled Thakura (post above) to speak harshly about Christians.

Indians are the most tolerant religious people on Earth even though they possess the mother of all religions in my opinion. Their tolerance is not a reluctant acceptation of the other, but a real understanding and encouragement for anyone to genuinely pursue his own path, since in their view all paths lead to God. "Truth is one, the wise call it by various names." In the Baghavad Gita Krishna also says:

"In whatever way men love Me, in the same way they find My love; various are the ways of men, but in the end they all come to Me."

Indic religions accept that God manifests himself under different names, at different times, when today the world's two biggest Abrahamic religions still think their God is the only true one and it is their duty to convert everybody by proselytisation or by force.

This sublime tolerance of Hinduism shows the wisdom and mature dignity of the Hindu tradition. But tolerance has its upper limit in this world and we can't tolerate intolerance. Gandhi himself ended up criticizing the Christian missionaries:

"It pains me to have to say that the Christian missionaries as a body, with honorable exceptions, have actively supported a system which has impoverished, enervated and demoralized a people considered to be among the gentlest and most civilized on earth. It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world's progress toward peace. Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man? My fear is that though Christian friends nowadays do not say or admit it that Hindu religion is untrue, they must harbor in their breast that Hinduism is an error and that Christianity, as they believe it, is the only true religion... So far as one can understand the present Christian effort, it is to uproot Hinduism from her very foundation and replace it by another faith. I regard Jesus as a great teacher of humanity, but I do not regard him as the only begotten son of God. That epithet in its material interpretation is quite unacceptable. Metaphorically we are all sons of God, but for each of us there may be different sons of God in a special sense. Thus for me Chaitanya may be the only begotten son of God... God cannot be the exclusive Father and I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus. I consider western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ's Christianity. I cannot conceive Jesus, if he was living in flesh in our midst, approving of modern Christian organizations, public worship, or ministry." Gandhi

Most people do not realize that Hinduism is a monotheistic belief in only one God, a Creator beyond time, space and physical form. The whole array of Hindu gods are only representations of different attributes of God. It is all symbolism intended to allow God to seem more real and approachable. For example Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are three aspects of one God. Creation, preservation and destruction. Many in the west have tried to denounce it as the worship of idols. Vivekananda said "If a person wants to drink milk, he uses a cup as he cannot drink it directly. Idols are nothing but symbols through which divinity can be comprehended. It helps undeveloped minds to grasp high spiritual truths."

It is chilling to think that had the Christians or the Muslims had their way they would have annihilated the most ancient and uninterrupted, most admirable fountain of spirituality the World has ever witnessed. The famous Vedas that mentions the exact age of the Earth at 4 Billion years, quantum physics, evolution and an innumerable accounts of the Universe, including the newest theory of the Multiverse. The continous cycle of creation and destruction, manifested in Shiva, Lord of the dance, who holds the dream that sounds the universe’s creation in his right hand and the flame that, billions of years later, will destroy the universe in his left. Meanwhile Brahma is but one of untold numbers of other gods dreaming their own universes. But it goes much deeper as it reveals the ultimate truth hidden behind it all with an immanent God within this World that has yet to be transcended, becoming aware that the multiplicity of all things is not real since impermanent. Only going beyond the apparences and acquiring complete Wisdom will unite you with God. No wonder Einstein who couldn’t ascribe to the Christian personal God was in awe with Hinduism. The Vedas contain the oldest spiritual texts of any religion in the world, and its more advanced concepts can be difficult even for today’s scientists to fathom.

“The Hindus are most serenely and thoughtfully religious than the Hebrews. They have perhaps a purer, more independent and impersonal knowledge of God. Their religious books describes the first inquisitive and contemplative access to God; the Hebrew bible a conscientious return, a grosser and more personal repentance. Repentance is not a free and fair highway to God. A wise man will dispense with repentance. It is shocking and passionate. God prefers that you approach him thoughtful, not penitent, though you are chief of sinners. It is only by forgetting yourself that you draw near to him. The calmness and gentleness with which the Hindu philosophers approach and discourse on forbidden themes is admirable.” Thoreau

Last edited: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 at 9:01:40 AM

Thought provoking stuff. Thanks stan.

@Stan

I think your description of Christianity is more of a caricature than a description.

You write:

 

 

This is not true. Christians do believe that the good are saved and that bad are not. Jesus actually said "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".(Matt. 5:48) That's God's standard. Perfection. God is just. Christians understand that God's Law is not to be trifled with and that it still stands. We love the law and its summary which is found in the Ten Commandments. We memorize them still to this day.

Christianity shares this understanding with every religion in the world that I am aware of. Every religion, it would seem has at least some understanding of God's rules.. Every religion of the world has man seeking to be made right with God in some way; be it through good deeds or some ritualized derivative of good deeds or by achieving an altered state of mind. As a result, we see people donning certain clothes, praying at certain times of the day, making pilgrimages to shrines, suspending themselves with hooks, meditating and so on and so forth....all of these are an attempt to bridge the gap between God and man....to ascend and break through the gates of heaven (or whatever you want to call the place of God) as it were.

Why are people so religion oriented? Why do they feel the need? Why do new religions keep popping up? Is it stupidity? Is it a lack of sophistication? I believe it was John Locke or perhaps DeCartes who said that in the age of Enlightenment that religion would cease to be. Hasn't happened. Why? Why are so many people driven to religion? I believe it is something that God has built into humanity because he wants us to find him. It's our natural desire to be united with the one who created us. Recent research has demonstrated that the human brain is "hardwired" to think in this way. In the bible it actually says that God will "write his law" on the hearts of men.

Having noted the commonality that Christianity has with other religions, with regards to the understanding of Gods Law, I would now like to show where Christianity parts company with all other religions. Every other religion puts the onus for achieving the perfect afterlife on man. Man must break through. Man must make his way to God....somehow. Perhaps by chanting, perhaps by praying, perhaps by keeping the five pillars of Islaam....MAN MUST DO. MAN MUST SAVE SELF. But nobody does it perfectly! Nobody! While all have the inner understanding that God requires perfection, none achieve it. They don't keep their own rules about God. If they did, God would honor that. Christians believe that....If a muslim, or hindu, or Shinto, or whatever truly fulfilled all that their own religions require, God would honor that.

Christianity is sublimely different. In Christianity, man is not the one who bridges this perceived gap between God and man. With integrity, we freely admit that we do not possess the perfection that is required. We know what we should do, we know that we haven't done it, but we admit that. What allows us to finally come out with it is the mercy of God. This mercy is demonstrated by the fact that God reaches down to us. We do not ascend to the heights, the heights are brought to us. Christianity teaches that GOD SAVES MAN; that salvation is not something that can be earned but rather, is given. What man could not do, that is achieve perfection, God did through his Son Jesus. Jesus saves man in two ways. First, by living the perfect life that we have not lived. Second, by enduring the punishment for our sins.

St. Paul explains. "Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in his [god's] sight through observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God apart from the law has been made known. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ." (Romans 3:20-22)

Christians understand that righteousness is imputed....that is something that is applied to or credited to us. And this is nothing new. The Torah says "Abraham believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness". Or another way the Hebrew Scriptures refer to it is being given a Robe. "I delight greatly in the Lord; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me in the garments of salvation and arrayed me in the robe of righteousness." (Isaiah 61:10)

And yes, it is by faith that we receive this. But faith is not merely an intellectual ascent that there was a Jesus and that he died on the cross, but faith includes the personal trust that Jesus did this FOR me; that the offering of himself was an atonement for my sins.

On this note too, you incorrectly summarize the christian faith:

 

 

Jesus did not simply do half of his mission. Faith is part of his gift. Faith is God's gift. Faith is not something that is generated from within man, but something that is given. He provides the faith that is needed.

As a result of coming to faith, the Christian then begins to seek to keep the law. Not to save himself, but because he is saved. Jesus said "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing."......The fruit, are the good deeds....They come as a result of being connected to Jesus the vine. And the world has enjoyed much fruit from Christians who have been so connected.

Allow me to share some of those fruits. Almost every single Major University that stands today was begun by Christians. Christians invented the idea of university. The Concept of hospital also was a Christian innovation. Nurses uniforms are the remnant of the Nuns habits. The abolition of Slavery was heavily influenced by Christians. The idea of public mercy and Charity also originated with Christians. Systematized adoption services were begun by Christians. Musical notation and the idea of harmony was invented by Christians. During the Dark ages that came as a result of the power vacuum left by the fall of Rome, It was Christian monks, who had a healthy respect for learning, who squirreled away some of the most precious works of antiquity. If it weren't for them, it could be argued that the Renaissance could not have happened. Christians were instrumental in getting public schools started in this country.

