True Follower's Of Christ

[Amanda]

Yes you are right, but I think it may be more than a few nights. I don't buy the whole coming here to share the gospel thing. There's lots of places to go on this planet to do that. To me everything always comes back to what the individual is getting out of it. Someone claiming to be led by the Lord, is really feeling drawn by something in themselves for themselves. They can symbolize that impluse by putting the face of a god to it if it serves them, but in the end it is about them personally. It is interesting to consider, but we may never know.

 

Antlerman, you have probably done more than you know... and many others here too. Some things I use to believe, I defended for quite awhile. Then one day I'm driving down the road thinking about some remarks made about what I was defending, and started to think about the logic of it... even in ways that was not mentioned to me, and I realized I was way off. Then there are times I researched the net to get ammunition to prove someone wrong, and finding they were more informed than I, I realized they were right. One time someone made a single sentence post to me that changed my thinking drastically. Someone named Vixen, or something like that, did that to me... just a ONE sentence post! It takes time to face these things, and maybe our subconscious will only allow it once it feels we can handle it. You know, it gets a little shaky inside sometimes when we initially hear this stuff. :ohmy: -- --

[julian]

I agree completely – and still – within all through all – and beyond all I experience:

• First intent/mind as a precipitator of all that is (and every will be and ever was)
  
• Action/energy moving out from the first intent/awareness that something could be – could take form and function
  
• And finally actual physical manifestation of the first intent which precipitated it all.
  

 

If you agree that “nature proves the concept of the trinity wrong”, then why do you still believe that very concept? Look, nothing is originated, as I’ve said. Your insistence on the point that there is an ultimate source for everything is as misled as it is flawed. Second, there is no action “moving out from the first intent” not only because there is no “first intent” but also because that would indicate something being created out of intent, when in fact we see that things already in existence are the true objects of this.

 

Your “take on it” is forgetting to take into account the years I did not call myself Christian. The years I spent studying (and applying) other – (new age and eastern) forms of spirituality. Your “take on it” is forgetting to take into account that I’ve already tried the “foods” of different cultures, and although I found the experience useful and would not change it – had I to do it over again – I did CHOOSE to come back to Christianity.

 

I’ve always had a problem with Thoreau. Sure, he had some great ideas, but his take on religion really didn’t sit well with me. Why would this be, especially when I appreciate many of his writings? Well, he basically took Vedic thought and eastern philosophy, ripped it from its true identity and tried to give it a label that it should not have. The “oversoul”? What? Try “Brahman”. Please. Forgive me for saying this, but I consider it plagiarism.

 

That’s one of my problems here. Just about every idea you have presented is so far from Christianity that I can scarcely express it. The Bible and Christian thought is in express opposition to what you and the Unitarian Universalists and the Transcendentalists say. Why, then, would anyone try to retain the label of that very dogma? Why? I ask you, do you really find what you cook to be from your recipe book? I, personally, do not, and a quick look at that book should tell anyone that much.

 

Although the experience that precipitated my return to Christianity was a surprise – and not my choice. Ultimately reclaiming Christianity was my choice. It was not an easy choice to make, either Julian. It required hard work. Contemplative Christianity is where I feel at home, it took me years to discover it – after moving back into the Christian circle. You may see in it what you want to see, that is your choice. But given the simple fact that I have had my own experiences outside Christianity, given the simple fact that my mother is Deist, my father spent many years as agnostic/atheist and that I’ve siblings who are something other than Christian – you are diminishing my own path by stating that the accessibility of Contemplative Christianity is “like someone being unwilling to try new foods”. I tried them, I even liked some of them, I still cook them occasionally, my preference is for the path of Contemplative Christianity. It’s not important that you comprehend the path I’ve chosen – I can accept that. But, to simply write off another person’s path as “trying to hide from the very dogma they adhere to” is a disservice to the effort of learning about another’s path.

 

Open Minded, an objective and unbiased look at the Bible shows one all they need to know. A similar look at history shows one even more than that. To be honest, the Bible remains the same, with all of its flaws and intolerance and worse, and it matters little if you contemplate it. I’m learning about your path, and I do think it leads to where it should, but in my opinion it is not paved and marked out in the manner you say. I'm arguing the label more than anything else, not the path.

 

Maybe so, that is your right. But, in reading any great piece of literature we “inject meaning” from our own experience. That is what makes a piece of work literature rather than just a book. The ability of literature to transcend time and culture and world-view.

 

By the same token, you cannot say that a great piece of literature is about something which it is not. You can’t say that “Macbeth” is about the injustice of monarchies in general, because it’s not. You can’t say that “A Streetcar Named Desire” is about the relations between the different ethnic groups of New Orleans, because it’s not. You can’t say that “Things Fall Apart” is about the way different Ibo tribes interacted during the colonial period, because it’s not. You can recognize and find meaning in a book, but you cannot just say that there is a certain meaning in a book when it simply isn’t there.

 

I refer you to another post – by Alice this time.

 

OK (using bold now).

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=140393

When my deconversion was first begining to surface I had a conversation with a friend who was on the 'fringes' of my fundamentalist literalist church, it had occurred to me that a belief in a literal Adam and Eve was rather foolish - but I struggled to accept this ... I saw ahead of me everything I held to be true crumbling away if I acknowledged that the creation story wasn't 'literally true'.

 

That's coz I had a mindset that was completely caught up in a belief in the Bible as the word of God - a black/white view of the world that said you are all in or all out.

 

I remember my friend saying to me ...'just because it never happened don't mean it ain't the truth'. It took me ages to get my head around that!

 

To quite the contrary, Christianity hinges on the assumption that it actually did happen, so your own concession exposes the ignorance of that mindset.

