.

keu

.....

JustHalf

I have to say Keu, you are confusing me.

This "spiritual path" stuff you mention seems to be a bit off. You say you have "[your] own understanding of sin and guilt (as symbolic representatives)" but don't actually explain what you mean by this.

I think it's dangerous to define our own version of sin and refer to that in an argument about the Christian understanding of sin (in general or specific). It's essentially useless.

Certainly, your description of "spiritual people" and "material people" is completely at odds with the Christian understanding of sin. You seem to imply that all "spiritual" people are behaving as God wants them to!

I would say more, but your post is just too confusing for me.

JustHalf

It looks like you invented or distorted the context to me. Where the heck did you hear that about Corinth?

Your talk about "the spiritual path" is at odds with Christianity. Christianity does not speak of achieving Nirvana (do you actually know what Nirvana is?), or a lot of the other stuff you're talking about. Saying that early Christian leaders were worried about those "not on the spiritual path", given what you claim this path is, is dubious in the extreme.

Stark

Wasn't the whole point of Christianity to provide an alternative for people who stray from the spiritual path? As in "if you stray from the path, Jesus will sort something out for you, ie: kingdom of heaven". If you correlate this with other religions, then the kingdom of heaven would be somewhere on the middle planes, a meeting place for all people who believe in Jesus. If you don't believe in Jesus, then it follows you won't know where to find the place, hence him being fairly explicit about having to believe in him.

Yoda

JustHalf wrote:

Christianity does not speak of achieving Nirvana

Well, duh. Of course it doesn't. Nirvana is a Sanskrit technical term used to describe an exalted mental/spiritual state of awareness. It's a term which arose in a tradition where exploration and description of such states was actively pursued for many centuries.

(do you actually know what Nirvana is?)

Do you, JustHalf?

Once upon a time, people in different cultures were far-removed from one another. It appears that in most cultures, some individuals experienced transcendant states of awareness. This appears to be a natural function of human consciousness, and apparently is a repeatable and learnable experience. In each culture where people have such experiences, those who do seem to try to teach others about it. The experience is essentially Ineffable: it is outside the realm of normal consciousness and cannot be described in words, so poetry and imagery and metaphor is generally used.

Because nowadays our cultures are not so isolated, it is possible to compare the teachings of the great teachers of each. This is what in the West has been called comparative mysticism. Some of the greatest Christian writers were very clearly mystics: Juan de la Cruz, Teresa of Avila, the author of the Cloud of Unknowing. There are many, many more. In Christian terms, these are the people who did "those things which I do and more": they attained to The Kingdom of Heaven, to use Jesus' metaphor.

People who make comparisons between the different traditions of human spirituality would tend to equate, in broad terms at least, "Nirvana" on the one hand and "The Kingdom" on the other. In such a comparitive context, in my view, the teachings make sense. Taking the metaphor literally, "The Kingdom" runs you into ontological difficulties. What is it? Where is it? Is it a real place? What is its longitude and latitude? If it's not on the earth, where is it? In outer space? Mars perhaps? Or is it on another plane of existence? And even then, can it be described as a "place"?

Or indeed is it an exalted state of consciousness, a real union or connection with the Transcendent? If that is what "The Kingdom" is, then Jesus' message cannot be understood absolutely literally. And Christianity cannot be taken to have a monopoly on Truth.

Wikipedia's article on mysticism is worth a read.

neuro-praxis

...

GuanYin

Yoda wrote:

Once upon a time, Wikipedia's article on mysticism is worth a read.

Good post, very interesting, I'd always imagined that much of the Bible is really existing eastern philosophytaken in a totally different (and totally wrong context) while much of it is just mis-translation.

Still thanks for the link,

neuro-praxis wrote:

...

:rolleyes:

A closed mind remains empty Claire. *sigh*

Yoda

As I said: access to transcendent experience appears to be a function of how we are made, as it arises in all cultures. Those cultures talk about it as best they can. Some of the Christian mystics did so with great clarity. It'd be wrong (in my view) to say "the Bible is really eastern philosophy" in this context. A further discussion of the content of the Bible per se would be for another thread, I should think.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

A closed mind remains empty Claire. *sigh*

Syke, my advice is best followed; not simply repeated.

Yoda, Christianity isn't about acheiving (to use your terminology) "transcendant states of awareness". We aren't told to seek out some spiritual high, we are told to serve God.

Christianity is a down and dirty faith. Any buzz one might get off the Holy Spirit is secondary, it is not the goal. The goal is service. We are called to serve God.

I think you have the concept of "the Kingdom of God" a bit screwy, I'll write more on this when I have the chance.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

Syke, my advice is best followed; not simply repeated.

Funny, thats what I wanted to say to you, but it seems off topic. Glad I got the chance.

Christianity is a down and dirty faith. Any buzz one might get off the Holy Spirit is secondary, it is not the goal. The goal is service. We are called to serve God.

Funny, because looking at the Bible (NT) one would get the impression that God is best served by loving one another and treating others well, and how Jesus taught.

Of course, maybe it says that God is best served by arguing over how to follow his rules and what he meant and who has the best church and that all this "love" business is secondary.

You know best I guess, you're mod here two years now, thats like up there with the Pope. :rolleyes:

JustHalf

Careful now.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

Careful now.

Which part? Just so I know?

neuro-praxis

Apparently, in some languages, "..." can actually be literally translated as meaning "closed minded".

Who knew?! :eek:

By the way, I hope you never regret your title, Syke...(<< there they are again!)

GuanYin

neuro-praxis wrote:

Apparently, in some languages, "..." can actually be literally translated as meaning "closed minded".

Who knew?! :eek:

By the way, I hope you never regret your title, Syke...(<< there they are again!)

`
Well now, Yoda posted an interesting and well thought out post.

You responded with three dots which were obviously meant to show disapproval yet added no opinion or discussion of your own. So such summary dismissal is closeminded imho, yes.

Although perhaps you would like to enlighten us to the meaning of your dots rather than make smart comments and correlations that are obviously unrelated.

Oh and keep your opinions of my title to yourself or PM me, it has nothing to do with the post or the topic, thanks.

Excelsior

Syke,

Let's take your assertion that the bible can be edited down to the New Testament (because you don't like the Old Testament). Jesus said that he hadn't come to abolish the law (meaning Old Testament) but to fulfil it.

Jesus also said He was the bread of life, the well of life that would never run dry, the way, the truth and the life, and, He claimed that the first commandment was to honour and love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind.

