Figuring Out Religion

[Gosso]

Doodle,

In some ways Buddhism and Christianity aren't all that far apart.  For me the difference is that Buddhism becomes too abstract and I begin to lose interest in it (or maybe I'm just too dumb ), while Christianity is still plenty weird but also stays grounded.

Here is another passage you might enjoy from a letter that Lewis wrote (this letter is from the book A Severe Mercy, which I have not read):

[quote=CS Lewis]I don't agree with your picture of the history of religion. Christ, Buddha, Mohammed and others elaborating on an original simplicity. I believe Buddhism to be a simplification of Hinduism and Islam to be a simplification of Xianity. Clear, lucid, transparent, simple religion (Tao plus a shadowy, ethical god in the background) is a late development, usually arising among highly educated people in great cities. What you really start with is ritual, myth, and mystery, the death & return of Balder or Osiris, the dances, the initiations, the sacrifices, the divine kings. Over against that are the Philosophers, Aristotle or Confucius, hardly religion at all. The only two systems in which the mysteries and the philosophies come together are Hinduism and Xianity: there you get both the Metaphysics and Cult (continuous with primeval cults). That is why my first step was to be sure that one or the other of these had the answer. For the reality can't be one that appeals either only to savages or only to high brows. Real things aren't like that (e.g. matter is the first most obvious thing you meet like, chocolates, apples, and also the object of quantum physics). There is no question of just a crowd of disconnected religions. The choice is between (a.) The materialist world picture: wh. I can't believe. (b.) The real archaic primitive religions; wh. are not moral enough. (c.) The (claimed) fulfillment of these in Hinduism. (d.) The claimed fulfillment of these in Xianity. But the weakness of Hinduism is that it doesn't really merge the two strands. Unredeemable savage religion goes on in the village; the Hermit philosophizes in the forest: and neither really interfaces with the other. It is only Xianity which compels a high brow like me to partake of a ritual blood feast, and also compels a central African convert to attempt an enlightened code of ethics.

Have you ever tried Chesterton's The Everlasting Man? The best popular apologetic I know.

Meanwhile, the attempt to practice Tao is certainly the right line. Have you read the Analects of Confucius? He ends up by saying, `This is the Tao. I do not know if anyone has ever kept it.' That's significant: one can really go direct from there to the Epistle of the Romans.

I don't know if any of this is the least use. Be sure to write again, or call, if you think I can be of any help.

Source:  https://www.discovery.org/cslewis/artic ... etters.php
[/quote]

For more letters click the source link, I highly recommend them.

[Mountaineer]

Interesting article, but I would disagree with the following passage:

"Everything in leftism [both religious and political liberalism] follows from the belief that people are basically good," Prager said. "And everything in conservatism follows from the belief that people are not basically good. Judaism and Christianity were united in teaching that people were not basically good. With the death of traditional Judaism and traditional Christianity, you have the unbelievably dangerous belief that people are basically good, and everything flows from there to big government to believing that your opinion is what makes things moral.

Source: http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?id=41942

The reason I disagree is because, if liberals consider people to be basically good, then why do most liberals think government is necessary to keep them in check? Shouldn't "basically good" people be able to keep themselves in check?

See, that's one of the weird things about the liberal, atheist/agnostic viewpoint: If people are basically bad so that they need an external entity--government--to control them, then how is moral relativism a tenable position? Doesn't the legitimacy of said government rest on some kind of claim to moral superiority? By what standard is the government's morality judged?

Good questions.  Could you please clarify; it seems to me you are making the assumption that liberals are rational and have the best interests of the people at heart (when it comes to government). 

My observation is liberals/atheists/agnostics have a superiority view of themselves regardless of what they publically profess, and thus want "smart liberals" to be in ever increasingly big government to take care of the rest of us "not so smart less capable" people.  Religious conservatives realize they are sinners in need of an external source of right and wrong (God) for the definition of morals and do not depend upon themselves (an internal source of morals).  In other words, conservatives prefer a small government because they realize the potential for corruption that exists with big government, especially if filled by liberals who establish their own morals. 

Maybe I really have misunderstood what you are saying, so, please do clarify.  Thanks.

... Mountaineer

[doodle]

Religious conservatives realize they are sinners in need of an external source of right and wrong (God) for the definition of morals and do not depend upon themselves (an internal source of morals).

Im still waiting for this external source of right and wrong to descend from the heavens. I think it is pretty common knowledge how the Bible came into existence....it certainly didn't descend in its present form from hand of God.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[Rick S]

This thread reminds me of the book “life of Pi”?.