The jealousy of all that Christianity has done for the world is palpable in the Hindu critique of Christianity that you offer. It cannot be denied that the influence of Christianity on the world has been very positive.

Now of course, you could definitely find a number of instances when great evil was done in the name of Christ.....the crusades, the inquisition, the horrible conquest of the Americas. And I would agree with you on that. But I would contend that the people who brought these things about were not truly Christians. There have always been those silly and evil Christians who have attempted to make a witches brew of secular government and Christian fervor. I reject and denounce them. Pat Robertson is the latest in this country...he scares me and I find him most irritating. He's just plain wrong. Jesus said, "my kingdom is not of this world". So any chucklehead who starts telling us that we must run our country on "christian principles" makes my skin crawl, because I know that it will go bad. True christians are instructed by the scriptures to be good citizens in whatever country they might find themselves....to bloom where they are planted...to honor and pray for our rulers...no matter what they might believe or do.

Hoplite

^ Stan rewrite that you forgot an 's' and a 'e' somewhere =) ;)

Good post!! Hinduism is fascinating, and the Vedas mind-blowing. Most of what cutting-edge contemporary science is 'discovering' was intuited and articulated by the Greeks at 500bc, but even earlier in India, and with bigger scope and precision.

Other civilization might also have had amazing bodies of writings had not History destroyed their records. One shudders when contemplating the destruction (except for 2 codex) of pretty much all pre-columbian writings.
Egypt possessed deep insight in the universe, part of it reflected in its surviving temples - most Greeks scholars were indeed trained in Egypt. But the waning power of Egypt only left traces of what the scholars of the EMpire might have known.
India was 'lucky' to preserve its vedas. I'd love to read a tale on the texts themselves; their compilation, safeguard, etc. I imagine the Vedas story a bit like the western world Dark Age where a small group of learned souls preserve books and tradition in dire circumstances.
The burning of the Hanlin Library in China at 1900 is another example of an impossibly tragic destruction of knowledge.
The burning of Alexandria is also a tragedy of impossible proportion: it's like if the internet 'burned' overnight. Even then it's different; the net could be rebuilt quickly in 2006 - but what was lost there in could never be rebuilt.

The History of Mankind would be entirely different if we managed to preserve all/most of the original (3000BC to 500AD) texts. It would present an vast cosmogony, with powerful and advanced civilization steadily

Here as other historical tragedy I'll add the destruction of the Iraqi National Museum (170,000 items lost/destroyed and the rest damaged) and of the Bagdad Archeology Museum (couldn't find exact losses - up to 200,000 items) - , containing the best and oldest items and the freaking barbarous act committed by one of the greatest democracy, and it happened in 2003 boys.
OMG I forgot about that - now I'm angry again, this is so upsetting to remember this barbarous act. I don't think that the Evil Saddam 'Bogeyman' Hussein did this - it was the great 'Freedom, here we come' nation. Bush & co., destructor of World, and History, Savior of Oil Ministry. Iraq like we know is often cited as being the cradle of civilization. What was lost and destroyed there will never come back.
But (thank God) the Oil Ministry was saved.

Another thing about the Vedas is how they approach literally every aspect of being human. One weakness of Christianity is in the dogmatic details: what can you eat, do, the rituals, the whys, etc. The bible is rather summary on details, being only one relatively small book; the message is general, parabolic is you want, whilst the Vedas will be precise and scientific, and even though it consolidated its texts to a degree, it never felt obliged to cut entire pans in order to have everything fit in one book.
Thus instead of being exposed to the Death Sea scrolls, instead of continually enriching Christianity by including new texts, influences and questioning, for about 1600 years Christianity has been blocking and labeling 'heretic' any undogmatic work of early Christians - thus contributing in part to the fledging of the religion by limiting its scope.

Ayurvedic medicine is still in use today, with an entire system of food and medecine and a holistic approach to mind/body. Each food/plant belongs to a group, a color, a sound/frequency, is associated with such and such organ, and has such and such function. The energy meridians are knows (as per the Chinese system).

The Chakras system is awesome. The different yogas never lost their appeal, with Ashtanga Yoga (Yoga of Posture or 'Union with God through mastery of body and breathing') being a huge thing in Western cities. The Kama Sutra is always a classic, Sanskrit is the oldest language in the world, 'Karma' and 'Dharma' are now words of common use.

Hoplight,

I find your post conflicting. First you say that my description of Christianity is not accurate but then you end up rephrasing the exact doctrine I summarized. I don’t see your point.

I also know full well the main difference that exists in the way to "bridge the gap" between Abrahamic and Dharmic religions. Only you placed Islam in the wrong category. Muslims do not need to strive for perfection, they are only required to believe some divine historical event, accept a specific doctrine as faith and abide by a few rules. Just like Christianity Heaven is a gift handed from the top down to the believers and unbelievers go to Hell.

But those who believe and do good deeds, We will admit them to gardens (Paradise) in which rivers flow, lasting in them forever.(Quran, 4:57)
Those who have disbelieved and died in disbelief, the earth full of gold would not be accepted from any of them if one offered it as a ransom. They will have a painful punishment, and they will have no helpers.(Quran, 3:91)

Dharmic religions on the contrary do not make a distinction between believers and non believers, as believing or not believing something – even enshrined with the glory of the word “faith” - doesn't really change anyone's true nature. Salvation can only be attained from the bottom up indeed - which doesn't exclude the intervention of some natural divine force at work underneath it all, since our souls are spiritual by essence, which could shed some light on some of your favorite scriptures. There's no duality just a misunderstanding with pretty subtle ideas that require some level of intuition and consciousness of what's around and within us.

Now we don’t just have 2 seemingly acceptable theories of bridging the gap as we’re not in an abstract vacuum. The moral and logical implications of the top down theory as understood by Christian literalists and Muslims make it more than inconceivable but an impossibility.

Last edited: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 at 11:37:17 AM

@Stan

 

 

Let me summarize:

You said that Christians don’t believe that good people are saved and bad people go to hell. I said christians do believe this.

You said Jesus did half the job in suggesting that faith is something that the individual must provide for himself, as if faith itself is not the work of God. I said he did it all....insofar as he gives the faith we need.

We also differed on the quality of faith. You saw faith as the acceptance of the “grand narrative” I said it is more than mere intellectual ascent....but actually a subjective trust that Christ was one’s substitute in God’s judgment. Granted, your original description was closer than I portrayed it, now that I look at it again.

With regard to lumping Islam into the wrong category, I don’t think I’m guilty of that. I think you and I are using different categories. Perhaps my categories will become more clear with what follows.

For Christians, forgiveness is a gift that was earned by Jesus. For Muslims, forgiveness is something that is earned by the believer...a reward. I quote the Qur'an:

“for the saved, the reward is forgiveness from their Lord, and gardens and rivers flowing underneath, an eternal dwelling; how excellent a recompense for those who work and strive.” (Ali Sura 3:136)

Do you see what I’m saying? My point was that in all other religions, including Islam, the focus is on man saving himself by what he does. Christianity focuses on what God has done to save us. Indeed, in both cases, heaven is top down, as you say, but the cause of salvation is different. In Islam the ultimate cause is man insofar as it is dependent on him. In Christianity, the cause is God.

Perhaps another way to put it is to ask: who is the lynchpin for salvation. In every other religion MAN and his activity is the essential part. In Christianity GOD is the essential part.

Or another way to say it is this: Salvation in Christianity is Theocentric; all other religions, Anthropocentric.

Another way: Consider the formal principle of every religion. Who is controlling the verbs of salvation. In Christianity the verbs of salvation are controlled by God. In every other religion they are controlled by man, or at least, in part by man....or perhaps man renders his assistance and without such assistance its a no go.

Another way of putting it: You’ve heard the term “born again” I’m sure, usually flagged about by nutbars on TV or obnoxious street-corner Christians. But in its proper sense, it is a description of being saved. Just as we do not decide to be born and did not say, “hey, I think I want to be born into the world” we do not say “hey, I want to be reborn into the world of God and then cause it to happen. That’s not up to us. In the case of being born into the world, it was our parent’s decision. In the case of being born anew into the kingdom of God it was the decision of our father in heaven.