He goes on in that verse to claim that loving others is simply a by-product of loving God, when He says that the second commandment (loving one another) is the same as the first. It's not the other way around.

Your version of Jesus as a nice guy who wants us to love each other doesn't really explain the commotion He caused in His lifetime, or the fact that He was crucified. Dana is not about to be killed by the state.

It also doesn't explain how He says that He has come not to bring peace, but as a sword, or that He will divide families. Basically, you neuter the bible by taking out three quarters of it and then ignore the bits left over that don't suit you. I can understand having personal difficulties with Christians, but you can't claim to be treating Christianity with any kind of rigour or fairness.

And you have absolutely no idea what JustHalf does to love other people, seeing as very little charity or sacrifice is possible on bulletin boards.

Ultimately Christianity can only make sense if the trinitarian God as a reality is at the centre. As such, I can see no reconciliation with Buddhism.

GuanYin

Excelsior wrote:

Syke,

Let's take your assertion that the bible can be edited down to the New Testament (because you don't like the Old Testament). Jesus said that he hadn't come to abolish the law (meaning Old Testament) but to fulfil it.

Jesus also said He was the bread of life, the well of life that would never run dry, the way, the truth and the life, and, He claimed that the first commandment was to honour and love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind.

He goes on in that verse to claim that loving others is simply a by-product of loving God, when He says that the second commandment (loving one another) is the same as the first. It's not the other way around.

Your version of Jesus as a nice guy who wants us to love each other doesn't really explain the commotion He caused in His lifetime, or the fact that He was crucified. Dana is not about to be killed by the state.

It also doesn't explain how He says that He has come not to bring peace, but as a sword, or that He will divide families. Basically, you neuter the bible by taking out three quarters of it and then ignore the bits left over that don't suit you. I can understand having personal difficulties with Christians, but you can't claim to be treating Christianity with any kind of rigour or fairness.

And you have absolutely no idea what JustHalf does to love other people, seeing as very little charity or sacrifice is possible on bulletin boards.

Ultimately Christianity can only make sense if the trinitarian God as a reality is at the centre. As such, I can see no reconciliation with Buddhism.

Good post, thanks for the response.

Yeah I know I'm selective about my take on the Bible buts is mostly due to what I believe in inconsistancies in translation and interpretation of some passages from original texts. And it should say alot that so many branches of christianity have taken different meanings to different passages. That said, one common theme remains among all christianity, which I alluded to. And this is, or at least should have been, a thread about the different views of christianity.

I think that the Old testament was written by different people with a different world view for a different type of people. I actually prefer it as a text, but as a basis for religion, I think its somewhat lacking.

There is a theory that Jesus was actually a buddhist monk who travelled teaching philosophy. There are several published works and at least one documentary one the subject.

As for my "opinion" on Justhalf's christianity, I was actually referring to his behaviour on boards and a comment by him in another forum. I never claimed to know what he was like or about in person, nor would I.

JustHalf

Neuro, syke: let's keep this civil.

Now, to make some points:

syke wrote:

You responded with three dots which were obviously meant to show disapproval yet added no opinion or discussion of your own. So such summary dismissal is closeminded imho, yes.

I think you're joining dots that shouldn't be joined.

Your point is only valid if Neuro has never thought about this before, but I know for certain that she has. I'm fairly sure I've had this discussion with her personally, and we both came to roughly the same conclusion about it, with good cause.

The "dismissal" (and I'm not sure it is one, it is only three dots; it could mean a lot of things) could not fairly be described as summary.

I can only speak for myself. What Yoda has stated here belongs to a class of statements or world views which I've thought about a lot and, based on the evidence that I had available to me and arguments I was presented with, determined was not true. I still have an open mind, but there's no reason for me to re-examine my conclusion unless I'm presented with new evidence or arguments.

This is what having an open mind is all about... being open to new evidence and new arguments.

Neuro just hasn't given a detailed account of her thought process when she came to this conclusion initially. It would be unreasonable to expect her to.

It's past two and I need to sleep. I'll post more when I get the chance.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

Neuro, syke: let's keep this civil.

Now, to make some points:
I think you're joining dots that shouldn't be joined.

Your point is only valid if Neuro has never thought about this before, but I know for certain that she has. I'm fairly sure I've had this discussion with her personally, and we both came to roughly the same conclusion about it, with good cause.

The "dismissal" (and I'm not sure it is one, it is only three dots; it could mean a lot of things) could not fairly be described as summary.

I can only speak for myself. What Yoda has stated here belongs to a class of statements or world views which I've thought about a lot and, based on the evidence that I had available to me and arguments I was presented with, determined was not true. I still have an open mind, but there's no reason for me to re-examine my conclusion unless I'm presented with new evidence or arguments.

This is what having an open mind is all about... being open to new evidence and new arguments.

Neuro just hasn't given a detailed account of her thought process when she came to this conclusion initially. It would be unreasonable to expect her to.

It's past two and I need to sleep. I'll post more when I get the chance.

Thats all very well for you, but are we to understand that conversation on this forum has to take into account your intimate knowledge of some of the posters and we most try and predict the meanings of apparently obscure and disrespectful posts on the basis of something your mate said to you once?

I think thats a fair point. You dismissing any alleged disrespect on the basis that you feel you know what she was thinking, I make my accusation o the basis of what it seems to me she is thinking, surely the moderator should be encouraging clear concise postings that allow us all to see the grander role in the discussion because I'm sure to anyone outside Claire's circle of friends that just seemed rude and dismissive.

The Corinthian

JustHalf wrote:

The "dismissal" (and I'm not sure it is one, it is only three dots; it could mean a lot of things) could not fairly be described as summary.

It was a dismissal. I think it was pretty obviously so at that.

I'll post more when I get the chance.

And while we’re on the topic of dismissals, I note you have a tendency to leave points unanswered yourself on the basis that you will do so on a later occasion (which never seems to present itself). In fact, from what I can see, you do so twice in this thread alone.

JustHalf

It would be reasonable to question why she dismissed Yoda's post, not to come to a conclusion so quickly. Again, I'd like to remind you that she did only post three dots. I think you're reading a bit too much into it.

The main problem I see is that though it's reasonable to see the three dots as "rude and dismissive", but not to see it as being close-minded. This term is incredibly loaded, and should be avoided if we're going to have a civil discussion.