 

It's the fundamentalist kind of thinking that leads people to think they have to 'throw everything out' and to those we've left behind assuming we have ... the number of friends who half expect me to become an agent of the 'dark side' is quite unnerving at times, like I'm going to nick their TV on the way out or something.

 

I thought of this today ~ In defence of Cherry Pickers ...

 

Fundamentalist christians have all kinds of cherries in the pie of life they bake and feast on. They don't examine the cherries - they all go in ... the bitter ones, the stones, the diseased and wormy ones, it ruins their pie but as long as they believe hard enough that it tastes good (and the occasional mouthful truly is) they can convince themselves it is - however bad it tastes.

 

Where do I begin? Fundamentalists drink hemlock and claim it is a smoothie. Do not be so short-sighted as to think there is an atom of taste in their bowl.

 

The Bible is a bowl of cherries and I am resolved to cherry pick for my pie. I'll season it with a little Taoist cinnamon and sprinkle of some buddhist sugar if I fancy it - sometimes I'll add a little celtic christianity custard. I'll put in whatever I want and leave out whatever I want, and I'll eat it with whatever I want as well.

 

First, you cannot ignore the entire mindset, you cannot ignore the entire meaning of the book and its “teachings”. You cannot ignore that, because you will be admittedly ignorant of what you accept.

 

The Bible contains NONE of the ingredients you seek (only the most nauseating poison). There is not one cherry of truth, not one fruit of edibility in that bowl, your insistence that there are such things is in defiance of the reality. While you mistakenly think there is a cherry of reincarnation, it most certainly does not exist. Furthermore, it matters little if you try to “sprinkle” another philosophy (as if it was your petty possession), because that is not only dishonest to the recipe, not only disrespectful of what is being sprinkled, but also meaningless if the pie is bad.

 

Because when it comes to it ... it makes sense to cherry pick, its only a fundamentalist mindset that says - its all or nothing. its only if someone is claiming that the bible is a magical written by god book that this applies - as soon as one accepts that it is a compilation of ideas about man's search to understand spirituality - it becomes clear that the way to use it is to cherry pick and it's as helpful to know what and why we discard some parts and why we keep other parts.

 

When it comes to it, you cherry pick nothing, because all you end up doing is blinding yourself to the reality. It is not a “compilation of ideas about man’s search to understand spirituality”, it is a compilation of insipid ideas and the most illogical, immoral and intolerant thoughts. The mere fact that you try to describe it in such a manner underscores your fallacy. I implore you, do not be so naïve as to think that such things begin to resemble any sort of edible fruit.

 

My name is Alice ... and I am a cherry picker ....

 

Hello Julian, My name is Open_Minded and I’m a cherry picker.

 

Hello.

 

But do you pick cherries? I’m sorry, but when you claim that you “pick cherries” you only find yourself with nothing, only a pan. This is ignoring the fact that the Bible's cherries are poisonous.

 

The most important thing is that you miss the part about the idea being independent, pervasive, eternal. The idea, my friend, is put into form, it is a self onto its own. An idea can be put into one form by one individual, and then put into another form by another individual without direct influence or exchange of information. The idea, however, remains constant and unchanged.

Ahhhh .... Julian..... I hadn’t missed it at all. I agree completely. In fact – that is the beauty of it – don’t you feel?

 

If you agree, then why don’t you include it? You stick to the model that has been shown to be lacking.

 

You and I don’t disagree all that much, Julian. We are just expressing different dimensions of our own beliefs. The simple reality is that humanity does experience duality. That humanity does see “creation” for lack of a better term. I’m not arguing science here – I’m talking about what I see and experience. And what I see and experience is a process of becoming – call it creation if you will. But, when I talk of the Trinity – to me it is a process of becoming – a process of UNITY or ONENESS in the becoming – a process of pure potential moving into concrete reality. And I see it everywhere, in everything – and it is beautiful – it is a dance a celebration.

 

No, we don't disagree all that much. However, there is no ultimate creation, there may be creation on a lesser level, but the true entity is continuous and has no beginning and no end. To say that there is creation is patently not true, for we can see that there is continuity and an eternal nature, not one which is created. Science bears a great amount of relevance, and so it shouldn’t be dismissed (it helps to show what I say). Why do you not see the fact that all things have been and will always be? Why do you not see that the form is created, not the “idea”? When you look past the immediate façade, you see the truth, and that is what you are missing.

 

On “unity”, I still have not seen anything to suggest that in the Bible.

 

As to your side comment: “.... got applied by an omnipotent being (which is illogical in itself no less)” escapes what I’ve been trying to convey. At any point did you see me refer to an omnipotent sky daddy out in the far reaches of the universe “creating”? No, my understanding of God is not about a “being” of any sort.

 

I trust that you are aware that the Bible constantly refers to its “deity” as an omnipotent being, or more appropriately, a “sky daddy”.

 

Well, gods are like us. That is the problem. As Antlerman has said, “we create god in our image”.

 

And that phrase is in direct contradiction to the Christian mindset (not to mention the Bible).

 

As a result we have wars – “my god is better than your god”. We have literalists willing to kill each other, willing to commit all sorts of horrid acts in “defense” of their god. No, I can do without anthropomorphized understandings of God. I also accept, that at this point in the history of humanity, they are still part of the overall picture. They are still part of the ONENESS, the UNITY.

 

A clarification. Polytheists (pantheists as well) and people who do believe in anthropomorphic deities do not generally claim that their god is better than another one; that is a purely monotheistic trait. The “pagans” had been tolerating other traditions and faiths and sects for centuries, and then the Christians come along and burn down or convert every non-Christian house of worship they can get their hands on. Those “literalists willing to kill each other” are all monotheists, and they do not have an anthropomorphized understanding of “god”.