Still another: We Christians see Salvation as something that is very much like creation. Creation was all God’s doing. Salvation is all God’s doing. The new Heaven and the New Earth that he has promised is the return or the fixing of creation which was corrupted by sin. We enter that by being re-created by God.

On the Role of Jesus, he is the Second Adam. The first Adam, was tempted but failed. His disobedience had far-reaching effects on the world. Jesus is the second Adam. He was tempted but did not fail. His obedience had far reaching effects on the world. Paradise lost/ Paradise restored.

Anyway, I hope I’m a little clearer.

^ wow well put

So am I going to Heaven?
I mean now I'm confused. Jesus didn't just go half way in reconciling God with Man, but did it all. And contrary to Muslims that need to have faith to be saved, meaning that they need to "earn" their reward through that faith, Christians don't even need that. Jesus took care of it all and for everyone I assume. We don't need to earn anything but good people will go to heaven and bad ones to Hell, but Jesus died for our sins and we are forgiven???? Who's going to Heaven then? And who's going to Hell?

Last edited: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 at 2:14:58 PM

I hope so Stan,

I would love to sit and hash things out with you on that day....guys like you give me hope for the world...and for our country (assuming you are in my country).

But really, in regard to the question you asked, it is beyond my ability to know or to say.

Hoplite

Stan ur confusing me so much...i think I should just go back to my theory lol

I am a firm believer in Jesus and the Father in heaven. I grew up in a Christian home. I thought that was enough to get to heaven but it is not. The question is not whether or not there is heaven or hell, but how do we get there?
One night, I lay in bed thinking about how evil the world is, I felt a total emptiness, weight and lonliness all around me. Then I remembered the sinners prayer: "God, I am a sinner, I know you died on the cross for me to pay for my sins, come into me and fill me." I prayed this and instantly, I was filled with a peace, power, and love that no amount of earthly things could create! It felt like someone lifted an elephant off me! It is only by these (not exact) words that you can go to heaven.
It is not that god hates us, he hates the sin that covers us. He has no choice but to kill anyone that has sin on them. So Jesus was sent down to spill his blood to spiritualy clean the sins off our shoulders. Only then can we enter the love of God unscathed.
God created us to choose by ourselves to love him. It doesnt fell as good to have robot like beings forced to say "I love you." over and over. He needs us to have a choice so he can see that we have choosen Him over Evil. God loves everyone, so he made it possible for anyone to choose him.

God loves all people.

-Tangadian

^ one day I lay in Bed thinking the same thing. I get up and out to ask my dad somthing. A strange impuilse came over me. I bolted through the front door to the only Buckeye tree around in miles. I just looked at it. That night I dreamed about sking my dead uncle what to do with life. He said "live your life with no cigarettes (thats how he died) no hate, and friends. I woke up, felling quite queer and quite quaint. Like so

& •
/

Se the image?

Wow thats weird..

It doesnt matter what you have done, he will still love. That was probably God speaking to you Teenskye. I get that all the time. Like before I posted that^^^.

@Stan

 

 

Sorry I took so long, I had stuff to do.

When Jesus died, he dealt with the sins of the whole world. He died for everybody. But not everybody will receive the benefits of his death. The benefits are received by faith.

It may have sounded as if I was very limiting on the necessity of faith, perhaps different from the Christians you have spoken with before. Well, what you’ve hit upon is a difference within the Christian church.

In my opinion some of my fellow Christians have not completely understood what faith is. In reality, faith is like an open, receiving hand. Salvation is like the most fantastic gift that one could ever receive in that hand. Some Christians mistakenly focus on the hand! “Oh, look at my hand!” “I remember the first day I opened it!” “How is your hand?” “Look how strong my hand is!” “My hand is stronger than yours!” Not only is this wrong, but also quite annoying.

For them, it’s all about the hand. It has to be because they have made themselves and their faith the critical variable in the salvation equation. However, as all humans, they sense their inherent weakness and are constantly struggling to assure themselves that they did in fact “make a decision for Christ”. So they talk about their decision a lot. They’ve got something to prove....not necessarily to you, but to themselves. All this in an attempt to quiet the sneaking suspicion that they personally have not added enough to the salvation equation to be saved.

I do not understand salvation in this way. The salvation equation was finished when Jesus said “it is finished” ( a greek word that means “Paid in full”) from the cross. I’m on the product side of the equation. I cannot save or help save myself any more than I can cause myself to be born. My salvation is an act of God. It is all God’s doing. I do not find comfort and peace by looking at the size of my hand, I find comfort and peace by peering into the promises of God. What hand I use to grasp these promises have been given to me by God. Faith is God’s gift to me too.

I know that I am a sinner and that I will always be a sinner till the day I die. But I am a forgiven sinner because of what Jesus did for me. I am able to say this right now because I believe it. I believe it because God has caused me to believe it.

Indeed, only good people go to heaven. But the question is how do you become good and from whose viewpoint. From my viewpoint and on my own merits, I am not good. I am not worthy. I do not deserve heaven. I’m not a murderer or anything like that, but I am by no means perfect. Just ask my wife and the other people who know me. There are some definite flaws in me. I admit that. On my own, I cannot expect to enter the most holy presence of God and live with him in eternity.

And I am not alone. All people are this way. None of us are truly righteous. As evidence look at how easily we go to war. Look at crime. Look at hatred. Look at racism. Look at all the stuff that makes the world rotten and you will find at its center a basic flaw with man. That flaw is sin. For the longest time, we were going on the dream that if we could just educate everybody it would fix stuff. Wrong. Another approach has been, “If we could all just learn to communicate everything would be fine.” Wrong. “how about if we get rid of poverty” Wrong. There is something wrong with the world, everyone knows it. What is wrong with the world is that there is something wrong with the people of the world...something within them is not right. We are not righteous. We are not righteous in our thoughts, words, or deeds.

But, as the scriptures say “there is a righteousness from God”. This is huge! This means that what I could not do and what I could not achieve has been achieved and that God wants to give it to me! What he wants to give me, satisfies the requirements of his law and I am declared righteous in his sight. There are a couple of passages from scripture that give me peace:

“Though your sins are like scarlet they shall be as white as snow, though they are red as crimson they will be as wool.” (Isaiah 1:18)

“As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed his transgressions from us” (Ps. 103:12)

“I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” (Isaiah 54:4)

We are all conscious of the dark stain of our sins, but God says as far as he is concerned, they are white. He says he has put an infinite distance between us and our transgressions. He says he forgets our sins. How? Because they have been taken away by Jesus. Notice that I took all these quotes from the Hebrew scriptures. Forgiveness and Justification are not a Christian innovation, but rather something God has always been planning to do from the beginning.

While from my own viewpoint I am a schlub, an idiot, a sinner; from God’s viewpoint, I am none of these things. He now views me through the lens of his Son Jesus who paid the price for my sins. I am a forgiven sinner. I am good in the eyes of God even though I might still be bad in my own eyes. So when I say only good people make it to heaven, I mean only those who have been declared righteous in the view of God. There’s an old Latin term that describes the state of Christians as they live in the world. “Simul justis et pecatur” that is, Simultaneously saint and sinner. Once we are on the other side and have entered his presence the sinner part will finally and fully be done away with...and that will be part of the bliss of heaven....We will finally be able to see what God sees in us and see it in other people too. And some of that also begins in the here and now. We do begin to strive against our sins and begin to be more righteous in our life. Take Mother Theresa of Calcutta as an example. (just thought I’d tweak your admiration of the Hindu way a little bit....sorry couldn’t resist.)

Now sometimes, you will hear Christians say “It doesn’t matter what you have done, just come to Jesus and you will be saved.” In some ways this is true What they’re intending to say is that any sinner can be saved. I agree. But it is a rather nettlesome statement that can be misunderstood in a big way. Sins don’t matter? What are they talking about? Sins do matter. Sins are horrible. Sins are a stench in the nostrils of God. To say “it doesn’t matter” is ridiculous. This leads to the understanding that God is like some grinning grampa or Santa clause who overlooks our sins and says “ho ho ho, I’ll let you get away with murder johnny...ho ho ho...your sins don’t matter....ho ho ho I don’t care if you break every single commandment I have ever given”. The Christians who say this mean well, but I think it adds to the confusion and allows some to behave most unrighteously.

Our sins DO MATTER. They matter so much that God had to go to great lengths to overcome them for us....he gave his only Son to fix what our sins have done. THEY DO MATTER. God is not in the business of overlooking or winking at our sins. He is not some divine pushover. He is just and righteous and demands that our sins be accounted for. The ultimate question is: who is going to be accountable for our sins?