The Corinthian

JustHalf wrote:

The main problem I see is that though it's reasonable to see the three dots as "rude and dismissive", but not to see it as being close-minded.

But doesn’t being "rude and dismissive" not mean that you are both ignoring and refuting something without reason? Is this not the essence of being close-minded?

GuanYin

The Corinthian wrote:

But doesn’t being "rude and dismissive" not mean that you are both ignoring and refuting something without reason? Is this not the essence of being close-minded?

Thats pretty much how I saw it too. Justhalf, is this not a reasonable conclusion?

Excelsior

syke wrote:

Yeah I know I'm selective about my take on the Bible buts is mostly due to what I believe in inconsistancies in translation and interpretation of some passages from original texts.

Can you clarify which passages you can discard on this basis and what texts you make your decisions on. That kind of statement does need some backing up, even if I don't expect you to post me your scanned copies of Qumran scrolls or your definition of Ekklesia in its New Testament context.

Different interpretations of many issues have been made by the different denominations but there is no historical church that I can think of that didn't view Jesus as God. I can think of no historical church that proposed a coming together of Buddhism and Christianity. I can think of no historical church that discards the copious passages of the Gospels that point towards Jesus' unusual nature and His not entirely simple message of loving other people in a mild and neutered, non-sacrifical way. Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Protestants and Charismatics all agree that Jesus was Christ.

Now they disagree on secondary issues like when to baptise, whether contraception is ok, who can be a priest/pastor but none of those traditions were set up to propose the Jesus that you propose. (Which isn't to refute your claims about how you personally view Jesus but refutes your claim that interpretations differ to some meaningful extent)

syke wrote:

I think that the Old testament was written by different people with a different world view for a different type of people. I actually prefer it as a text, but as a basis for religion, I think its somewhat lacking.

You are approaching 6,000 year old traditions with carelessness and arrogance Syke. You work off the assumption that the Old Testament was wholly man-created but you just let it pass without backing it up. But that is neither here nor there since it is so off topic.

But the whole "I prefer it as a text but..." thing, if you could pm me or start a new thread or something to explain that I would appreciate it because I just have never heard that before!

syke wrote:

There is a theory that Jesus was actually a buddhist monk who travelled teaching philosophy. There are several published works and at least one documentary one the subject.

But there are also theories that the world is run by 8 foot tall lizards and there are documentaries about it too. There are theories that Mossad were behind 9/11 and there are documentaries about it aswell but that doesn't make it legitimate. Jesus was crucified. Jesus was recorded by Roman and Jewish historians. Jesus had followers by the 1000's after His death and His contemporaries were willing to die by their 1000's for what He meant to them. Happy travelling philosophers who preach enlightenment through the loss of attachments via meditation do not get that reception. It is also an entirely modern idea which convieniently suits many of our modern biases but hadn't occurred to anyone in the 19 centuries preceeding the one I was born in. And it requires ripping the texts upon which the theory is built into little shreds.

This is going off topic in a bad way. If the embattled moderator wanted to delete this post and lock the thread, I don't mind.

GuanYin

Gah, its a bank holiday and my head is fuzzy but I'll try give you some worthy answers.

Excelsior wrote:

Can you clarify which passages you can discard on this basis and what texts you make your decisions on. That kind of statement does need some backing up, even if I don't expect you to post me your scanned copies of Qumran scrolls or your definition of Ekklesia in its New Testament context.

Well the OT was written in a totally different time for a totally different audience. The era it was intended for was, on the whole, far less civilised than the NT generation (who were still compartively barbaric to us, but then our decendants will have the same view).

People make a big deal out of the OT/NT difference when its really, imho, quite straightforward. The two books were written for the culture and era and the message is what was needed at the time. Now there are plenty of universals in both books, and these are philosophies worth considering, but in general as a text, the OT is outdated in its message, which is why so many people have difficulty reconsiling it.

IF you lived 8000 years ago, its quite probable that it would be a damn relavent and insightful book, but now its little more than a historical reference and an excellent insight of how the minds of our ancestors worked.

Different interpretations of many issues have been made by the different denominations but there is no historical church that I can think of that didn't view Jesus as God. I can think of no historical church that proposed a coming together of Buddhism and Christianity. I can think of no historical church that discards the copious passages of the Gospels that point towards Jesus' unusual nature and His not entirely simple message of loving other people in a mild and neutered, non-sacrifical way. Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Protestants and Charismatics all agree that Jesus was Christ.

Really? To be pedantic, when was the last time you read the Gospel of St. Thomas? Its accepted that all the apostles passed on gospels, but yet we see four. Its not an urban legend that of these Gnostic gospels, St. Thomas's debased the need for organised religion.

History, is all about relative perception. The Bible, is an historical book, but it is very hard for me to accept it as the "one true message of God" considering that man has invariably shaped it throughout the ages.

There are again, some universals, and these are well worth considering as a life philosophy, however, there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus's unusual traits were anything more than embelishments of stories or even metaphors, which are commonly used in the bible. Faith does not require evidence, it's true, but I'm happy to take the stance that Jesus was an enlightened individual who put forward some ideas that, at the time, were fairly radical.

about it aswell but that doesn't make it legitimate. Jesus was crucified. Jesus was recorded by Roman and Jewish historians. Jesus had followers by the 1000's after His death and His contemporaries were willing to die by their 1000's for what He meant to them. Happy travelling philosophers who preach enlightenment through the loss of attachments via meditation do not get that reception. It is also an entirely modern idea which convieniently suits many of our modern biases but hadn't occurred to anyone in the 19 centuries preceeding the one I was born in. And it requires ripping the texts upon which the theory is built into little shreds.

Really? Gandhi had followers who willingly laid down their lives and suffered great pain in his name and for his beliefs. Was he a deity? Its a striking parallell if you consider it. A privlidged man (make no mistake Jesus was privlidged and not, as many would have you believe, born into poverty), discarding his lifestyle in favour of trying for a better world for all of us, enduring great suffering, all through peaceful means and showing compassion even to his persecutors. Inspiring millions across the world....

Had Gandhi lived 2500 years ago, how may we have viewed him today?

I'm merely suggesting that christianity has alot of philosophies that are readily accessible and worthwhile. These philosophies are relavent to everyone and sure enough many churches use them as the "main message". But for those who take this essence and discard the less relavent and shakier aspects (and its not only skeptics that have trouble reconciling some of the details of christianity) of the Bible and the churches teachings, "love one another" isn't a bad tagline to base their "christianity" on.