 

You might notice that I don't voice agreement to your "oneness" points. I do agree, but I may not agree on the wording itself, so I'm just telling you that I completely agree with the concept and the principle.

_____________________________

 

I’m well aware of that, thank you very much. I would assume that in the time I’ve been on this board and the number of posts I’ve logged going after the literalist mindset that it would pretty common knowledge that I know my way around Biblical scholarship. Does that mean we should make no attempt to understand the language Jesus spoke in and its impact on the words that have been attributed to Jesus?

 

OK, good. However, because it was written in Greek and because the actual words of the Nazarene aren't known at all, analyzing it in Aramaic makes no sense.

 

(I have to use bold now)

 

Let me address a few things:

1st... “the idea that ‘true’ Christianity is close to Buddhism is laughable”. Julian – at any point – did you see me refer to my beliefs, my way of looking at and experiencing Christianity is “true”?

 

I started this thread – True Follower's Of Christ and this whole concept of “TRUE” anything drives me nuts. For the record – I don’t believe there is a TRUE Christianity. I don’t believe there are TRUE followers of Christ. I don’t believe there is a TRUE Buddhism, and I would be wary of any Buddhist that claimed there was. I don’t believe there is a TRUE Islam, a TRUE Hinduism, a TRUE any thing.

 

I disagree on this point, slightly. Why be wary of a “true” Buddhist, when Buddhism has been shown to be tolerant, accepting and more? It is good to be true to something which is truly tolerant. However, someone who is dedicated to following the Bible to a T will obviously not be tolerant and accepting. That is the difference and I do think it should be recognized.

 

I do believe there are ONLY true humans. And as true humans we are all capable of truly bringing hell and high water upon ourselves. As true humans we are all truly capable of experiencing the very heights and joys of heaven itself. We are truly capable of grasping the deepest insights that wisdom can give us and we are truly capable of being so caught up in ego that wisdom escapes us. As true humans we are all truly capable of knowing the infinite expressions of love and truly capable of immersing ourselves in so much anger and resentment that all we know is pain and hatred.

 

Well, we are also capable of bringing pain upon others, which is a bigger problem. At any rate, we are humans, but more importantly we are, and so we must follow the same things that all aspects of the world must follow.

 

You see what you see in the Bible and I see what I see. I refuse to get into a never-ending discussion as to who sees the TRUE picture. There is no TRUE understanding of the Bible. There is the Bible and there is personal perception of the Bible. I accept that, I’ve always accepted that. I am thankful that my parents taught me that – instead of giving me their anger and resentment about Christianity (when they left the church) they taught me objectivity. Because they let go of their own bitterness and frustrations around leaving the church, we children were able to move on with our lives without the burdens attached to anger and bitterness.

 

The Bible is still the Bible, and it is unreasonable to see something in it which is contrary to its teachings and more. This isn’t subjective, this is a book, a book that does not espouse the ideas you present. You can’t perceive something in it that is certainly not so, that’s just a fact. You may think that this is bitterness or the like (although I am beyond angry and incensed at Christianity for the insanity and delusion it has wrought upon the world and its peoples), but this has nothing to do with it. This is about objectivity, which would mean that you should see the book for what it is, not for what you want it to be.

 

Julian – you have said many times in this dialog – that you understand people can search for truth on different paths. In this we agree.

 

Yes, and in this we should agree.

 

It is obvious that the way I experience Christianity, the way I read the Bible is befuddling to you (to say the least). So – let’s leave it be where it is – and just accept each other.

 

In the end – we both have our paths and as you’ve said before – we agree on many things. What we know of each other’s paths is what we see in each other. And if we end up agreeing about so many things – things like ONENESS, non-duality, etc... then our choice of paths must be giving us something that we should both end up in a spot of agreement on the bigger issues, no?

 

I am fine with your path. Actually, I would say it bears similarities to my own (besides your ideas on the “trinity” in nature). However, you might notice while looking over my points that I rarely object to your own ideas, I object to what you chain them to (and where they are really from, but that’s meaningless). We agree on the destination, we mostly accept each other’s paths, but the other aspects are up for argument, and even I may seem less than accepting on these issues, I recognize their lack of real significance and importance.

[NotBlinded]

I just wanted to say that their were Christians before there was Christianity so who has the right to claim that they 'know' that ALL of it is nonsense?

[Open_Minded]

I do believe there are ONLY true humans. And as true humans we are all capable of truly bringing hell and high water upon ourselves. As true humans we are all truly capable of experiencing the very heights and joys of heaven itself. We are truly capable of grasping the deepest insights that wisdom can give us and we are truly capable of being so caught up in ego that wisdom escapes us. As true humans we are all truly capable of knowing the infinite expressions of love and truly capable of immersing ourselves in so much anger and resentment that all we know is pain and hatred.

Well, we are also capable of bringing pain upon others, which is a bigger problem. At any rate, we are humans, but more importantly we are, and so we must follow the same things that all aspects of the world must follow.

 

Yes ... we are Julian. Yes - we are all "Capable of bringing pain upon others". I couldn't agree more.

 

We are all capable of being so caught up in our own view of the world that we entirely miss the validity of another person's view. We are all capable of this. And it can lead to much pain - pain as simple as a misunderstanding between two individuals all the way to pain through wars upon wars. We ARE ALL capable of participating in this kind of pain delivery.

 

And for that reason - I do not intend to go any further with this discussion. I have never asked anyone on this board to agree with what I see in the Bible or what I see in Christianity. I have gone out of my way to avoid discussion of my personal path (unless asked by others).

 

Your anger at Christianity and the Bible is not beyond me (and I'm sure you've many good reasons for it). But - you are missing one very important point.