In his mercy, his Son has stepped into the breach and said “I will be accountable” How can one man do this for all people? Well he wasn’t simply a man, and therefore under the law like any human, but he was also God making his death have significance on a cosmic level. In a sense, you could say that Jesus endured hell for all people when he went to the cross. If he had not risen again, that would have signified that his offering was not sufficient. But he did rise.

Creation was wrecked by sin. This bugged the dickens out of God. He still liked what he made, but he hated what sin had done to it. He hated the death, the destruction, the perversion, the arrogance and so on and so forth. He could have just blown everything up and started over again. But no, he chose to redeem. He chose to separate the people that he loved from their sins that were destroying them. He would do that through his Son...the second Adam.

In many places in both the Old and New Testaments, the Lord compares salvation to a great banquet....He has spent all of history to prepare it. (the call of Abraham, the giving of the law through Moses, the choosing of Israel, the establishment of the sacrificial system and ultimately with the sacrifice to end all sacrifices his own Son) He invites everyone to come. He wants everyone to come.

But not everybody does. Not everybody responds to the invitation to come to the banquet of eternal life. Those who go to heaven are those who receive the invitation and come or have faith. Those who go to hell are those who do not come and do not have faith.

When you asked me if you are going to heaven, I responded “I hope so”. Because you are still alive and the invitation stands open for you just as it does for all people. I was reflecting what God himself has said. He wants people to be saved. I also said that it was beyond my ability to know or to say. That’s because I don’t know the future. Some day you might come to faith. I can’t know.

Hoplite

I prefer Stan's Answer. Radical Gospel, problem is we tend to put limits on it. Stan didn't.

@Memphis

 

 

In all honesty, I do too.

I can think of a lot of things I might prefer. But is it about my preferences? Is it about me? No. It's about something greater than me. I surrender my preferences with the understanding that the one who is greater than me knows better. Now that I think of it, that Kind of sounds like faith. :)

@Hoplite

Problem is I get a lot of invitations, and I can only go to one party. I still have the welcome card from your Church but the food on the menu is incompatible with my stomach. I also have some inside information that God will not attend the party either as he doesn't want to feel those huge nails again.

It is not a matter of preference, but of coherence and reason. It seems like an in-house taught rebuttal in Christianity to systematically accuse people of “picking what they like” when they find the Church doctrine unacceptable. But we have no choice but to use our minds before believing something. If we didn’t what would prevent us from believing the first thing that we’re taught (which is actually what is happening – It is no coincidence that most Muslim are in Muslim countries and Christians in Christian countries).

One day hopefully you'll stop surrendering your God given mental abilities and realize that you know better than a Church that has no other motive than to gain market share on the soul market worldwide. You'll get out of that box you were cornered in by insidious ways, you'll stop fearing God and a non-existent Hell. You'll lose a freebee Heaven but you will have gained a much more respectable God that you will be able to honor with serenity and the love He deserves, since he will have become the anti-thesis of the schisophrenic, capricious, cruel and irrational personality that Men had successfully lead you to believe, pretending that His mysterious ways could explain the unreasonable.

Last edited: Thursday, November 02, 2006 at 7:59:32 PM

:)

Hit the nail on the head there, stan.

2 nails

@Stan,

Perhaps I need to be more clear. My comment to Memphis was a nod of agreement that your description of the Hindu way sounded good. YOUR DESCRIPTION. Not Hinduism. I did not intend, in any way, to suggest that I preferred Hinduism and was somehow driven to accept Christianity. Your description of the Indic way is an idyllic caricature, even as your description and understanding of Christianity is a dark caricature. I was, in effect saying, you paint I very rosy picture, but not a realistic or true picture.

I would also prefer it very much if I could be guaranteed to never get cancer. I would prefer it if I had magical powers and could fly. But the reality is, I cannot. I must submit to reality. I consider my God to be the ultimate reality and the creator of reality in which we live move and have our being.

I’ve surrendered my God-given mental abilities to a human institution? C,mon man!

It’s not the church that I surrender to! As I intimated, I am not always so happy with what the church at large has done. I agree with Ghandi that the Christian missionaries were stupid colonial jerks. I agree that people have done awful things in the name of Christ. I don’t consider them true Christians. I already gave you that. I do not surrender to the church! I surrender to what I consider to be the will of God as it is revealed in his Word.

Wouldn’t you agree that any follower of any religion must surrender or submit to
some body of knowledge or teaching as authoritative? I think you would.
every religion has its material principle. In a previous post you wrote:

 

 

Where did you get these thoughts? You certainly got them from somewhere. These things are teachings, doctrine, dogma. If you listen to these things and accept them as fact, are you not doing the same thing I have done by my submitting to the teaching of the Christian scriptures?

What makes what you have done any better? You assert that the God you speak of is more reasonable.

Okay, could you please explain the reasonability of 10’s of 1000’s of people ascending an arduous mountain peak each year to visit the large Phallic representation known as the Linga? One year 100’s died in a snow storm. What kind of God would require, encourage, or inspire this? While your at it, what kind of God would encourage the pollution of the Ganges with the partially burned and whole bodies of the deceased? Likewise, what kind of God would condone the Caste system which finds its origins in Hinduism? And what of the untouchables? Why? How can the cruelty heaped on these poor people be seen as loving or peaceful? What kind of God is this? His followers don’t seem to have free minds. Their God does not sound too nice either.

None of these things I mentioned are obscure little quirky outbursts that nobody knows about, On the contrary, they are all major, manifestations of the fruits of the Hindu religion. So I don’t consider this to be a curve ball. And besides I’ve always wondered about these things. It’s your turn now, please explain. I want to know.

Or maybe you don’t understand these things and you simply disregard them because they are not to your liking and you understand it to be fully within your rights to reject anything that does not seem logical to you.

But isn’t the whole purpose of religion to make us think and indeed also to change the way we think? Aren’t changes necessary for us to become more than what we were before. Well for that to happen, sorry to say, we will run up against things that seem entirely odd to us. They will seem odd to us because they will require us to think outside of the little intellectual box we have built around ourselves.

Isn’t this the normal learning process that we all go through as human beings? Isn’t this how we met the world and took our lessons in school? Why should this process be short-circuited when it comes to religion? Why do you expect everything concerning God appear logical to you immediately? Are all the things we learn always intuitive? Are they not sometimes counterintuitive? Can a person’s personal logicical constructs be completely screwed up? Of course! Or have yours reached a state of perfection?

I personally understand the god I believe in in a much deeper way now than I did before. I did not reject him because there were some things I didn’t understand at times. I stuck with him, because I always knew he loved me...always. I kept digging and kept asking lots and lots of very hard question questions. I still do. I really do not see him in the way that you describe him. I don’t.

Perhaps its analogous to Mathematics. In first grade I could not do algebra. I saw older kids doing algebra and it scared me big time. But I trusted that one day, it would make sense to me. Much of it did. But still not all of it makes sense to me. There are math problems that remain unsolved and seem impossible even for the greatest mathematicians. This does not bother me. I do not reject all math because I do not understand every aspect of it......You could say pretty much the same thing about any other disicipline under the sun...History, Chemistry, Physics, and so on.

But you would make an exception when it comes to God who is the creator of all all? Why? Why do you expect that all the ways and means of an infinite and eternal being to be always within your grasp? Is this a control thing?

Hoplite

 

Last edited: Friday, November 03, 2006 at 7:32:39 AM

Before I answer just one comment: What good is it for me to respond if you don't read my posts? Did I not explain that it wasn't a matter of "preference"?

Stan,

I did read your post. Very carefully as a matter of fact. You said:

 

 

Here's a synopis of what I was getting at:

I simply asked you to show me the coherence and reason that you mentioned......which I obviously suspect is not a manifestation of coherence and reason, but, in fact, your preference.

Show me the logic and reasoning behind the very well known aspects of Hindu practice I asked you about and you will have proven that you have been completely logical and reasonable in your pursuit and that it has not been a matter of preference. I'm asking you to prove the above quoted assertion. Your not the kind of guy who makes assertions without having done his homework. That's why I like you. Show me some of the research. Explain what you have come to believe as I have explained what I believe to you. It can only broaden me.

But even then, if you are able to demonstrate how these Hindu practices can be seen in a reasonable light, another question still remains: How can you expect God to fit into human logical constructs? How can you expect him to fit into your personal logical constucts? Do you refuse to entertain the possiblity that there are things about God that you cannot yet understand? Do you have no room in your mind to expand? To change? To grow? Have you built your own "box"? Have you not set limits on God? Have you limited him to the size of your own mind?