The book opens as Pi talks with a reporter about an adventure he had long ago as a boy.  He starts the interview with the statement of “There is a God and I can prove it”?.

Late in the book Pi recounts the fantastical story of a being thrown out to sea in a lifeboat surrounded by a tiger, baboon, hyena, and a zebra.  These characters go through some unimaginable adventures together.  Some die, but the boy and the tiger make it back to civilization. 

When the authorities question Pi about the adventure he tells them the fantastical story.  Thinking that the he is lying, the authorities demand the truth.  To satisfy the authorities Pi changes the story so that the baboon is his mom, and the tiger is really the mean sailor, etc.  Now, this is a story the authorities can believe in.

The book closes as Pi says “see, I told you that I can prove there is a god”?.  Confused, the reporter asks “How does that prove anything?”?  Pi says “I have told you two stories.  One is a fantastical adventure and the other is something you can believe in.  Which story do you prefer?”?

[Mountaineer]

Religious conservatives realize they are sinners in need of an external source of right and wrong (God) for the definition of morals and do not depend upon themselves (an internal source of morals).

Im still waiting for this external source of right and wrong to descend from the heavens. I think it is pretty common knowledge how the Bible came into existence....it certainly didn't descend in its present form from hand of God.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Two questions:

1. Why do you choose to believe Wikipedia written a couple of thousand years after the fact rather than the eye-witness accounts of "Jesus becoming man, living, being crucified, and rising again and hearing the promise He will come again in the manner in which he left"? 

2. Why do you not think God could have influenced what happened at the first council of Nicaea?

My point:  Faith is knowing things unseen are true.  You did not see the Council of Nicaea, I did not see the resurection - we both are displaying faith; me in God, you in man.  I choose to go with the eye-witness version as being true. 

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

Religious conservatives realize they are sinners in need of an external source of right and wrong (God) for the definition of morals and do not depend upon themselves (an internal source of morals).

Im still waiting for this external source of right and wrong to descend from the heavens. I think it is pretty common knowledge how the Bible came into existence....it certainly didn't descend in its present form from hand of God.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Doodle, how do you know God didn't direct them? Just because something has no proof doesn't mean you shouldn't believe in it.

They realize they've been mentally abused into thinking their creator made them a horible creature worthy only of a lake of fire and gave them natural instincts they are supposed to go against (self-interest). They are also responsible for the actions of people who came before them. Listen, it has nothing to do with some men trying to control the minds of other men and give them position and wealth. It can't be that because God wouldn't allow that. Well.....he will in every other religion and in government and other organizations and in abusive homes and etc. etc. but not in this one.

[Gosso]

Religious conservatives realize they are sinners in need of an external source of right and wrong (God) for the definition of morals and do not depend upon themselves (an internal source of morals).

Im still waiting for this external source of right and wrong to descend from the heavens. I think it is pretty common knowledge how the Bible came into existence....it certainly didn't descend in its present form from hand of God.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Common knowledge, eh?

From the Wikipedia article:

Misconceptions

Biblical canon:

A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all.[69] The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[70]

In 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople, but little else is known (in fact, it is not even certain whether his request was for fifty copies of the entire Old and New Testaments, only the New Testament, or merely the Gospels), and it is doubtful that this request provided motivation for canon lists as is sometimes speculated. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith[71][72] he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Coun ... ical_canon

The primary purpose of the Council was to affirm what the vast majority of the early Christians already believed about the divinity of Jesus:

The council settled, to some degree, the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ, along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from God (The Father), had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome.[10] The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Coun ... a#Overview

[Mountaineer]

Questioning Christianity - Session 1
http://new.livestream.com/accounts/3231 ... ts/2682018

This is the first in a 7-part series.  It's not short, but I believe it's worth viewing.  I'll post the next 6 links as they are available.  I'm realistic enough to know that this is likely a monologue, but I really feel this series will be worth our time. 

Here's some info on the speaker, Tim Keller:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Keller_(pastor)

I am not 100% aligned with Keller's views, but I found his writings very helpful when I was finishing my Pascal readings and looking for the voice of someone in the present era.