 

I have CHOSEN Christianity. And many, many people follow the same path I do and it brings them to the same place it has brought me. We are not dull idiots. We did not choose a path without thought and exploration of other paths. WE CAME BACK AFTER EXPLORING OTHER PATHS THAT LEFT US LACKING.

 

Call it what you want, Julian. Really - I don't care what you think of me, what you think of my choices, what you think of the Bible or of Christianity. But there is a very fine line between "agreeing to disagree" and coming at another person in total disregard for who that person is and how they have come to be in the place that they are at.

 

We need to let this be ... Julian .. because as you said, we are all truly "Capable of bringing pain upon others".

[NotBlinded]

You know, when I was in college, I took a history of religion class and we went a visitied a Hindu temple and the Priest was using an apple for a metaphor for all the world's religions. He said that if you take this apple and cut it into many pieces, you get separate parts of the same whole. I just loved that.

[julian]

I do believe there are ONLY true humans. And as true humans we are all capable of truly bringing hell and high water upon ourselves. As true humans we are all truly capable of experiencing the very heights and joys of heaven itself. We are truly capable of grasping the deepest insights that wisdom can give us and we are truly capable of being so caught up in ego that wisdom escapes us. As true humans we are all truly capable of knowing the infinite expressions of love and truly capable of immersing ourselves in so much anger and resentment that all we know is pain and hatred.

Well, we are also capable of bringing pain upon others, which is a bigger problem. At any rate, we are humans, but more importantly we are, and so we must follow the same things that all aspects of the world must follow.

 

Yes ... we are Julian. Yes - we are all "Capable of bringing pain upon others". I couldn't agree more.

 

We are all capable of being so caught up in our own view of the world that we entirely miss the validity of another person's view. We are all capable of this. And it can lead to much pain - pain as simple as a misunderstanding between two individuals all the way to pain through wars upon wars. We ARE ALL capable of participating in this kind of pain delivery.

 

And for that reason - I do not intend to go any further with this discussion. I have never asked anyone on this board to agree with what I see in the Bible or what I see in Christianity. I have gone out of my way to avoid discussion of my personal path (unless asked by others).

 

Your anger at Christianity and the Bible is not beyond me (and I'm sure you've many good reasons for it). But - you are missing one very important point.

 

I have CHOSEN Christianity. And many, many people follow the same path I do and it brings them to the same place it has brought me. We are not dull idiots. We did not choose a path without thought and exploration of other paths. WE CAME BACK AFTER EXPLORING OTHER PATHS THAT LEFT US LACKING.

 

Call it what you want, Julian. Really - I don't care what you think of me, what you think of my choices, what you think of the Bible or of Christianity. But there is a very fine line between "agreeing to disagree" and coming at another person in total disregard for who that person is and how they have come to be in the place that they are at.

 

We need to let this be ... Julian .. because as you said, we are all truly "Capable of bringing pain upon others".

 

With my "anger at Christianity", that was a side comment that has very little to do with my arguments.

 

Although you could say that I may have overstepped a line on a few occassions, I did make sure to clarify that I rarely criticized your beliefs, only the identity of them. There is a line between those two as well. I have absolutely nothing against you, and I have a ton of respect for your beliefs and ideas, so please don't think otherwise.

 

Know that I didn’t intend to insult you or your beliefs, but if you feel that my emotions shone through, that is solely my fault (that’s been known to happen to me). However, I do feel that this discussion took its course, and if there is one thing that I do not think is unreasonable is that people be honest.

 

As I said, people can hurt one another, and that is a problem, but intent counts for much of it, does it not (edited)?

 

However, I would like to apologize for any unnecessary and hurtful comments (by the way, my comment on the Nataraj was something I was going to delete, but I forgot to. Sorry about that, I thought it was uncalled for then and I do now).

[Antlerman]

Again... where's Amy who is supposed in this thread? Oh yes, posting wildly once again trying to prove the resurrection. My turn finally.... *SIGH*. So many better things to discuss. Yet, fact is more important that living life for the truth seeker. Sad, truth is what we make it. So it's pointless to argue one faith over another. *sigh*

 

"My god's bigger than your god." Blah... grow up already. Let's explore possiblities, not boxes damn it.

[Open_Minded]

You know, when I was in college, I took a history of religion class and we went a visitied a Hindu temple and the Priest was using an apple for a metaphor for all the world's religions. He said that if you take this apple and cut it into many pieces, you get separate parts of the same whole. I just loved that.

 

NotBlinded....

 

I know what you mean. Throughout my adult years I have taken great joy in finding the commonalities between the world's religions. It is an exercise which reminds me that we all have something in common - that we are all searching for the same ONENESS.

 

Following is something that I found years ago. I keep this in my purse - it reminds me daily that we humans have more in common than we do differences.

 

___________________________________

 

This poem was written by By: Padmasambhava - He Lived iin the 8th Century. He also regarded as the author of the Tibetan Book of the Dead. I don't believe this poem is in the Tibetan Book of the Dead. I found it in another book and it was attributed to Padmasambhava with a notation that he wrote the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Anyway the poem follows:

 

 

Astounding, I tell you the self-creating clear Light

has always been!

Astounding! It is parentless pure

Consciousness!

Astounding! Primal Wisdom

has no creator!

Astounding! It has never known birth &

could never die!

Astounding! It is obvious everywhere but

with no one there to see it.

Astounding, I tell you! It has been lost in illusion

but no harm has touched it!

Astounding! It is enlightenment itself, yet

no good has come to it!

Astounding! It exists in everyone, but has

been overlooked!

Astounding! Yet we go on looking for

something other!

Astounding! It is the only thing that is ours yet we look for it elsewhere!

Astounding! Astounding!

 

Anyway I saw a lot of parallels with the first chapter of John (IF ONE DOES NOT READ JOHN LITERALLY - OF COURSE)

 

Word made flesh passages - John 1:1-14

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.