Hoplite.

Coherence and reason within religious beliefs:
(I had addressed extensively this issue in the other thread, so I went back and summarized)

I first want to clear up some confusion. I never said that “reason” is the only human ability that is required to access the truth. It is one thing to argue that reason may not always be sufficient, nor necessary but it certainly does not infer that it is permissible to be unreasonable. The distinction is critical.

Now, there are two different interpretations of the word "unreasonable". I'll allow you to believe in all "unreasonable" stuff you want as long as it is taken as meaning "inexplicable". Help yourself and believe in all the mysteries and miracles your heart desires. But you're not allowed to believe in the "unreasonable" in the sense of a contradiction. And I don't mean a paradoxical idea, I mean a mutually exclusive incompatibility. God can't be untrue to himself. God can't be merciful, loving his enemies and overcoming evil with goodness while punishing eternally most of humanity for not having been lucky enough to be born into a Christian family or smart enough to see that the Gita is a pile of crap. (which you should read by the way). Also if God only loves those who love him, what better is he than the sinner?

I am convinced the Church has distorted the message of Jesus and reverted back into superstition when deciding in favor of a salvation through faith in particular concepts rather than through personal knowledge of them. The emphasis on what Jesus did instead of what Jesus said started a religion that needs to be cut off from reality in order to stand. I guess it isn’t the first time man turns a beautiful teaching into a sectarian belief. But it is sad to see a great figure such as Jesus turned into a sect founder.

Excerpts from the Pope Benedict XVI :
"Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. God is not pleased by blood and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats. The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. For the Emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not constrained by any of our principles, including rationality."

Is it not extremely unreasonable to claim that God can endlessly punish his sons for refusing to believe an organized religion concept that so contradicts their father's nature?

Unfortunately, very often superstition and irrational beliefs enter the sphere of organized religion. And there can be no respect for irrationality, because this is the root of all evil in the sense that if you take away God's common sense, you glorify ignorance and ignorance breeds arrogance and hatred.

So yes..."for some strange reason its like a crime against God to not exactly believe in the same faith.. ". It doesn't make any sense and you don't have to be Einstein to know this is a false belief. Fortunately, for most people falsity reveals itself well before the full truth is known.

Here are 2 traps where devotees can make serious mistakes and turn their religion into a dangerous dead-end street:

- Going beyond pure reason and logic and appealing to other senses to grasp the sacred is fine. But it can't be a justification to believe the unreasonable.
- Calling "faith" the trust in God for whom there can be no material proof is fine. But it can't be a justification to blindly believe concepts without understanding them.

I can accept any ideas on the World or God if they have coherence and come from a genuine point of view, even if I don’t agree with it. But I can’t accept blind beliefs because it is worthless and can only lead to fanaticism. And I know that this is where we disagree. For you, Man should renounce using his mental abilities in order to find God because he isn't smart enough. For me, Man should rather strive to sharpen his mind if he is to achieve that goal.

The problem with your theory is that it glorifies stupidity and prevents discernment. How can you then blame people of other faith for doing the exact same thing you’re doing? They apply the very same concept that guides you, and they get blamed for it. Oh they picked the wrong book! Dang! How would they know? They too had to surrender their minds and accept without questioning, just as they were told. “There’s no God but Allah and Muhammad is He’s prophet”, damn Muslims, how could they reject this tenet of Islam while accepting it without questioning at the same time? Enough….would you all one day stop taking God for a retard? There’s no salvation in idiocy and blindness. We have no choice but to improve our feeble minds.

Hoplight,

These are more facts than thoughts: "Indic religions accept that God manifests himself under different names, at different times, when today the world's two biggest Abrahamic religions still think their God is the only true one and it is their duty to convert everybody by proselytisation or by force. This sublime tolerance of Hinduism shows the wisdom and mature dignity of the Hindu tradition."

 

 

No!
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. Now, don't believe my words because a Buddha told you, but examine them well. Be a light onto yourselves." Buddha

Indians are humans too and some need more comfort in ritualism than others. While God is certainly formless and above all wordly descriptions, religion is a conceptual and iconographic vehicle to help humans on their spiritual path. Hence all the decorum and various practices within all religions and Hinduism possesses an immense figurative religious art. That being said, in Hinduism just like in Buddhism the rituals are for the vast majority understood for what they are, an affective symbolism that allows the mind to concentrate on his divine inclinations. The fact that some take it to extremes is not surprising, people are different and choose different ways to express their faith. The big difference is that in India, no one is telling anyone that his practices are wrong and that he'll go to Hell for it. In fact no Hindu would have criticized Christianity if the missionaries hadn't aggressively engaged in evangelization.

Linga: The popular belief among foreigners is that the Siva-Linga represents the phallus. This is one more blunder. In the post-Vedic period, the Linga became symbolical of the generative power or emblem of its natural principle. Sivananda said: "It is a symbol which points to an inference. When you see a big flood in a river, you infer that there had been heavy rains the previous day. When you see smoke, you infer that there is fire. This vast world of countless forms is a Linga of the omnipotent Lord"

The Caste system is a cultural deviation based indeed on grossly misinterpreted passages of ancient texts, such as the Puranas:
"Lord Brahma, created some humans from his mouth — they became reciters of the Veda and became the Brahmins. Then he created other humans from his arms, they became the Kshatriyas, bearers of arms, the warrior and ruling class. Brahma then created some from his abdomen, who became the Vaishyas or merchants. Finally, Brahma created humans from his feet. They served the other castes even as the feet serve the man; they came to become the Sudras (manual labourers and artisans). Thus, the whole universe is held to be one organic entity, the body of the almighty."
This is as if you took the Great floods or the Adam and Eve story literaly, only a fool would do that, right? Well there has been some fools in India too at the time, and unfortunately this tradition has persisted but it has declined now except for the remote rural areas. It must be noted that it always was a cultural trait and absolutely never ever approved of within a religious frame or by any respected figure of Hinduism.
.............

 

 

I couldn't agree more with all that. The interesting part is how you link "religion is here to make us think" therefore "I surrender to what I consider to be the will of God revealed in his word". How you accept the necessity to get out of your intellectual box just to confine yourself in a smaller box. How you explain that through thinking you realized that you should stop thinking for yourself and that the idea of becoming "more" justifies becoming "less".

Yes a man can be in the wrong, just like a book could be wrong or misinterpreted. The difference is that when a man thinks for himself he is right according to his views. It means that if he changes his mind about one of his premises he will modify his conclusion. I think it is Ramakrishna (not Krishna) who said “you don’t go from wrong to right, but from right to right”. What that means is that no matter what you believe, if it comes from personal experience then it is a direct genuine understanding that you can share with others as it is alive within you. Now, if I repeat something that I don’t understand, the concept has suddenly died, because it never took life in me. It is called blind belief. It was a concept that was always outside of me, no matter how hard I tried to convince myself that it made sense. Now that dosen't mean that we should reject as false everything we don't understand, but we shouldn't pretend that we understand it either. If that idea does't imply any immorality or unacceptable contradiction, then we can more or less leave it aside as something we might grasp later. However if the idea has morally wrong implications, we should reject it.

And it can be extremely problematic in that case when it involves an idea that not only noone understands but is also irrational and immoral as there is no better definition of fanaticism. The important thing is not the truth, but discovering the truth for oneself. Just like if you cheat on your math essay and get the right answer, what value does it have?

This is what happens with the top-down Abrahamic religions where an unintelligible belief system has become a substitute for discovering the truth. Islam and Christianity both have their own narrative and some distinctive features to which their believers give much importance, but I don't. No matter what the story says, even if it sounds cool to you, it remains a story that must be believed without questioning. It is an unnatural divine intervention that must be admitted as a prerequisite for salvation. For someone who doesn’t like short-cuts you’re waddling in the middle of the most gigantic short-cut ever designed by Man, becoming perfect and going to Heaven just by believing a story (yea I know you wrap it with gold paper, place a nice ribbon around it, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is just a belief).

And it is not the word of God either, just Paul and the Gospel of John - written much later than the three synoptic Gospels. You are fooling yourself into thinking you’re following God’s word, while you’re contradicting Jesus who is never cited in Mark, Matthew or Luke mentioning the necessity to believe anything. (don’t give me that only passage in Mark where it is and you know why). If Jesus actually said that you had to believe that he died for you in order for you to be saved, then Matthew, Mark and Luke would have at least mentioned something about that somewhere. If it was central to Jesus' teachings that you have to have salvation by faith, then why didn't they mention it at all in the first three Gospels? The logical reason is that they never heard of nor supported that idea, because it didn’t evolve until later when the early Christians decided to add that doctrine in, thus the Gospel of John. Evidently the concept of atonement is an invention of Paul and the Church.