Its for God to judge if they are christians or not.

GuanYin

Excelsior wrote:

You are approaching 6,000 year old traditions with carelessness and arrogance Syke. You work off the assumption that the Old Testament was wholly man-created but you just let it pass without backing it up. But that is neither here nor there since it is so off topic.

But the whole "I prefer it as a text but..." thing, if you could pm me or start a new thread or something to explain that I would appreciate it because I just have never heard that before!

Dodgy editing in your post means I missed these first time around.

I prefer it as a text means basically that. Believe it or not, I reasonably well read and although at times I find it difficult, I enjoy the Old Testament, I find it a powerful historical insight into the minds of our ancestors (not just the authors but also the editors) and thats about it. I view it in the same context as the iliad, but would see it as less of a philosophical/belief system guide than say the Tao Te Ching.

Actually, on that note, have you ever read about the startling parallels between Jesus's teachings and that of Lao-tzu, who predates him by 200-350 years? Its not that startling really, come to think of it, they both put forward the same key message that I allude to in my previous post.

One may argue though, that the Chinese culture in 350BC, despite its own barbarism, was far more enlightened to such teachings and perhaps they didn't seem as radical as the similar notions pit forward by Jesus in the roman empire.

Excelsior

syke wrote:

Well the OT was written in a totally different time for a totally different audience. The era it was intended for was, on the whole, far less civilised than the NT generation (who were still compartively barbaric to us, but then our decendants will have the same view).

The mistake you make is to think that we are somehow more capable of discerning truth in 2004 than we were in 1004 or 0004. Simply because we have computers, partipatory democracy and the architecture of Daniel Libeskind we aren't any more capable of telling the difference between what can be trusted and what can't. It is no easier for a Roman living in Judea in 54AD to believe that God became man, died, rose again and thus we can all enjoy God's company forever than it is for a man in 2004. Civilisation or barbarism doesn't come into an individual's intellect and his/her moral compass, which is what is used when confronted with Christ-claims.

But you haven't really dealt with my problem. You discard the Old Testament because it would have been useful "8,000" years ago but isn't now. Doesn't that impact how you view the New Testament which was written very much on the basis of the Hebrew scriptures.

Furthermore, you discard passages from the Gospels that talk about the uniqueness of Christ but you haven't offered me a reason. You have just talked about translation mistakes and confused first texts. I am not trying to deny your interpretation of Jesus- make of Him what you will. But surely you have some reason for discarding the bread of life, light of life, fullness of life quotes and the apocolyptic language he used while accepting the stuff that fits nicely into Western culture in 2004?

syke wrote:

Really? To be pedantic, when was the last time you read the Gospel of St. Thomas?

In the 3rd week of September this year at a staff conference.

syke wrote:

Its accepted that all the apostles passed on gospels, but yet we see four.

No its not accepted. The Jesus Seminar are a very small, ideologically skewed sector of Biblical Criticism. The massive main bulk of scholars are grouped in the traditional and liberal sectors and the Jesus Seminar owe their noterioty to the newsworthiness (in the sense of selling news through papers or TV) of their traditions and the sheer balls they have in presenting their perspective without any doubt.

On the topic of the Gospel of Thomas:
No church has ever accepted Thomas in its canon. Why?

By the turn of the 1900's, the Gospel of Thomas was available almost in its entirety based on 3 fairly comprehensive fragments written in Greek. After WWII, the Nag Hammadi finds gave us the complete manuscript. They were in Coptic and they dated to the middle of the 4th century, as oppossed to the initial finds which were third century. The Gospel of Thomas is made up of 114 sayings with no narrative framework and no mention of Jesus' Passion or Resurrection.

Contrary to the highly marketed claims of Pagels et al, this is one of the most studied texts of the 20th Century. It isn't explosive or devastating. It is a late document with some genuine material covered in the other Gospels, some very small material that may be newly genuine and some material which is highly suspect. It is very much later than the Gospels. The Jesus Seminar however place a high value on it because it perfectly fits how they want Jesus to be. They predict an as yet unfound Thomas that will be earlier than the Canon Gospels and so prove Christianity to be a Pauline manipulation. But that is a prediction.

The Jesus Seminar claim that Thomas offers us the true words of Jesus that he actually spoke that are not found in the canon Gospels. The Jesus Seminar are in a minority however and most academics, conservatives and liberals alike, view this document more cautiously. Most think that it is simply a second-century collection of sayings loosely based on the 4 Gospels we typically use and other writings, and that it offers nothing that is original or new.

Now you can base your understanding of Jesus on Thomas but don't pretend you aren't firmly in the territory of faith when you do so. What you present is far from consensus.

syke wrote:

There are again, some universals, and these are well worth considering as a life philosophy, however, there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus's unusual traits were anything more than embelishments of stories or even metaphors, which are commonly used in the bible. Faith does not require evidence, it's true, but I'm happy to take the stance that Jesus was an enlightened individual who put forward some ideas that, at the time, were fairly radical.

And I am happy for you to take that stance too. Its a common stance. But in the same way that I have to struggle to bound my position within some kind of structure of reasoning and explanations, you have to too. You can't just claim that the Gospels can be edited to bring out your historical Jesus and therefore your Jesus is the historical Jesus.

syke wrote:

History, is all about relative perception.

The views you espouse are commonly gathered under the heading of the 3rd Quest for the Historical Jesus. Which is ironic since history is, allegedly, perception.

Well, history as recorded is a perception of a history that is actually objective and did actually take place. Because we can't contain the fullness of Jerusalem on the Easter weekend in a history book doesn't mean that all histories of the Easter weekend are equally valid.

syke wrote:

make no mistake Jesus was privlidged and not, as many would have you believe, born into poverty

Back that up. Syke, note how you write to me there. "As many would have you believe..." They are patronising words. I have studied theology. I work full time for a Christian organistion, studying the Bible and teaching it. I am aware of the debates and the opinoins and the terrain of modern theology. There is no need to condescend to me.

The difference between Ghandi and Jesus is that Ghandi was under no delusions as to who he was. Jesus didn't view himself as an ordinary bloke.

The similarity between Lao Tzu and Christ only works if you parse the text like a fundamentalist, taking the verses that suit your agenda and ignoring the whole. You simply have to ignore the bread of life theme and the apocolypse theme that runs right through the Gospels.

syke wrote:

Its for God to judge if they are christians or not.