What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

 

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light but he came to testify to the light.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

 

He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him

.

He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him

. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

 

And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth.

 

Anyway - it's this type of thing that motivates me in my search for understanding between the world's religions. We really all are searching for the same ONENESS (for lack of a better term). We just have different languages and traditions to express it.

 

(Antlerman) Let's explore possiblities, not boxes damn it.

I agree, Antlerman, I've been trying to read that pdf file I linked to yesterday. http://www.uleth.ca/edu/grad/pdf/thesis_theriault.pdf

 

It does have some interesting things to say about the non-dualistic experience. Hopefully I'll have some time to put thoughts together about what I'm reading.....

[julian]

Again... where's Amy who is supposed in this thread? Oh yes, posting wildly once again trying to prove the resurrection. My turn finally.... *SIGH*. So many better things to discuss. Yet, fact is more important that living life for the truth seeker. Sad, truth is what we make it. So it's pointless to argue one faith over another. *sigh*

 

"My god's bigger than your god." Blah... grow up already. Let's explore possiblities, not boxes damn it.

 

Is that directed toward anyone perchance?

 

Anyway, truth is not what we make it. Truth is truth, and it is not a subject to change or alteration. So no, it really isn't pointless.

[Open_Minded]

With my "anger at Christianity", that was a side comment that has very little to do with my arguments.

 

Although you could say that I may have overstepped a line on a few occassions, I did make sure to clarify that I rarely criticized your beliefs, only the identity of them. There is a line between those two as well. I have absolutely nothing against you, and I have a ton of respect for your beliefs and ideas, so please don't think otherwise.

 

Know that I didn’t intend to insult you or your beliefs, but if you feel that my emotions shone through, that is solely my fault (that’s been known to happen to me). However, I do feel that this discussion took its course, and if there is one thing that I do not think is unreasonable is that people be honest.

 

As I said, people can hurt one another, and that is a problem, but intent counts for much of it, does it not (edited)?

 

However, I would like to apologize for any unnecessary and hurtful comments (by the way, my comment on the Nataraj was something I was going to delete, but I forgot to. Sorry about that, I thought it was uncalled for then and I do now).

 

Thank you for the apology, Julian. These types of discussions are sometimes difficult on all involved. Sometimes it is best to just let things be.

 

We have much in common - these commonalities are what we should focus on.

 

If anything I said caused you pain - I also apologize.

[Antlerman]

Again... where's Amy who is supposed in this thread? Oh yes, posting wildly once again trying to prove the resurrection. My turn finally.... *SIGH*. So many better things to discuss. Yet, fact is more important that living life for the truth seeker. Sad, truth is what we make it. So it's pointless to argue one faith over another. *sigh*

 

"My god's bigger than your god." Blah... grow up already. Let's explore possiblities, not boxes damn it.

 

Is that directed toward anyone perchance?

 

Anyway, truth is not what we make it. Truth is truth, and it is not a subject to change or alteration. So no, it really isn't pointless.

Yes it was. That someone was specifically named in the 3rd word of my first sentence above. See the subtitle of this topic - "amy-marie". She is not participating in this topic which was directly raised in response to something she said. Beyond that it also expresses a general tone of feeling exasperated by claims of one religion being better than another religion by people all over. It all seems so utterly pointless, fruitless, and detrimental to those who claim it and to those who are pushed away exclusivist attitudes.

 

I don't know that you are exclusivist in your views, so it really was not directed at you as you seem to suggest. However, if you are exclusivist, then in a general way it would apply to you also, though not intended directly. I see no benefit whatsoever to being exclusivist in a global society. On the contrary, I see it as a view that condones actions of great harm in the world. It is anti-spiritual.

 

I disagree completely that "truth is truth". What truth, and from whose perspective? Religious truth or scientific truth? I always say that if you want God to work as a truth for people, you have to keep him/she/it/them beyond the temporal world. If you make "god" objective truth, then you make "god" something that can be falsified . Something than can be falsified is not something you can place a transcendent faith in, a faith that is intended to pull you out of the mundane world. Gods need to be beyond us, beyond this plane to be of use.

 

This is where I see traditional Christianity failing is in trying to make these mythical events something that actually happened in the real world, and can be corroborated objectively. They are killing its power by calling it into question! In my view, they are weak in faith needing it to be based in reality. They are unable to move out of themselves into the world of myth. They need to have one foot in the world at all times. Not really walking on water for them, is it?

 

Gods exist because people believe in them. Zeus exists now in a memory, a page of past belief. But a couple millennia ago, Zeus existed in a vital, living, breathing way because of his existence in the beliefs of others. He was truth to them, and rightly so. He was real in their world. His presence was felt - like the smoke from a fire. He lived in the lives of people. Today however, he is not "Truth" to us. He is memory, a god of the past. So, did they believe in a lie?

[julian]

Again... where's Amy who is supposed in this thread? Oh yes, posting wildly once again trying to prove the resurrection. My turn finally.... *SIGH*. So many better things to discuss. Yet, fact is more important that living life for the truth seeker. Sad, truth is what we make it. So it's pointless to argue one faith over another. *sigh*

 

"My god's bigger than your god." Blah... grow up already. Let's explore possiblities, not boxes damn it.

 

Is that directed toward anyone perchance?

 

Anyway, truth is not what we make it. Truth is truth, and it is not a subject to change or alteration. So no, it really isn't pointless.

Yes it was. That someone was specifically named in the 3rd word of my first sentence above. See the subtitle of this topic - "amy-marie". She is not participating in this topic which was directly raised in response to something she said. Beyond that it also expresses a general tone of feeling exasperated by claims of one religion being better than another religion by people all over. It all seems so utterly pointless, fruitless, and detrimental to those who claim it and to those who are pushed away exclusivist attitudes.