I just finished watching Session 2 on live broadcast.  Outstanding presentation and Q&A session.  I expect the discussion would give many "fence sitters" or non-believers much to think about. 

http://new.livestream.com/redeemer-nyc/ ... dium=email

... Mountaineer

[doodle]

In this discussion I think it is important to realize that most westerners visualize the idea of God as similar to an omnipotent ruler. In the east this supreme master concept of God doesnt really exist in the same way. Ironically, I would argue that Jesus' concepts of God are actually very similar to that which is expressed in Indian Vedanta. When Jesus was talking about the idea of being one with the father, he wasn't speaking about himself exclusively as the son of God as the catholic church interpreted it, but rather that this unity consciousness which he experienced was available to all. Of course, it is hard to subjugate and control people who are told that they are really all gods and so the church decided this son of god stuff had to stop with Jesus.

I think sometimes people state things they wish Jesus had said, rather than things he actually said.  If you read what Jesus actually said, it's clear that he did not say that there was a "unity conciousness" available to anyone.  In fact he said "I am the way, the truth and the life, nobody comes to the Father but by me."  Gnostics in the second century tried to modify things so that they could view themselves as more God-like.  But of course that was nothing new.  The original sin, and all sin that followed, had its roots in our desire to think of ourselves as God.  We want to be in control, we want to follow our own rules, we don't want to be under any external authority. 

When you make the two one, and when you make the inner as the outer and the outer as the inner and the above as the below then you shall enter the Kingdom."

This kind of sounds like unity consciousness to me...and it sounds like he is saying it is available to all...

"

[doodle]

Also, the gospel of Thomas which includes mostly sayings of Jesus was omitted from the bible...

With sayings like this it is pretty evident why the catholic church wanted to keep this out of the cannon...


3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.


When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

[doodle]

The primary purpose of the Council was to affirm what the vast majority of the early Christians already believed about the divinity of Jesus:

The council settled, to some degree, the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ, along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from God (The Father), had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome.[10] The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Coun ... a#Overview

Gosso, well put.  I used to think that the Council of Nicaea was a sort of Star Chamber that capriciously decided which writings they favored, and discarded the rest.  But history shows that the Christian community had already accepted the central doctrines of the Christian faith, and the council merely made the obvious choices official. 

There was quite a bit of debate in the early years of Christianity about the divinity of Jesus. Eventually the opposition was squashed and the powers that be created a religion that gave the church control over the only means to eternal salvation....what a freaking racket.

Christianity and the bible were born out of a alliance between power hungry bishops and the roman empire who had killed jesus a few centuries prior due to the annoyance and dangers that he posed to the powers that be.

[doodle]

Short lecture on Jesus...always interesting. http://youtu.be/N1qui6pC54A

[Mountaineer]

Christianity and the bible were born out of a alliance between power hungry bishops and the roman empire who had killed jesus a few centuries prior due to the annoyance and dangers that he posed to the powers that be.

I would offer the Scriptures were written over a period of a thousand plus years and verbally existed longer than that and the Jews were the ones who acutally physically asked to have Jesus killed because they could not believe his word that he was God in spite of the miracles and teachings they saw and heard; they thought he blasphemed.  The Jews were the "brain" and the Romans were merely the "tool" that killed Jesus because the Jews at that point in time were not in charge of the civil government.  In reality, I would say that we (you, me and the people who have lived and will live until the last day) are the ones who really killed Jesus - that is what taking on the sins of the world and choosing to die means from Jesus' perspective.  I would further offer that those who wish to understand Christianity and the Bible do some study from reliable and credible sources; Wikipedia is not reliable on religion, whether Christianity or one of the other major world religions, in my opinion (and that of most theologians) as the Wiki tends toward the secular in a big way.  As a corollary, if I want to understand how my car transmission works, I do not go to my Pastor to teach me.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

Doodle, how do you know God didn't direct them? Just because something has no proof doesn't mean you shouldn't believe in it.

They realize they've been mentally abused into thinking their creator made them a horible creature worthy only of a lake of fire and gave them natural instincts they are supposed to go against (self-interest). They are also responsible for the actions of people who came before them. Listen, it has nothing to do with some men trying to control the minds of other men and give them position and wealth. It can't be that because God wouldn't allow that. Well.....he will in every other religion and in government and other organizations and in abusive homes and etc. etc. but not in this one.

Kshartle, I'd really like to hear more about your experience with religion.  I guess I'm asking for your agnostic/atheistic "testimony."  I know that sounds strange, but here's why I'm asking:  You obviously have very strong opinions regarding morality, violence, authority, etc.  I'd like to know a little more about your path to your present views.  I wonder this about a lot of people, but you've been quite verbose in your defense of your views, so I think it makes sense for you to share a bit of your personal journey to these beliefs. 