Nevertheless the notion of "faith" should never be taken so narrowly as that distortion from the Church. I already mentioned above that faith in Jesus should mean believing in what he IS as far as the purity of his nature and the truthfulness of his ways, as an encouragement to follow his teachings by having faith in him. Faith is a tool, not an end in and of itself. Faith means a various degree of trust in God that incites someone to keep on searching for Him.

The atonement and salvation through faith is only a very clever doctrine developed by the Church to have as much a grip as possible over its followers and promote conversions. The easy reward of eternal bliss in Heaven if you join, the eternal suffering in Hell if you don’t or ever quit. But since it doesn’t make much sense if you dwell into it, you’re advised not to question it and surrender your sense of morality and reason. Who are you to question God’s ways? And beware, do not let doubt enter you mind, because this is how Satan will try to influence you into “backsliding”. So you even deny to yourself that you’re having doubts about this idiotic lie, being afraid that it would ruin your relationship with Jesus. Wake up! This is as close as Hell you can ever get.

It is ironic that you mention the analogy of going to school and the universal learning process that should never be short-circuited. Here’s a story:
...........................................

Once upon a time lived a King who ruled over a little kingdom. This King was widely known for his great wisdom and extreme benevolence and he was loved by all. He lived alone in his castle with his son, who was about to reach his 7th year on this day.

As the King was more and more solicited, involving himself in resolving the affairs of his people, he thought best to send his son to a famous school where he would get the best education and hopefully, one day, help him with the governance of the kingdom.

This school was located on a distant island and the boy was studying daily, from several of the best teachers of the time, but the boy longed for his dad as he wasn’t able to see him much anymore.

Then one day, as the boy was on his way to school he was approached by a tall man dressed in a black robe. The man told the boy:

“Your father sent me here as he is concerned for your welfare and wants to make sure you become very knowledgeable. As of today, I will be your one and only teacher and you will no longer have to go to school. You see you’re only capable of adding and substracting numbers and that will never enable you to demonstrate the transverse nature of light waves. You trying to learn from these incompetent teachers in this school is a waste of time, but I am here to bring you the good news. Your father will transfer into your mind everything he knows, without effort, so you won’t ever have to learn a thing, no more school ever. What do you say?”

The boy listened with attention but remained skeptical. The man went on:

“Now, you have to be a good boy until you reach the age of 18 and there are just a couple of easy things that are required of you. First it would be nice if you came to my house every Sunday for a few hours… Oh don’t worry we won’t study any maths or such, but we will sing and join hands, so we can have a relationship together, because this is very important. Your father needs to see that you believe in me, otherwise he will not transfer his knowledge to you. Likewise your father needs to make sure that you will never again listen to any other teacher, because if you did, he would feel like you’re rejecting him and not only you wouldn’t get the knowledge anymore but he would have to kill you too. Do you understand?

The boy frowned at the man, wishing he lived in 2006 so he could call 911, and went to school.
............................................................

Did the boy show faith or lack of faith in his father by rejecting that man?

Last edited: Friday, November 03, 2006 at 1:16:50 PM

 

 

 

Well put. Cynical, but still witty.

Stan where have you been hiding all along? :)

I am in awe.

Where are you coming from stan? Background, I mean.

Off topic... Good, evil, heaven, hell.
it seems we tend to go back to
religion to answer the question, "is
there life after death."

All the answers are there for us to
just look up in our local bible...

 

 

@snow

Sry,

I do try to go outside the box of the usual answer to your
question, but I may have to say very few dare to make that
leap.

Now that I can spare some time I will tell you what I think
when we get there.

As our soul separate from our body we will instantly be able
to travel in-between dimensions. We will for the first time see
the universe as a black pinhole or black dot. We will experiance
different dimensions of time that we were perviously oblivious to
on earth. We would be able to see the past, present, and future all
at once. Anything that you can imagine is reality for you, so
anything you want is yours... Before we can ask a question we
would already know the answer. Our new job if we chose, would
be to explore the other dimensions, help other beings to evolve.

These are just some random things that I think what will happen after
we die here on earth.

The possibilities are endless.

 

Last edited: Friday, November 03, 2006 at 3:52:13 PM

^ yeah the possiblities are endless, but yours seems pretty good.

@Stan

For clarity sake, I quote the blazes out of your last two posts and add my comments.

 

 

Good, this helps, I agree

 

 

I think your making a mistake to think that God is not able to be both merciful and just. Mere Human beings are capable of it. Take a policeman for example: In one instance he helps the lost child and is merciful, but in another instance he shoots a heinous criminal and takes his life and is just. Has the policeman been untrue to himself? No. He has done the right thing in both instances. To say that God cannot be both merciful and just at one and the same time is to construct a false dichotomy. Have read the Gita at least three times.

 

 

Nah. To revert back to superstition would be more pagan like...”feed the gods...must feed the gods....must reconcile self to gods.” Christians believe God reconciled himself to us through his Son. God did the reconcilling...not us.

Actually, I think it is total reality. Jesus entered our realm.

 

 

Agreed. Thanks for the clarification.

 

 

Well, sort of. God finds us. Since you like the words of Jesus, let me quote Jesus “I am the good shepherd” He portrays himself as a shepherd gathering lost sheep. He finds us. I have not renounced my mental abilities. Actually I have a very high regard for intellectual pursuits. I have high regard for you....I have a high regard for good coherent logic. I love science. Love knowledge of all forms. Please don’t paint me in the colors of a stupid gullible hillbilly “who never thunk much about lernin” Don’t objectify me. As I said, I have asked very very hard questions about God.

 

 

This is very clever and funny. Good job on this! I don’t blame people for having other faiths. You always put the worst possible spin on Christian attitudes. You must have met some really horrible examples of Christian in your day! But the Bible makes it clear that everybody has a God given conscience and that conscience, no matter what religion they are in, should help them to admit that something is wrong with their whole program. Some posts ago, I mentioned that all religions with the exception of Christianity has man trying to save himself. When they do not truly fulfill the requirements of whatever religion that they adhere too, their conscience accuses them and are a law unto themselves.

I would contend that you take God for a retard in that you deem him incapable of being both Just and merciful at the same time!

 

 

Wow! This is odd. You insist that you do not submit or surrender to some body of knowledge as authoritative. You give me an emphatic and authoritative “No!” that get’s its strength and indeed, also, its exclamation point from the writings of an authoritative figure! You just told me that you do not submit to any body of knowledge or authority! Then you use one! Wake up man! Snap out of it! YOU ARE submitting to an authoritative teaching! You are giving me dogma, doctrine,source material that has been passed down from generation to generation! Your doctrine is precisely this: “We’re the guys who don’t have doctrine.” Suddenly I hear the sound of one hand clapping! I understand. It’s like Jerry Seinfeld’s “show about nothing”...which we all know was really about something. It’s starting to click for me now. This has really opened my eyes!

 

 

Okay, I understand. This makes sense.

 

 

Thanks. So this is not a fertility cult like the phallic herms of the pre-Zeus Greeks. Okay. That’s what I was wondering. You answered that.

 

 

Okay, That explains it. It’s a cultural thing gone bad. Kind of thought that. So are the people who heap scorn and abuse on the untouchables Hindus? Are there people who call themselves Hindus and do this evil? Just as the evils of Western Society are now blamed on the Christian Church, can this evil then be blamed on Hinduism?

 

 

You see, the way I understand it is this: There are sinful attitudes and preconceived notions that are firmly lodged in my brain. These must be overcome...I must surrender them to become more of what I was meant to be.

 

 

I agree with much of this. We should not pretend to understand something that we don’t. I also agree that the mindless repeating of something without understanding is wrong. “In vain do they worship me” say my God in this regard.

 

 

Yeah. It is a short cut. A unique short cut. Here’s some more word’s of Jesus, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to father but by me.” And some more: “I am the door”. I’m happy God opened the door. (yeah it's john but I don't make the same distinctions you do on this) I know this specificity of this grates on you on a number of levels. It is contrary to the Indic approach on a fundimental level. This is really the big diffence between what I believe and what you believe.