 

I don't know that you are exclusivist in your views, so it really was not directed at you as you seem to suggest. However, if you are exclusivist, then in a general way it would apply to you also, though not intended directly. I see no benefit whatsoever to being exclusivist in a global society. On the contrary, I see it as a view that condones actions of great harm in the world. It is anti-spiritual.

 

I disagree completely that "truth is truth". What truth, and from whose perspective? Religious truth or scientific truth? I always say that if you want God to work as a truth for people, you have to keep him/she/it/them beyond the temporal world. If you make "god" objective truth, then you make "god" something that can be falsified . Something than can be falsified is not something you can place a transcendent faith in, a faith that is intended to pull you out of the mundane world. Gods need to be beyond us, beyond this plane to be of use.

 

This is where I see traditional Christianity failing is in trying to make these mythical events something that actually happened in the real world, and can be corroborated objectively. They are killing its power by calling it into question! In my view, they are weak in faith needing it to be based in reality. They are unable to move out of themselves into the world of myth. They need to have one foot in the world at all times. Not really walking on water for them, is it?

 

Gods exist because people believe in them. Zeus exists now in a memory, a page of past belief. But a couple millennia ago, Zeus existed in a vital, living, breathing way because of his existence in the beliefs of others. He was truth to them, and rightly so. He was real in their world. His presence was felt - like the smoke from a fire. He lived in the lives of people. Today however, he is not "Truth" to us. He is memory, a god of the past. So, did they believe in a lie?

 

I was referring to the second part, or the general tone in your words (I was wondering if it was directed at anyone but I guess not). I was just looking for clarification, that's all. I do know what you mean by thinking that it's meaningless, but I also think that there is a great amount of worth in it as well, and that was what I was saying.

 

Well, I hate exclusivist views as you do. However, it is the seemingly contradictory stance much like "being intolerant of intolerance" that I take on this manner, which is that I have no patience for exclusivist mindsets or dogmas. This does not mean that I'm intolerant, that was a simile, but I do object to such a worldview, and I do not think that position is unreasonable.

 

Truth, by definition, is not subjective. Although truth is unalterable, the fact is that you can come to it through many different ways. Let us take a circle; from the outside of a circle to the center point, an infinite number of lines can be drawn. This means that there are endless ways to reach that one center, that one "truth". Why do you try to separate science from religion? The world remains the same whether you look at it through a telescope of science or of the soul. When you see that there is an objective and unchanging aspect to existence, the claim that it can be falsified is false. Gods can be of the next plane of of this plane, but that changes nothing.

 

Well, I have a great number of problems with Christianity, and the thing you mentioned is one of them. I agree (basically).

 

Individual gods may be thrust into life, into a more tangible existence because of belief. However, although I do hold that gods do die, the deity is not wiped out because of a lack of worship. Zeus, to use your example, may not have been evoked in such a way until recently, but does that mean lightning was no longer an aspect of him? Because Poseidon was not worshipped, did the seas dry up and earthquakes stop? No, and that shows that not only the deity still existed in a way but the idea and the purpose of that deity did not change or lessen at all, and that is very important to recognize.

 

Just my opinion.

[Antlerman]

Truth, by definition, is not subjective. Although truth is unalterable, the fact is that you can come to it through many different ways. Let us take a circle; from the outside of a circle to the center point, an infinite number of lines can be drawn. This means that there are endless ways to reach that one center, that one "truth". Why do you try to separate science from religion? The world remains the same whether you look at it through a telescope of science or of the soul. When you see that there is an objective and unchanging aspect to existence, the claim that it can be falsified is false. Gods can be of the next plane of of this plane, but that changes nothing.

Observation negates absolute objectivity. Two people looking at the same one thing see two things. Where I make the distinction between science and religion is in methodologies. Empirical sciences deal with the natural world, and in particular the modern scientific method is a system that strives to remove biases, and subjectivity in the analysis of the data, and in creating models of explanation, that can be corroborated more objectively through tests, predications, etc. Religion relies on subjective impressions and utilities logic arguments to support hypothesis. In other words, when it comes to the natural world, religion is less reliable as a means of determining ojectively what is being observed.

 

But as far as "truth" goes, if we are talking things like "meaning", which is what religion deals with, then you can have no objective truth. Meaning is personal. Truth is what is true to us. In science that "truth" is far more easily agreed upon due to the objectivity being preserved through biases being reduced or eliminated through the method, but even so, it is not ever an absolute due to the fact that we cannot have knowledge of all things in the universe to eliminate all other possibilities. Something else may come along that overturns what we knew as truth. So much, much more so for religious thought.

 

All this to point out that since it is really not possible to know truth absolutely, no one has the right to make a religion out of any "truth" where they expect others to adhere to it, or worse yet to persecute those who don't.

 

 

Individual gods may be thrust into life, into a more tangible existence because of belief. However, although I do hold that gods do die, the deity is not wiped out because of a lack of worship. Zeus, to use your example, may not have been evoked in such a way until recently, but does that mean lightning was no longer an aspect of him? Because Poseidon was not worshipped, did the seas dry up and earthquakes stop? No, and that shows that not only the deity still existed in a way but the idea and the purpose of that deity did not change or lessen at all, and that is very important to recognize.

 

Just my opinion.

I am very intrigued by your thoughts on this. As I understand how you are speaking of say Poseidon, he is still real since the things he embodied as a deity still exists? You and I are well familiar with his name and he still has a place in our language to describe the sea. What of the gods lost to history, wiped out along with their believers? Is there a place in language for them, in mythological thought, sort of like an anonymous shrine to the unknown god? I'm being serious in asking this, as I sense there is a way to look at all this I am not familiar with and new information for is all part of what shapes how I understand the world.