I mean this with all due respect.  And of course, it's a shameless plea to extend the length of this thread from a mere 20+ pages to something closer to infinity. 

Desert I'm sorry if my post was rude. I was most definately a believer, a true beleiver. i think I've covered the background fairly well so far. I didn't mean to sound nasty. It just looks so clear now to me what it all is and it's very very different than how it looked when I was in it.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle, I'd really like to hear more about your experience with religion.  I guess I'm asking for your agnostic/atheistic "testimony."  I know that sounds strange, but here's why I'm asking:  You obviously have very strong opinions regarding morality, violence, authority, etc.  I'd like to know a little more about your path to your present views.  I wonder this about a lot of people, but you've been quite verbose in your defense of your views, so I think it makes sense for you to share a bit of your personal journey to these beliefs. 

I mean this with all due respect.  And of course, it's a shameless plea to extend the length of this thread from a mere 20+ pages to something closer to infinity. 

Desert I'm sorry if my post was rude. I was most definately a believer, a true beleiver. i think I've covered the background fairly well so far. I didn't mean to sound nasty. It just looks so clear now to me what it all is and it's very very different than how it looked when I was in it.

Kshartle, I understand your post.  Growing up in a dysfunctional environment permanently shapes our lives.  And when many or most of those in that dysfunctional environment are Christians (or at least call themselves Christians), it is something we want to get as far away from as possible.  Unfortunately, everything, including Christianity, can be misused and abused. 

And I do believe that you were a true believer.  I made that transition myself, from true believer to non-believer.  I managed to stay a non-believer for more than 20 years.  And during those 20 years, I wrote things far more rude than your post above.    So no offense taken!  I'm pretty thick-skinned on this topic.

I think towards the bottom of the 2nd page I started wrting my thoughts on the topic. If you are interested and you read through please feel free to ask anything at all.

I didn't srop being a Christian because of any hypocrisy from Christians. It was from what I see as obvious inconsitencies in the entire concept and the immorality of it. God can't be inconsistent and immoral and still be God. He can't be a violator of rights and still be loving and good. If he's not good then he's not right which means he's wrong and this is all a big logic fail.

There might be a creator or group of creators. I don't know. It's seems impossible that we're alone. I look around and what I see looks like it was designed. But I don't think what is described in the Bible or other religious documents jives with reality.

[Gosso]

Short lecture on Jesus...always interesting. http://youtu.be/N1qui6pC54A

Alan Watts is presenting the standard gnostic teaching.  This is nothing new.  I was in this position for a while as well.  But the major thing that separates christianity from gnosticism is the resurrection of Jesus.  I know many are likely rolling their eyes, but this is the key difference. 

St. Paul makes it crystal clear in I Corinthians 15 that the main reason to believe that Jesus was God is because of the resurrection.  Without this then Jesus is just another failed messiah or simply a mystic.  This is one of the reasons why the Gospel of Thomas was not included, because it failed to mention the crucifixion and resurrection.

Having said that, it does require faith to believe in the resurrection.  We can study the history and collect as much evidence as possible, but eventually we must decide if we are to accept this extraordinary claim/theory.  It is easy to write it off with conspiracy theories.  But the more I looked into it the more it seemed plausible.  There isn't 100% verifiable proof, but there is enough evidence to believe that it could have happened.

I will point people towards the work of NT Wright (a leading New Testament scholar), which really helped me:
- Fr. Barron provides a great summary of NT Wight's work (8:35): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEs3es9WyIg
- Here is NT Wright giving a lecture on his work (78 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jyrG1vAczw

[Mountaineer]

Interesting insights on human spirituality by N T Wright:

In chapter 2 of Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense, Wright tells the story of a “hidden spring.”?It goes on for a few pages, but here’s the gist. The western world has been ruled by a dictator who paved over the springs of water with thick concrete, thus forcing the people to drink from his complex system of pipes. That worked for a while until people started pining for the distant memory of bubbling springs and fresh water.
Then, in time, without warning, the springs burst through the concrete in a sudden explosion.
Wright’s dictator is materialist philosophy, and the water “is what we call today ‘spirituality,’ the hidden spring that bubbles up within human hearts and human societies.”? (p. 18)
Wright continues,
The official guardians of the old water system (many of whom work in the media and in politics, and some of whom, naturally enough, work in churches) are of course horrified to see the volcano of “spirituality”? that has erupted in recent years. All this “New Age”? myticism, the Tarot cards, crystals, horoscopes, and so on; all this fundamentalism, with militant Christians, militant Sikhs, militant muslims, and many others bombing each otherwith God in their side. Surely, say the guardians of the official water system, all this is terribly unhealthy? Surely it will lead us back to superstition, to the old chaotic, polluted, and irrational water supply? They have a point. But they must face a question in response: Does the fault not lie with those who wanted to pave over the springs with concrete in the first place (pp. 19-20)
“The hidden spring”? of spirituality is the second feature of human life which, I suggest, functions as an echo of a voice; as a signpost pointing away from the bleak landscape of modern secularism and toward the possibility that we humans are made for more than this. (p. 20; the “first feature”? is the topic of chapter 1, the cry for justice).