 

 

Not True. Careful with broad generalizations. You want a quotation from Mark about belief? Mark 16:15-16 Jesus said “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And all these signs will accompany those who believe in my name...”

Now Matthew Matthew 18: 6 “Whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone cause on of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck. And be drowned in the depths of the sea”

Now Luke. Here, I cite the meaning of Jesus’ parable of the Sower which also appears in Matthew and Mark. In context, he has told the parable to the crowd. Its a story of seed being scattered on different types of soil. In some soils it grows; in others it doesn’t. Privately, when his disciples asked him what it means he says “This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. Those along the path are the ones who hear and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away. The seed that fell among thorns stands for those hw hear, but as they go on their way the are choked by live’s worries, riches , and pleasures, and they do not mature. But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by perseverance produce a good crop. (Luke 8: 11-15)

In each of these cases, Jesus makes it clear that believing in him, or in this last citation in the word that talks about him as essential.

 

 

Matthew Mark and Luke tend tell what he did. John and Paul tell us what it all meant. But neither do this exclusively. So what? These Gospels you mention are not devoid of telling what it meant Consider this passage near the end of Luke? Jesus said “This is what is written: ‘The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:46-47)

Nah, it wasn’t the Gospel of John and the Early Christians, It was David in the Psalms and Isaiah in the Hebrew Scriptures that came up with this. The preaching of the early Christians was from the only scripture they had...which was the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus himself said that all of the scriptures (hebrew scriptures) talked about him. Check out this citation from Isaiah 53:

“He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces. He was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by god, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:3-6)

That’s the Christian message! And it’s from the Old Testament, 700 years before Christ. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. This is a description of him. In the opening lines of John’s gospel John writes “In the beginning was th word, and the word was with God and the word WAS God.....and then.....The word became flesh and dwelled among us. Christians believe that Jesus is the word of God incarnate. We see him as the cumination of all the promises God ever made.

 

 

Ah yes, always a conspiracy theory. Grassy knoll or Wizard of Oz.? I think of the Wizard of Oz! “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” “You dare question the mighty Oz!” I have none of this in my experience. Indeed, I’ve seen churches that try these kinds of emotional and spiritual manipulation...and I despise them. I don’t think its conspiricy, they are just misguided. What Bible Classes I attend are completely open to any questions. Anyone is free to ask anything without fear of retribution or anything. As you have learned, from my previous posts I do not go nuts focusing on faith all the time. I do not live in terror. I do not like anyone to live in terror and fear. On the contrary, when I see someone who is in that way I try to lighten their load. There are some valid and decent Christians out there!

Cute ending story. The Lad was right.

I think you and I have probably had enough of our exchanges. Or at least, I’ve had enough. I have certainly enjoyed our back and forths. It has been a long time since I’ve had opportunity for civil debate. Such things make me feel alive. They make me rethink and reevaluate. I come away from this having learned something. There’s a saying....”as iron shapens iron, two men sharpen each other.” You’ve sharpened me, I hope at least in some small way I have sharpened you.

Your a good man Stan. Thanks for staying with me through this.

Hoplite.

Hoplite,

- Your analogy with the cop doesn’t hold water. The cop kills the man because he is being threaten by the heinous criminal, he is defending his life. Am I a threat to God? To God I probably look more like an ignorant child armed with a water-gun. What would we do if a cop killed a child that was carrying a water-gun just because he didn't pay enough respect to the badge? Yet, the cop says later, I loved him so much, so much…
You need to come up with something else to justify God being just for sending us all to Hell for eternity.
You can't work you way out of the fact that if God only loves those who love him, He is no better than the sinner?

- superstition can involve an infinite number of things.
.................................

 

 

I keep on telling you that your religion is no different than Islam. A Muslim doesn’t have to save himself, he just has to “believe”. Free heaven for them too. Maybe you want the trophy as to the religion that requires the least out of his followers. Ok have it! Your religion is the #1 top-down grand narrative.
..............................

 

 

Yes, but this only works with above average folks, and there are many who saw something wrong with Christianity and left. Most people however remain in the religion they were brought up with. Hence the injustice of the belief test supposedly engineered by God.
..........................

 

 

I would delete that if I were you. Not too hot. All the more unforgivable as I did explain the reason behind it, and you even re-quoted me.
..........................

 

 

Is it not possible to work against our preconceived notions without filling our minds with different ones?
...................................

 

 

I sincerely wish you all the best in applying it.
.......................................

“I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to father but by me.”
Didn’t I already gave you an interpretation of this that made sense several posts above?

Mark 16:16. Is that portion of the last chapter of Mark found in the Syriac version of the Bible? Is it not generally admitted to be a forgery, a later addition, an interpolation, since the earliest manuscripts don’t contain that verse?

So out of the entire three synoptic gospels you’re left with two very inexplicit and ambiguous verses to justify the whole Christian doctrine, only because the words "faith" and "believe" are in it. Is this serious? Now compare that with the number of times Jesus talks about reaching Heaven by doing good deeds and being good at heart without ever saying that you should above all believe in him. Why? Why insisting so much about improving our nature when all that we need is to believe in him in a historical way? Any religion could claim exclusivity if they searched for the least mention of the word “faith” or “belief” in their books and discarding all else. Faith can be essential, since like I said it encourages the follower to persevere in his search for God. And yes some people feel moved and sense "truth"when they hear high spiritual thoughts, other don't. This is what is meant in Luke 8:11

Here’s an other way to say it from Lao Tzu:
"When the great man learns the Way, he follows it with diligence;
When the common man learns the Way, he follows it on occasion;
When the mean man learns the Way, he laughs out loud;"
http://www.religiousworlds.com/taoism/ttcmerel.html

As to the the word "faith" it's all over. How about this from the Gita:
"For those who set their hearts on me
And worship me with unfailing devotion and faith,
The way of love leads sure and swift to me."....
..."But dearest to me are those who seek me
In faith and love as life's eternal goal.
They go beyond death to immortality."
http://www.easwaran.org//Contentfiles/Passages/RiversPassage.cfm?ID=25

It is obvious that the Church decided that a Gospel based on simple good works and kindness was not enough. They needed more power over people. And they needed a way for people to feel totally powerless in their own works so that they could be completely dependent on the church and its salvation sacraments. And they needed the belief from their followers that they alone were the only way and religion. So they added the salvation by atonement doctrine to Christianity, in order to justify the church’s sacraments that were required for the salvation of souls.

I'm sure you're a good man too, never doubted. The difference between us is that I wouldn't let God send you to Hell for eternity for picking or being raised within the wrong religion. I'll stand up to him and ask him why he would do that, and he better provide me with a better answer than the Church, otherwise I'll go to Hell with you and we'll plot something against this Devil in disguise.

Last edited: Saturday, November 04, 2006 at 5:17:53 PM

Tank, if you had taken the time to read esp hoplite and stan's extraordinary contributions, you wouldn't appear so ridiculous right now. I find the conversation fascinating. They are having a serious conversation regardless of your willingness to read it...or perhaps inability to understand it.

Personally, I think stan should get these reflections together and spread the word...to become a disevangelical. Lacking the background, I have thought these things that stan has written, and have scribbled on them from time to time, but stan puts them together much more coherently than I ever could...like someone who has studied...and studied with discipline, or once was in the system himself. My folks outgrew religion in their mid twenties, so I never had the pleasure of indoctrination in this regard. We had no system as such for encoding our morality....and thus I had no system to rebell against or embrace. Faith has never been required of me, nor was it denigrated by my parents. It simply wasn't discussed, ever. Let me tell you this: without being predisposed to faith, the concept is experienced by me as completely unnatural.

But that wasn't what I meant to say:

Religions to me - as an outsider- appear to be arbitrary systems developed out of an ancient expression of our continued need to explain mysteries. I should say, explain away mysteries because the explanations typically aren't explanations that can be taken seriously. They are often factually wrong when viewed centuries later with the benefits of a scientifically informed perspective, or completely incompatible with a mind influenced by centuries of logic, reason and science.