 

From what I am hearing, are you in agreement that deities existence is tied to ours? Understand, my thinking is shaped by Western ways of thought, and I am well aware there are many ways to look at things. I was going to ask you if you are culturally Hindu or Eastern in your upbringing, or are you Western and converted to Hinduism?

[Golden Meadows]

Antlerman: "All this to point out that since it is really not possible to know truth absolutely, no one has the right to make a religion out of any "truth" where they expect others to adhere to it, or worse yet to persecute those who don't."

 

Very well put and highly relevant to the present world situation with the emergence,again, of religious fanaticism and all the troubles/violence that comes in its wake.

[julian]

Observation negates absolute objectivity. Two people looking at the same one thing see two things. Where I make the distinction between science and religion is in methodologies. Empirical sciences deal with the natural world, and in particular the modern scientific method is a system that strives to remove biases, and subjectivity in the analysis of the data, and in creating models of explanation, that can be corroborated more objectively through tests, predications, etc. Religion relies on subjective impressions and utilities logic arguments to support hypothesis. In other words, when it comes to the natural world, religion is less reliable as a means of determining ojectively what is being observed.

 

However, the fact remains that that one thing is still that one thing, regardless of how many impressions it creates. Two people looking at the same thing see two aspects of that one thing, but the one thing is still one thing.

 

Science looks at the physical, shall we say, world, while religion looks beyond it. They may differ but the basic premises are similar, or at least they should be.

 

But as far as "truth" goes, if we are talking things like "meaning", which is what religion deals with, then you can have no objective truth. Meaning is personal. Truth is what is true to us. In science that "truth" is far more easily agreed upon due to the objectivity being preserved through biases being reduced or eliminated through the method, but even so, it is not ever an absolute due to the fact that we cannot have knowledge of all things in the universe to eliminate all other possibilities. Something else may come along that overturns what we knew as truth. So much, much more so for religious thought.

 

Meaning, like what we see when we look at an object, is personal, but what you take meaning from is not subjective. For instance, if you have 3 people hold ice cubes in their hands, one will say that it is refreshing, another will say that it is numbing and the other might say that it is wet. The object is the same, but what the individuals felt was personal and different.

 

All this to point out that since it is really not possible to know truth absolutely, no one has the right to make a religion out of any "truth" where they expect others to adhere to it, or worse yet to persecute those who don't.

 

Very true. At the same time, however, it is important to object to religions and mindsets which show no respect for other religions and worldviews. Being intolerant toward intolerance is not unreasonable at all.

 

 

I am very intrigued by your thoughts on this. As I understand how you are speaking of say Poseidon, he is still real since the things he embodied as a deity still exists? You and I are well familiar with his name and he still has a place in our language to describe the sea. What of the gods lost to history, wiped out along with their believers? Is there a place in language for them, in mythological thought, sort of like an anonymous shrine to the unknown god? I'm being serious in asking this, as I sense there is a way to look at all this I am not familiar with and new information for is all part of what shapes how I understand the world.

 

Just to warn you, I'm not guaranteeing that my response to this is going to make any real sense, so try to bear with me.

 

Well, there are a few ways to look at this. I think that I can give you my views, but of course that is nothing close to an authority (ask 10 non-monotheists a question and you'll get 55 different answers).

 

To give myself some background, I'll have to explain a little. Basically, someone's body is only their body, their soul is eternal through death and rebirth and so on and so forth. Since this is the same for all things, divine deities are no different. So, it could be accurate to say that the "body" of a deity's "true self" could be its general purpose and role in a pantheon or the world. Therefore, the actual being who is Poseidon is simply taking the role of "Poseidon" in the same way a soul is born into a body. My view is that if a god is not being honored, then a few things can happen, but my understanding would be that "lost" gods' roles would still exist, but they themselves would move on. Make sense?

 

Also, deities (IMO, of course) are both beings which embody certain aspects of the universe and are beings unto themselves at the same time. Now, I do think that Poseidon, for example, was still a being in that his aspects and his purpose (to name a few) still existed and will always exist (as in the sea and earthquakes); that being has been now increasingly formally worshipped with the recent resurgence of true Hellenic religion. However, Poseidon "himself" is a different story. Poseidon "himself" is of course not eternally Poseidon, but the role of "Poseidon" IS constant.

 

To be honest, I'm kind of confused myself, but I hope you get what I'm getting at.

 

From what I am hearing, are you in agreement that deities existence is tied to ours? Understand, my thinking is shaped by Western ways of thought, and I am well aware there are many ways to look at things. I was going to ask you if you are culturally Hindu or Eastern in your upbringing, or are you Western and converted to Hinduism?

 

First, I do think that the existence of deities is tied to our own, but there is more to it. As I've said, that deity may not remain if it is not worshipped, but that does not mean that the actual being ends or that the role that the deity encompasses ends.

 

To answer your other question, I wasn't born into Hinduism.

[Open_Minded]

Antlerman: "All this to point out that since it is really not possible to know truth absolutely, no one has the right to make a religion out of any "truth" where they expect others to adhere to it, or worse yet to persecute those who don't."

 

Very well put and highly relevant to the present world situation with the emergence,again, of religious fanaticism and all the troubles/violence that comes in its wake.

 

Golden Meadows, I couldn't agree more. I think that's why this whole idea of "true" followers of anything drives me nuts. I've been involved in interfaith-interspiritual activity and dialog for many years now. And if I've learned anything - it is that sincere people of ALL the major world religions are saddened and angered by the way their particular tradition is used to encourage and justify violence. I have talked to Buddhists who feel anger about what is happening in Sri Lanka, I've talked to Hindus who feel great pride in the work of Gandhi and feel deep saddness that the violence between Hindus and Muslims continues and is still justified by "TRUE" thinking. The pain of "TRUE" thinking is universal - indeed.