... Mountaineer

[Gosso]

Interesting insights on human spirituality by N T Wright:

In chapter 2 of Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense, Wright tells the story of a “hidden spring.”?It goes on for a few pages, but here’s the gist. The western world has been ruled by a dictator who paved over the springs of water with thick concrete, thus forcing the people to drink from his complex system of pipes. That worked for a while until people started pining for the distant memory of bubbling springs and fresh water.
Then, in time, without warning, the springs burst through the concrete in a sudden explosion.
Wright’s dictator is materialist philosophy, and the water “is what we call today ‘spirituality,’ the hidden spring that bubbles up within human hearts and human societies.”? (p. 18)
Wright continues,
The official guardians of the old water system (many of whom work in the media and in politics, and some of whom, naturally enough, work in churches) are of course horrified to see the volcano of “spirituality”? that has erupted in recent years. All this “New Age”? myticism, the Tarot cards, crystals, horoscopes, and so on; all this fundamentalism, with militant Christians, militant Sikhs, militant muslims, and many others bombing each otherwith God in their side. Surely, say the guardians of the official water system, all this is terribly unhealthy? Surely it will lead us back to superstition, to the old chaotic, polluted, and irrational water supply? They have a point. But they must face a question in response: Does the fault not lie with those who wanted to pave over the springs with concrete in the first place (pp. 19-20)
“The hidden spring”? of spirituality is the second feature of human life which, I suggest, functions as an echo of a voice; as a signpost pointing away from the bleak landscape of modern secularism and toward the possibility that we humans are made for more than this. (p. 20; the “first feature”? is the topic of chapter 1, the cry for justice).

... Mountaineer

Fantastic!  I need to add that book to my reading list.

One thing about Christianity that saddens me is when people turn into a purely legalistic/political enterprise (many churches are guilty of this), which saps all the mystery and fun out of it.  But this spirituality needs to be somewhat harnessed and tamed so that it can be useful for us (ie the difference between a wild and trained horse).  The wild horse may be beautiful but it is of little practical use to us.

I personally see the church as a tool for helping me form my relationship with God.  I don't worship the church, I worship God.

[Gosso]

St. Paul makes it crystal clear in I Corinthians 15 that the main reason to believe that Jesus was God is because of the resurrection.  Without this then Jesus is just another failed messiah or simply a mystic.  This is one of the reasons why the Gospel of Thomas was not included, because it failed to mention the crucifixion and resurrection.

Having said that, it does require faith to believe in the resurrection.  We can study the history and collect as much evidence as possible, but eventually we must decide if we are to accept this extraordinary claim/theory.  It is easy to write it off with conspiracy theories.  But the more I looked into it the more it seemed plausible.  There isn't 100% verifiable proof, but there is enough evidence to believe that it could have happened.

are the two interpretations mutually exclusive? i don't see any inherent contradiction in Jesus was a messiah, mystic, gnostic (failed or not) who taught a path to knowing god, and was the son of god resurrected (provable or not).

I agree that Jesus taught us that He was God (He proved it to His followers with the resurrection), and also how we are to follow Him or "the way" to Him.  I personally still read the Gospel of Thomas as a lesser addition to the four Gospels, but obviously I'm reading it through a different lens than a pure gnostic. 

Christianity begins with faith and then a long transformation takes place (which may continue after death) where we are slowly turned into "little Christs" - at least that is how CS Lewis describes it.  If we lose sight that Jesus was God, then we can easily be led down strange paths and no longer take His words and warnings seriously.  If we water down Christianity into nothing more than doing what makes us feel spiritual or happy then it becomes useless and a bunch of fluff.

It seems to me that gnosticism is all about becoming your own God (a very libertarian idea ).  Whereas Christians try to align themselves with God (this implies we are not free).  We believe that our relationship with God is similar to a father and son relationship, where the father teaches his son how to become a good human being, ie Christ-like.  We also incorporate the material world of the body, which is why things like baptism, mass, and being part of the "Mystical Body of Christ" are also very important to Christians...these things feed the body as well.