Someting else we can agree on.

GuanYin

Excelsior wrote:

The mistake you make is to think that we are somehow more capable of discerning truth in 2004 than we were in 1004 or 0004. Simply because we have computers, partipatory democracy and the architecture of Daniel Libeskind we aren't any more capable of telling the difference between what can be trusted and what can't. It is no easier for a Roman living in Judea in 54AD to believe that God became man, died, rose again and thus we can all enjoy God's company forever than it is for a man in 2004. Civilisation or barbarism doesn't come into an individual's intellect and his/her moral compass, which is what is used when confronted with Christ-claims.

I think you miss the point. Its exactly because we are more capable now and its harder to believe God became man, died and rose again that I argue this.

What is your evidence? The only reliable historical references to Jesus from around his time are Tacitus and Josephus, 31 and 52 years after the crusificion respectively. Josephus refers to him as a wise man and mentions that his followers saw him as the messiah after his ressurection. It should be noted that this is the original arabic version, a westernised version of Josephus's testimony was "mis-translated" over the centuries by monks. The NT itself was not written at the time of those events.

So we have no actual evidence from the time of Christ to suggest that Christ saw himself as the Son of God. We only have the testimonies written after the event. Today we have recorded word and vision and could catalogue such events, as Gandhi was, but make no mistake, even today people put "spin" on events, and testimonies from any eyewitness becomes less reliable over time.

But you haven't really dealt with my problem. You discard the Old Testament because it would have been useful "8,000" years ago but isn't now. Doesn't that impact how you view the New Testament which was written very much on the basis of the Hebrew scriptures.

No because I don't view the Bible as anything more than a nice story born of chinese whispers about a very wise and radical individual who lived approximately 2000 years ago.

They were written to appeal to the people of the time.

Furthermore, you discard passages from the Gospels that talk about the uniqueness of Christ but you haven't offered me a reason. You have just talked about translation mistakes and confused first texts. I am not trying to deny your interpretation of Jesus- make of Him what you will. But surely you have some reason for discarding the bread of life, light of life, fullness of life quotes and the apocolyptic language he used while accepting the stuff that fits nicely into Western culture in 2004?

Again so much of the bible is metapor what makes you so sure that this originally meant what the current church says it meant? In any case, for the reasons above I don't believe that the Bible is an accurate reflection of the life of Christ, taken in the literal context that the church does.

No its not accepted. The Jesus Seminar are a very small, ideologically skewed sector of Biblical Criticism. The massive main bulk of scholars are grouped in the traditional and liberal sectors and the Jesus Seminar owe their noterioty to the newsworthiness (in the sense of selling news through papers or TV) of their traditions and the sheer balls they have in presenting their perspective without any doubt.

Not accepted by whom, church scholars or academic ones? Its currently taught in Trinity afaik (or at least thats the impression I get from the tutor I live with).

On the topic of the Gospel of Thomas:
<snip>
Now you can base your understanding of Jesus on Thomas but don't pretend you aren't firmly in the territory of faith when you do so. What you present is far from consensus.

But youre sources are slightly biased are they not? I'm not trying to put forward any mass conspiracy but it strikes me as slightly skewed that an institution confirms or denises its own evidence. The very fact that some gospels don't tally is no small eyeopener in itself.

Back that up. Syke, note how you write to me there. "As many would have you believe..." They are patronising words. I have studied theology. I work full time for a Christian organistion, studying the Bible and teaching it. I am aware of the debates and the opinoins and the terrain of modern theology. There is no need to condescend to me.

I wasn't writing to you, this is a public forum, I assumed more than you would read the post.

Jesus was the son of a carpenter, which, in the time and place was a high position in society. Carpenters and Fishermen would have been quite well to do at the time. Furthermore, Jesus could allegedly read and write, which are not the skills of a poor humble man. Finally Joseph was a descendent of the house of David, which would have been a noble poistion in his community.

The difference between Ghandi and Jesus is that Ghandi was under no delusions as to who he was. Jesus didn't view himself as an ordinary bloke.

Back that up. there are no direct references or evidence to Jesus's opinions about himself in existance. Only second and third hand accounts by followers who were described by an independant source Tacitus as a "cult". Again the Bible is the self referrential evidence to support its own veracity.... I think not. Who is to say that had Gandhi's tale been passed soley by word or mouth for years before being committed to paper that the story wouldn't have been skewed to make him a deity.

The similarity between Lao Tzu and Christ only works if you parse the text like a fundamentalist, taking the verses that suit your agenda and ignoring the whole. You simply have to ignore the bread of life theme and the apocolypse theme that runs right through the Gospels.

I'm not saying they are the same person, I'm saying that many themes and philosophies of Lao Tzu turn up in the Bible attributable to another man who lived nearly 4 centuries later. Regardless of what other things are attributed to Christ by those who wrote about him afterwards, including things they claim he had said and done and his divinity, could it be that either christ himself or his biographers later on, were influenced by Lao Tzu?


Someting else we can agree on. [/QUOTE]

Excelsior

syke wrote:

there are no direct references or evidence to Jesus's opinions about himself in existance.

If you genuinely believe that the Gospels are not valid information sources, doesn't that render irrelevant your perspective of Jesus, which must be based on Gospel sources.

GuanYin

Excelsior wrote:

If you genuinely believe that the Gospels are not valid information sources, doesn't that render irrelevant your perspective of Jesus, which must be based on Gospel sources.

Words in my mouth here. The surrounding historical texts do point to his existance and indicate that he was a wise man and indicate his virtuosity. This is the general consensus in texts on Jesus.

However, if we take Josephus's texts as translated directly from 10th century Arabic

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

as opposed to the Greek manuscripts of the 11th century and of christian scholar origin

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).

We see in capitals the highlighted difference in the text and the slant put on the second text.

The relevence of this is that the Gospels are subject to the same process and as such, I am inclined to believe the colaborating stories about Jesus but not the ones that paint him as a deity. As his messages reflect heavily, earlier Tao beliefs, I believe its quite plausible that he was a learned man from a well to do background that may have come across such philosophy and tried to pass on this message. Shunning his wealthy roots may have upset the jewish community aswell as upsetting the ruling romans with the force of his following. It should be noted that the NT sees Jesus quite preoccupied with mans obsession with materialism another instance of correlation with the likes of Lao Tzu. Strangely, Jesus didn't have a whole lot to say about sex.