But it is also obvious that there are many questions that reason, logic, or science can't explain presently, or aren't equipt to explain ever. For these questions, many people would rather have humanly crafted mystifications than endure the presence - the impudence - of cold, naked questions. Rather than bear the burden of unfathomable, they accept the wisdom of their anscestors...whoes primitive minds when faced with the same questions, applied their primitive thinking power. Especially with regard to their habit of seeing in everything outside what they saw in themselves. They invented a system heavily informed by this propensity to anthropomorphize and personify effects and to speculate from these effects. When times were tough, they imagined it was because they were being punished, not that there was a climatic change bringing about a drought...no, their knowledge of physical science was not developed enough to conceive this yet: so it was that they conceived that they were being punished for something...which neccesitated an agent who punishes or rewards. They took the effect for the sign of a cause...but they couldn't possibly conceive of a natural cause; but an angry being, they could conceive...as they themselves were all fully capable of being angry. They gave this human quality to some unknown, supernatural causer...(this was all understood by giambatista vico who generated this critique in the 17th century...

 

 

Ironically, he refused to apply this critique to his own religious tradition. But one fully indoctrinated into a system is never able to question the premises of the system).

I think this is what stan was talking about when he discussed the difference between the reasonable and the unreasonable: there are limits to our understanding (but as we've seen with the advance of the human knowledge base, these limits aren't impermeable). When I encounter a concept that I have no way to completely conceive (the origin of life on earth, say, or the origin of the universe) it is reasonable that I remain in a state of wonder...it is reasonable that I apply my knowledge base the question in order to attempt to understand it, but is also reasonable to assume that I probably won't ever find an explanation given my lack of knowledge or the present or permanent limitations of science or even, of the human mind. That is, I may have to settle for a question mark given my lack of knowledge and also my reasonalble requirements: my demand for a proof consistent with experience.

It is not reasonable, though, to explain away the mystery by recasting it in another mystery: to explain by way of the inexplicable - by which I mean that the inexplicable explanation usually employed to rent the question asunder is a supernatural explanation...whoes interworkings, physics, principles, laws, and origin aren't at all explained, nor are they explainable. It is the substitution of one mystery for another. Except the damning feature of this action is that one loses the opportunity to struggle for the truth...one simply stops short. Calls it a day. Perhaps even achieves a kind of peace....and no growth has occured.

Luckily, not all of our forebears were in this habit. When encountering past mysteries or serious questions, (i.e., "what the hell is causing this plague?") they sought out solutions other than the supernatural and have expanded the human knowledge base and in many cases discovered or created technologies that have greatly improved our lives. This would not have occured if these men were content to settle for mollifying supernatural explanations of effects. They sought another cause...a cause not previously properly conceived. A cause thought inconceivable by minds in a blissful state of comfort...

Lastly, I'll say this about religious systems...the fit-ness of a system is directly porportional to its degree of internal consistency. Systems that lack internal consistency don't operate effeciently or effectively...systematically. They are rife with exceptions, and require complicated algorithms to run at all. They operate by fits and starts...they go around in circles...and they need a lot of revisions...they require constant refitting, piece-meal rejiggering, new translations of the old manuals...

Christianity has always appeared this way to me. Because, from what I have gleened of much of the scripture, the Jesus don't work well in the original system...wasn't designed for it...and has taken a great deal of tinkering ( I guess by Paul mostly...if Stan is to believed...but Nietzsche also observed this in "The AntiChrist" written over 100 years ago) to fit in at all. It has taken continued tinkering by numerous others since. It is a conflicted system. Its internal contradictions create a number of questions natural to the modern mind. For this reason...in order for the religion to survive, it requires the suspension of the habits of the mind...it requires faith. (isn't this what kierkegaard was talking about?...the leap of faith?).

This "system," this amalgamation of systems, is so rife with internal inconsistencies that it appears to me an absurd, piece-meal system. Because I am and always have been outside this system, this observation can occur to me. For those of you enscounced in this system, you are likely so innured to the contratictions and the explanations of contradictions by way of the prohibition against thinking...that is, against a kind of thinking that does not presuppose answers before the thinking has begun in earnest:

That you no longer can think - or perhaps you never could - about your own religion in an honest fashion. Just like good ol giambattista vico...

Or, that you prescribe to the realm of the "real world" the propensity of thinking without religious constraints, and preserve your religious prejudice by turning off your inquisitiveness when you need to be "spiritual." A sort of mental dualism...of imcompatible systems, separated by a void you create in your mind.

If the path to God, or The Truth is through faith, through the suspension of judgment (which is informed by experience, reason, logic, and science), then given the number of Gods and Truths out there, whether you find the True One or not is entirely arbitrary and unreviewable. Whoever gets to you first is your master. Let's hope you got the right one. But how would you know? You've surrendered your ability to differentiate when you traded your judgment for faith.

I anticipate a systematic response...talk to me about human fraility, fallibility and conclude with the need to surrender to a higher power...

 

Last edited: Saturday, November 04, 2006 at 9:45:12 PM

Ty snow, I try...

Courage is a fading thing.

Stink, thanks for sharing your thoughts and a well written piece. As to my upbringing, it has been very similar to yours and my parents couldn't care less about religion. I was free to think for myself and I never gave religion much thought. When I began studying martial arts in my teens, I came in contact with a teacher who had a deep impact on me. Mr Tot was a short Vietnamese man with a bright personality and a reasoning capacity that far exceeded anyone I had ever met before. He talked to us for hours on end and no matter where the conversation started it always ended up with a universality of thought that kept us all silent and fascinated. There were never any dogma involved, but just a power of reasoning that transcended the usual confinement of issues coupled with a deep sense of goodness that increased the intelligence of it all. You might know that in martial arts most teachers are always telling their students that their method is the best one, but Mr Tot would always tell us that there are no good or bad methods, just good and bad teachers.

The practice of an art in the East becomes a way of life for those who can, not only apply the knowledge acquired in their very specific domain to their daily life, but also practice their art in a multi-faceted way. The field of practice allows for a more focused application of the effort, resulting in a far reaching awareness. I guess that seed fell on good soil, I learned fast. I was passionate and improved extremely quickly in all aspects of the art and became the Master’s assistant. But then, I started to get more involved in girls chasing and felt that I needed a break. For several reasons I never really went back.

One thing I learned and that has become a part of me, is not to let myself distracted by the innumerable apparent differences that seem to separate things in life, but always go to the root of the issue, to go deeper, and the deeper you go the clearer and more simple it becomes. In a way it is what Hinduism teaches taking this idea to its final level. It tells us to see the unity behind the diversity, to see the true nature of all things as part of the same creation process, an infinite expression of the same Divine entity, to snap out of our illusionary thinking that we are separate from the rest of the Universe. The reason that I should love my neighbor is because he is me and he has the same Divine soul within him.

I never studied religion extensively and was never fully part of any established organization but I have always been sensitive to the expressions of “truth”. I read several books on various subjects, including Zen and Taoism when I was younger and then on Buddhism. I don’t remember how I came to read the Bible, but I remember that I read it right after the Gita, and I enjoyed reading the Gospels. I must confess that before I started engaging into this debate I hadn’t read any scripture for 15 years, except sporadically. Don’t know why. Don’t think it’s a bad thing either as you can touch base with yourself, let some ideas take root in you if you were ready for it, and shamelessly disregard what's above your level. I now feel like reading again and since I didn’t have any books on my shelves anymore I ordered some just recently.

Last edited: Saturday, November 04, 2006 at 6:46:44 PM

Well thanks stan. I've enjoyed your posts lately. Must say it is quite refreshing also to have someone on the other side of the political coin with both some substance and integrity too. I find that rare around these parts. Too frequently we've gotten vaccuous cheerleaders for the right. Frankly I think I've burnt myself out in discussing politics with some of these guys. The constantly shifting premises, the deliberate "misinterpretation" of statements, the straw-men...like these guys take all their cues from the clowns at Fox...the new rhetorical school is the school of the blustering, relativist mc carthyite. Half derrida, half car salesmen.
----

 

 

I know what you mean...i'm working on that too. Funny, but the way I've been exposed to this is through the writings of another Indian...Jiddu Krishnamurti, another proponent of the non-system who said "truth is a pathless land..." I came to him by way of the influence of bruce lee's Jkd..."using no way as way..." I was also a MA geek. The other big influence is the writing of nieztsche, a master of using and discarding systems..."using systems up..." he once said, rather than be constrained by them.

I'm off the subject.
----
life after death? Sorry, dunno. It seems like a logical impossibility...death is the absence of life.
I guess I'm thinking too, that when you ask a question like that, can you bear it if the answer is "no"? If you can't, you ought not to ask. I also think that if your mind races right to "yes," that you've already got a dog in the hunt...

Last edited: Saturday, November 04, 2006 at 10:14:58 PM

Given the choice, I'll usually pick chocolate ice cream over vanilla. I think chocolate just tastes better.

(wanted to contribute to this discussion)