I'm still working through a lot of this stuff myself, I agree it is all a bit weird (particularly in this scientism age), but it somehow works.

its not so much about "becoming your own god" as recognizing or perceiving the connection that already exists within, or seeing the world in the way Christ saw it, it is about transcending the "I" or ego or the "your own", because 'I" is inherently dualistic and separate. If there is an "I" then the rest is "not I" including god (some flip this to a "universal I that is all inclusive" but it amounts to using different words to point at the same thing) i agree lots of mysticism is horribly watered down and flufified but the real work that has to be done to clear all the clutter that keeps us in the dark/sin, or puts blinders on our perception, is far more than "feel spiritual or happy". the gnostic relationship is more of a see the world "through/as" gods eyes than a father teaching a child , it is knowledge of being a good human being through perception

[Kshartle]

Why do you guys think God says that murder and stealing are wrong? Why did he decide that for us?

[Mountaineer]

Why do you guys think God says that murder and stealing are wrong? Why did he decide that for us?

I gave my thoughts on this question to you in the Al Qaeda thread.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

Why do you guys think God says that murder and stealing are wrong? Why did he decide that for us?

I gave my thoughts on this question to you in the Al Qaeda thread.

... Mountaineer

Sorry brother....didn't see it at first. I do now. Thanks.

[Mountaineer]

Why do you guys think God says that murder and stealing are wrong? Why did he decide that for us?

I gave my thoughts on this question to you in the Al Qaeda thread.

... Mountaineer

Sorry brother....didn't see it at first. I do now. Thanks.

No sweat Tonto 

... Mountineer

[Gosso]

its not so much about "becoming your own god" as recognizing or perceiving the connection that already exists within,  or seeing the world in the way Christ saw it, it is about transcending the "I" or ego or the "your own", because 'I"  is inherently dualistic and separate. If there is an "I" then the rest is "not I" including god (some flip this to a "universal I that is all inclusive" but it amounts to using different words to point at the same thing) i agree lots of mysticism is horribly watered down and flufified but the real work that has to be done to clear all the clutter that keeps us in the dark/sin, or puts blinders on our perception, is far more than "feel spiritual or happy". the gnostic relationship is more of a see the world "through/as" gods eyes than a father teaching a child , it is knowledge of being a good human being through perception

Hmmm, that's interesting.  One could say the goal of Christianity is to be able to see the world through a "Christ lens" or to become a saint, which wouldn't be far from what you've suggested.  Although Christians lean more heavily on Christ (and the church/Bible) to teach and help us.

My frustration with gnosticism/spirituality was that it lacked any intrinsic meaning (as far as I could tell), and it's general lack of interest in the material world.  Also I had no idea what I was supposed to "do", to attain this enlightenment/gnosis.  I had tried meditation for 3 or 4 months, but it felt forced and lost all interest in it.  I could mentally accept that my mind created the Universe (and all that jazz), but it just didn't do much for me.

Truthfully I just got bored of it.

I find Christianity provides a far more satisfying worldview that resonates with me.  I also find a certain richness and depth to Christianity that I had not found before.

[Mountaineer]

From today's Portals of Prayer devotional.  Seems to "illuminate" much of the discussion we have had today.

Clothed in Light

O Lord my God, You are very great! You are clothed with splendor and majesty, covering Yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent. Psalm 104:1-2

The Wise Men followed the star and found God. At that time and in that situation, humble wrappings covered Jesus in His humanity. But David speaks of divine clothing. “O Lord my God . . . You are clothed . . . with light.”? Wow! God unveils His image to humanity by describing His blazing attire. His garment of light reveals there is no darkness in Him. God also reveals the image of mankind. In His shining armor of justice, God shows humanity shrouded in sin, dressed in darkness, parading to their tombs. Yes, God’s Law and justice expose our sinful hearts and our need for a Savior. God not only exposes our need, but He also unveils the solution—Christ, the light. Christ’s proclamation, perfection, and power to purify the world reveals the Father’s will. And the Father is eager to remove our filthy rags, wash us in Baptism, and wrap us in Christ’s virtue. The Holy Spirit desires to dissolve death and adorn all believers with Christ’s life, making us fit to live forever with Him, the one clothed in light.

God of light, forgive us for our self-imposed blindness, and enable us to see Your saving light. Amen.

... Mountaineer