Excelsior

The textual criticism seems impressive until you recognise that the Josephus text is completely different both in its internal nature (the magnitude of what it says) and its sources than the Gospels. The Gospel texts have many corroborating papyri ensuring that a historically valid translation is occuring. It is the opinion of many scholars, academic and church based, liberal and traditional, that the time-span for the Gospels is Mark around 50AD out to John at 90AD. As such, they were written when people who knew Jesus were still alive.

The Gospels simply aren't the same as Josephus.

Let me quote Jenkins,
"these "hidden gospels" have acquired an importance far beyond their real historical value, and, in fact, they serve as the core texts for a full-fledged modern historical mythology."*



The problem with your shunning his rich roots idea is simply that it is your idea. You have taken three "facts", the line of David, the carpenter and the literacy and built a whole biography.

If Jesus was the Annointed One then you would expect Him to be obbsessed with social justice compared to sexuality because God is far more concerned with it. I would have thought your familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures would have shown the massive bias towards referencing the need for justice in the material world over the rare juicy bits about getting it on. Last time someone I know counted they got just over 100 references to sex (not including the Song of Solomon) and 2,200 references to material inbalance.

*http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/hiddengospel.htm

GuanYin

Excelsior wrote:

The textual criticism seems impressive until you recognise that the Josephus text is completely different both in its internal nature (the magnitude of what it says) and its sources than the Gospels.

I never compared it to the Bibles but it went through the same copying and translational processes so is equally open to mis-translation.

The Gospels simply aren't the same as Josephus.

In that sense they are.

The problem with your shunning his rich roots idea is simply that it is your idea. You have taken three "facts", the line of David, the carpenter and the literacy and built a whole biography.

And its any different to the proclamation of Mary as a virgin? Jesus was definitely not the pauper that many claim and outside historical sources saw him and his followers as a cult. The only source that clearly defines Jesus as being of define origin is that self same so-called cult and this was only after his death. In fact, one commonly mis-translated excerpt shows that Peter saw Jesus as a friend but not a God while he lived (in the Greek language there are several translations of love, depending on context, this particular references has Jesus ask Peter to love him as in worship and Peter responds by loving him as a friend. I need to get the exact reference of text, I'll ask my housemate later.

That is my personal belief and to be fair its just as valid as yours. You can quote scripture all you like but at the end of the day its a question of personal belief as the only evidence for your beliefs comes from your on interpretation of the situation.

If Jesus was the Annointed One then you would expect Him to be obbsessed with social justice compared to sexuality because God is far more concerned with it. I would have thought your familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures would have shown the massive bias towards referencing the need for justice in the material world over the rare juicy bits about getting it on. Last time someone I know counted they got just over 100 references to sex (not including the Song of Solomon) and 2,200 references to material inbalance.

Thats just a thinly veiled put down and not actually a references to the subject but as I'm sure the mod will not do anything about it, I'll ignore it and answer by saying that for those 100 references the church is far far more concerned with with telling us how to behave socially in matters of sex and not so much the 2200 references to material imbalance as the vatican for one accumulated billions and all the strongest supporters of christianity are capitalist countries. How many of these christian churches in their guises speaks out against such capatilism, that one can only assume from reading the NT, would have greatly offended Jesus?

Excelsior

syke wrote:

That is my personal belief and to be fair its just as valid as yours. You can quote scripture all you like but at the end of the day its a question of personal belief as the only evidence for your beliefs comes from your on interpretation of the situation.

I have never targeted your personal opinions of Jesus as invalid Syke. I haven't quoted scripture at you all that much either. To be honest, I don't care nearly as much about what you believe as about how you explain it in terms of orthodox Christianity.

You see, you've hit the nail on the head there when you say yours is just a personal belief. Basing your picture of Jesus on the little bits of the Gospel (and they are tiny) that please you while ignoring the rest of the Gospel (and the Bible) and then buttressing that with the much younger and less secure Gospel of Thomas is an act of faith.

Now I have no difficulty with that faith and don't particularly want you to change it. But I do want to argue that as you have reasons for yours, the 2000 years of orthodox Christianity represented by the Christian churches have reasons for theirs. They aren't insane, crazy, redundant myth lovers.

I apologise if you were hurt by my put down. I am not a Roman Catholic and can't speak for them. They are the biggest charitable organisation in the world though so your claims might be exaggerated. As might be your claims that Christianity is a capitalistic phenomenon. 60% of the world's Christians are 3rd world citizens and by 2025 we expect that to be 67%*. If you are not familiar with it, your housemate will clue you in on the most fertile field of mainstream modern theology- liberation theology; which firmly ties social justice to the active living of Christian faith. Moltmann is your man if you want to nerd up on it.

syke wrote:

Its exactly because we are more capable now and its harder to believe God became man, died and rose again that I argue this.

To close a day of furious contribution, this is, I think, the major difficulty I have with the way you post on this forum. Man has not evolved in any meaningful way since the time of Jesus. We may be more advanced technologically and our civilisations may be more civilised (but that is a statement open to challenge) but these things have not aided our thought processes in any way. We are no more capable of discerning the truth or considering logic or making moral choices now than we were 2,000 years ago (or even 5,000 years ago). We've just been doing it for 2,000 years more.

Most of our philosophy either is actually from this period or is heavily founded in the work done in the time of the "Ancients". They laid the foundations for logic, maths, biology, physics and the sectors of philosophy,and if there have been developments they have been through "standing on the shoulders of giants". We only need to look at Newgrange or Stonehenge to be amazed at their engineering, astronomical, logistical and social structuring skills. These were the same as the men and women who invented the Internet, they just lived earlier.

I have to end this, to say goodnight, to leave this thread for someone else to pick up. The Bank Holiday is over. I've actually got to study the book of Hosea tomorrow because that is my job.

*http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195146166/ref=ase_townhallcom/103-7685966-6855008?v=glance&s=books

GuanYin

Well for a man who cried foul of being patronised tahst a fantastic post, ignore the points, post the propaganda and then post inaccurate concepts on evolution (man is constantly evolving and has done in subtle but important ways over the past 5000 and 2000 years - if you gave me the proper equipment and reagents I and any other scientist could separate man from now, christs time and those who built newgrange with a mere blood sample).

Excelsior

Syke, that is extraordinary. Do that there now and publish it.

I have posted fairly comprehensively. I have not patronised you. I've given as good as I could to you all day. And I now back out. My wife would kill me if she knew I was talking to strange men on the Internet at 1 in the morning.

GuanYin

Excelsior wrote:

Syke, that is extraordinary. Do that there now and publish it.

Ahh now look at this, you can't even admit that the patronising attitude you posted in was based on a total phallacy so you compound it with more.

No need to publish it, its well documented, they use similar techniques on anthropological genetics studies.

I have posted fairly comprehensively. I have not patronised you. I've given as good as I could to you all day. And I now back out. My wife would kill me if she knew I was talking to strange men on the Internet at 1 in the morning.

No not really, you have posted in a threathened manner and have been totally evasive in several points, which is unfortunate because when you actually bother, you're probably the best poster on this forum bar Cian.

And I really hope that given Claire's history that the "strange men" comment isn't an insult that needs reporting to the moderator.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

Thats just a thinly veiled put down and not actually a references to the subject but as I'm sure the mod will not do anything about it, I'll ignore it and answer by saying that for those 100 references the church is far far more concerned with with telling us how to behave socially in matters of sex and not so much the 2200 references to material imbalance as the vatican for one accumulated billions and all the strongest supporters of christianity are capitalist countries. How many of these christian churches in their guises speaks out against such capatilism, that one can only assume from reading the NT, would have greatly offended Jesus?

First of all, I think you might be confusing the actions of Christians and Christian churches with what we know about Christ. It's understandable for someone to expect Christians to live as Christ commands, but quite frankly we suck at it. God expects perfection, and we don't provide.

As far as I can tell (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) Excelsior was talking about what Christ was concerned with; he didn't talk about how Christians have messed up the implementation.

I also suspect that you might be confusing how much press and attention an issue gets with how much it means to the Catholic church. This is just a suspicion; I don't pretend to understand how the Catholic church is run or what their priorities are. I just don't know. But issues relating to sex tend to get a lot more attention than most, and lets face it: Ratzinger hasn't been doing the Catholic church much favours with some of his recent work.

Secondly, I think the phrase "the strongest supporters of christianity are capitalist countries" is disingenous. Who cares about government support?

I know what excites me more than if a government "supports" Christians, or permits their practices, is hearing about people turning to Christ. The fastest growing Christian communities in the world are in those in countries whose governments or populace actively persecute Christians. This is certainly the case in China, a country which has (if what I hear is accurate) the fastest growing proportion of Christians in the world.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

First of all, I think you might be confusing the actions of Christians and Christian churches with what we know about Christ. It's understandable for someone to expect Christians to live as Christ commands, but quite frankly we suck at it. God expects perfection, and we don't provide.

Fair comment.

As far as I can tell (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) Excelsior was talking about what Christ was concerned with; he didn't talk about how Christians have messed up the implementation.

Well my point is that christians messing up the impementation has an awful lot to do with the image of christ we have today.

I also suspect that you might be confusing how much press and attention an issue gets with how much it means to the Catholic church. This is just a suspicion; I don't pretend to understand how the Catholic church is run or what their priorities are. I just don't know. But issues relating to sex tend to get a lot more attention than most, and lets face it: Ratzinger hasn't been doing the Catholic church much favours with some of his recent work.

No, I would never use the catholic church as a model for christianity.

Secondly, I think the phrase "the strongest supporters of christianity are capitalist countries" is disingenous. Who cares about government support?

The question should be, who cares who the churches support. It seems to me of late that an awful lot of christian communites are in bed with the governments. This is a political move on their part but hardly in line with the teachings of Jesus.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

Well my point is that christians messing up the impementation has an awful lot to do with the image of christ we have today.

Very quickly, as I'm just running out the door: I know this. Jesus talks about it, and indeed commands us to be "the salt and the light". That doesn't mean that we can sit back and be content that "we are saved, why don't people think we're great?"; it is that by earnestly following Christ others will notice something different about us. Not that we can point to ourselves, but that we can point to God.

I'm sure Excelsior the full-time Christian will go into more detail later on, and correct any heresies I've just said.

Excelsior

The fulltime Christian would just like to point these three things out:

Full Time Christian wrote:

Man has not evolved in any meaningful way since the time of Jesus.

Your last two posts are fairly irrelevant. Man from different eras may be biologically distinguishable but if you can prove ("as any scientist could" - I have a degree in computer science so can I do it!?!) that affects their intelligence or their civilisation or barbarism in any way, publish it. Explain then the 7 genocides of the 1900's or the continuance of slavery.

Secondly, don't talk about my family on the bulletin board. I am reporting that and expect it to be culled.

Finally, Manach needs the big ups from his #1 homeboy over here. If anyone was to claim the title of best poster it has to be the only guy on boards.ie who understands Catholicism.

GuanYin

Excelsior wrote:

Your last two posts are fairly irrelevant. Man from different eras may be biologically distinguishable but if you can prove ("as any scientist could" - I have a degree in computer science so can I do it!?!) that affects their intelligence or their civilisation or barbarism in any way, publish it. Explain then the 7 genocides of the 1900's or the continuance of slavery.

Yes with the proper equipment and maybe 2 days in a lab you could.

Secondly, fair enough, but technology is in some philosophies an extension of evolution, or a way of speeding it up. In any case, MY original point is that because of technology we are more educated and have a better understanding of the world around us and better records of what is going on. It would highly unlikely that the son of God could make an appearance on earth today without his claims being confirmed or debunked with real evidence. We now live in a world where emperical evidence for almost anything exists. Incidently and this is an aside, in these technologically advanced societies, the tendancy to shy away from barbarism is evident that one may argue that does not occur in the less technological societies at present.

Secondly, don't talk about my family on the bulletin board. I am reporting that and expect it to be culled.

I believe you talked about your family, while also trying to insult me, I just referenced your remark. But if the moderator sees fit to cull, I should hope that he also repremands you for thinly veiled insult.

Finally, Manach needs the big ups from his #1 homeboy over here. If anyone was to claim the title of best poster it has to be the only guy on boards.ie who understands Catholicism.

I wasn't giving you a title, just my opinion, however your ability to ignore the main points I make and focus on side themes to suit your arguments, coupled with your needless pettiness is slowly detracting from your credibility.

stevenmu

JustHalf wrote:

Christianity is a down and dirty faith. Any buzz one might get off the Holy Spirit is secondary, it is not the goal. The goal is service. We are called to serve God.

Apologies if I'm wandering off-topic here but is this not describing Catholicism as opposed to Christianity at large ? I'm thinking of the americanised forms of christianity in particular here, having worked for a few months with a guy who was also a minister. It seems to me that their faith is based more around getting the "buzz", by which I assume you mean being saved by Jesus and getting to heaven or similar. Their means of achieving this is by serving God. I found this a nice contrast to the Catholic teachings I grew up with which were more of a "serve God or go to hell" kind of mentality.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

And I really hope that given Claire's history that the "strange men" comment isn't an insult that needs reporting to the moderator.

Oi.

Syke, you see insults that aren't there, and react to these ghosts with real insults of your own.

Please, can we keep the discussion civil? You are not under attack.

If you want to discuss this with me, use PMs.

Yoda

JustHalf wrote:

Yoda, Christianity isn't about achieving (to use your terminology) "transcendant states of awareness". We aren't told to seek out some spiritual high, we are told to serve God.

I'm not sure I take kindly to your appointing yourself the interpreter of "what Christianity is about". You're missing an "in my opinion" here.

Having said that, I would ask you, before you defend your view of Christianity, to read what I originally wrote. I suggested that when one looks at human cultures worldwide, you find ALWAYS people who have had some sort of transcendant experience. Many of them -- most perhaps -- describe it in terms of touching godhead somehow. I suggested that this appears to be a human universal: that we, little bits of consciousness embodied in the World of Form, are hardwired and/or softwired to touch that Transcendent. This would be -- no... this *is* -- a human universal, and must be reckoned with by any person of faith. Why? Because even if one puts Jesus in a class of his own, there's still all the Christian mystics to compare with all the non-Christian mystics. What's going on? Something human, that's for sure. I did not say anything about the "goal" of "achieving" "transcendent states of awareness" either. I talked about the fact that some individuals have "experienced" such states.

Christianity is a down and dirty faith.

Restate this without slang, please. I have no idea what you intend by it.

Any buzz one might get off the Holy Spirit is secondary, it is not the goal.

That's rather interesting. Patañjali says much the same in his Yoga Sutras. To paraphrase: "weird things might happen to you in these states of consciousness, but don't let them distract you from the goal."

The goal is service. We are called to serve God.

That's certainly true in Islam (which is a word meaning "submission"). What specific precept of Jesus are you referring to here, with regard to "the" goal?

I think you have the concept of "the Kingdom of God" a bit screwy, I'll write more on this when I have the chance.

I did not refer to "the Kingdom of God". I referred to "the Kingdom". I do not belive I have the concept "screwy", but I would be interested to hear your response to what I actually said. And I said it's a metaphor and I tried to explore that thought a bit.

JustHalf

Yoda wrote:

I'm not sure I take kindly to your appointing yourself the interpreter of "what Christianity is about". You're missing an "in my opinion" here.

I'm appointing myself an interpreter of what Christianity is about. I don't know why you're assuming a claim of exclusivity.

Yoda wrote:

That's certainly true in Islam (which is a word meaning "submission"). What specific precept of Jesus are you referring to here, with regard to "the" goal?

Well, I was referring to the whole thing, and not any particular precept. But, to pin it down to specific verses:

Jesus makes it clear that the greatest commandment is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind", but have a look at how Jesus identifies this love. If we love Jesus, we will serve him. It will be evidence of our love, as it is a consequence of it.

Yoda wrote:

I did not refer to "the Kingdom of God". I referred to "the Kingdom". I do not belive I have the concept "screwy", but I would be interested to hear your response to what I actually said. And I said it's a metaphor and I tried to explore that thought a bit.

What Kingdom are you referring to? If you are referencing the text (and I hope you are) then I ask... how can you not believe that "the Kingdom" Jesus refers to is not "the Kingdom of God"?

Jesus uses the terms "the Kingdom", "the Kingdom of God" and "the Kingdom of Heaven" almost interchangeably. A quick search of the gospels for the word Kingdom shows this. Of particular note is Matthew 19:23-25, where both terms are used to refer to the same thing.

I'd be interested in hearing about what you are referring to when you mention "the Kingdom", because I honestly don't have any clear idea about what you mean.

More (hopefully) tomorrow, after choir practice. I'm not even joking

Yoda

I'd really rather appreciate it if you would address the substantive points of my discussion with you.

JustHalf

No problem... just delay replying until I answer your post in full.

JustHalf

Yoda wrote:

Having said that, I would ask you, before you defend your view of Christianity, to read what I originally wrote. I suggested that when one looks at human cultures worldwide, you find ALWAYS people who have had some sort of transcendant experience. Many of them -- most perhaps -- describe it in terms of touching godhead somehow. I suggested that this appears to be a human universal: that we, little bits of consciousness embodied in the World of Form, are hardwired and/or softwired to touch that Transcendent. This would be -- no... this *is* -- a human universal, and must be reckoned with by any person of faith. Why? Because even if one puts Jesus in a class of his own, there's still all the Christian mystics to compare with all the non-Christian mystics. What's going on? Something human, that's for sure. I did not say anything about the "goal" of "achieving" "transcendent states of awareness" either. I talked about the fact that some individuals have "experienced" such states.

It would seem I have misinterpreted you.

I would take a different interpretation, one that I think makes a lot of sense. I can't make much sense of what you're saying, though this could simply be down to how late it is.

I don't think God confines experiences of Him to Christians. If He did, then I and many others may not have become a Christian. I think what is at issue here is the interpretation of these experiences. I believe that Christianity is right, and other religions are wrong.* But let me expand on that, by quoting something from Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. (I don't know if you've read it, but I suggest you do... it's great stuff).

I have been asked to tell you what Christians believe, and I am going to begin by telling you on thing that Christians do not need to believe. If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all those religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic - there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong; but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.

Yoda wrote:

Restate this without slang, please. I have no idea what you intend by it.

What I mean is, that Christianity is about getting ones hands dirty. Doing real work, doing real good.

Yoda wrote:

That's rather interesting. Patañjali says much the same in his Yoga Sutras. To paraphrase: "weird things might happen to you in these states of consciousness, but don't let them distract you from the goal."

You haven't mentioned what the goal is. But I think you know now where I stand on this. I agree completely with Lewis' statement quoted above.

* This is not intolerance... let's not lead ourselves down the idiotic road where we refuse to truly disagree with people for fear of being "intolerant". For example, I disagree with a lot of what the SWP says - I think on several issues they are completely barking up the wrong tree - but I tolerate their beliefs.