 

Following is a list of religiously based civil unrest throughout the world. This list includes all the major world religions. Certainly the monotheistic religions top the list - and these religions need to take responsibility for this. But, humans are humans and they have been using "TRUE follower" rationalizations from the beginning of human conflict and they will continue to do so. It is not the religion itself, it is the tendancy of violent human beings to inject religion into their own rationalizations for violence.

 

 

 

OOOPS... Here's the link to that list at Religious Tolerance.org

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

[Golden Meadows]

Antlerman: "All this to point out that since it is really not possible to know truth absolutely, no one has the right to make a religion out of any "truth" where they expect others to adhere to it, or worse yet to persecute those who don't."

 

Very well put and highly relevant to the present world situation with the emergence,again, of religious fanaticism and all the troubles/violence that comes in its wake.

 

Golden Meadows, I couldn't agree more. I think that's why this whole idea of "true" followers of anything drives me nuts. I've been involved in interfaith-interspiritual activity and dialog for many years now. And if I've learned anything - it is that sincere people of ALL the major world religions are saddened and angered by the way their particular tradition is used to encourage and justify violence.

GM:This has also been my experience as well. I think that economic oppression, discrimination, political issues can hijack religion and use divine sanction for the most horrible acts.

 

I have talked to Buddhists who feel anger about what is happening in Sri Lanka, I've talked to Hindus who feel great pride in the work of Gandhi and feel deep saddness that the violence between Hindus and Muslims continues and is still justified by "TRUE" thinking. The pain of "TRUE" thinking is universal - indeed.

GM:The way I look at this issue of truth: I do believe there is such a thing as objective truth that encompasses the whole of reality, not just in the material sphere. The problem is I am not omniscient and my take on reality is heavily filtered by the limitations inherent in my humanity. I have to accept that what may seem true to me, in the moral /spiritual spheres for example, might not be the same as some other sincere person. The extremist cannot see the other persons perspective and is determined to force his values on others, and yet I have to watch that I don't fall into the trap of putting up barriers to extremists because dialogue is the only thing that's going to halt this whole thing - I am sorry for the times when I react badly to what I think is extreme views, I should take a leaf out of your book openminded.

 

 

Following is a list of religiously based civil unrest throughout the world. This list includes all the major world religions. Certainly the monotheistic religions top the list - and these religions need to take responsibility for this. But, humans are humans and they have been using "TRUE follower" rationalizations from the beginning of human conflict and they will continue to do so. It is not the religion itself, it is the tendancy of violent human beings to inject religion into their own rationalizations for violence.

GM:Thanks for this link, I have bookmarked it and will study. Its worth remembering as well that fanaticism is not just a religious phenomena - the 20th century has given vivid examples of how people are treated abominably under atheistic and pagan systems as well. Its a fault line in human nature rather than something intrinisc to all belief systems, though I think some by there very nature, i.e monotheistic, tend to exaggerate the problem.

 

 

OOOPS... Here's the link to that list at Religious Tolerance.org

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

 

[Open_Minded]

The way I look at this issue of truth: I do believe there is such a thing as objective truth that encompasses the whole of reality, not just in the material sphere. The problem is I am not omniscient and my take on reality is heavily filtered by the limitations inherent in my humanity. I have to accept that what may seem true to me, in the moral /spiritual spheres for example, might not be the same as some other sincere person.

 

I agree - that is the most difficult thing... accepting "that what may seem tru to me, in the moral/spiritual spheres for example, might not be the same as some other sincere person". It is hard to set aside our own experiences, our own bias, our own views on things.

 

The extremist cannot see the other persons perspective and is determined to force his values on others, and yet I have to watch that I don't fall into the trap of putting up barriers to extremists because dialogue is the only thing that's going to halt this whole thing - I am sorry for the times when I react badly to what I think is extreme views,

We all have times when we react badly ... that is the humanity of it all. The question is do we make attempts to grow. In order for peace to reign - it will take the effort of all people.

 

There are giants in the field of peace-building. People like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. It is these people we should learn from. Both of these people were willing to learn lessons from other World Religions.

 

Many people do not know that Gandhi studied all the major world religion scriptures. In fact - the Beatitudes were extremely important to him. They were a core part of his understanding of non-violent resistence.

 

Gandhi learned from Christianity - and a generation later a Christian minister would learn non-violent resistance from Gandhi. I am always amazed when I read of Gandhi and King. They were both willing to move outside the boundries of their own religions and traditions to learn the larger lessons that transcend any one religion.

 

Gandhi wrote, in his book: THE WAY TO COMMUNAL HARMONY

 

I hold that it is the duty of every cultured man or woman to read sympathetically the scriptures of the world. If we are to respect others'' religions as we would have them respect our own, a friendly study of the world''s religions is a sacred duty. We need not dread upon our grown-up children the influence of scriptures other than our own. We liberalize their outlook upon life by encouraging them to study freely all that is clean.

 

. . . For myself, I regard my study of and reverence for the Bible, the Koran and the other scriptures to be wholly consistent with my claim to be a staunch Sanatani Hindu. He is no Sanatani Hindu who is narrow, bigoted and considers evil to be good if it has the sanction of antiquity and is to be found in any Sanskrit book.

 

I claim to be a staunch Sanatani Hindu because, though I reject all that offends my moral sense, I find the Hindu scriptures satisfy the needs of the soul. My respectful study of other religions has not abated my reverence for or my faith in the Hindu scriptures. They have, indeed, left their deep mark upon my understanding of the Hindu scriptures. They have broadened my view of life. They have enabled me to understand more clearly many an obscure passage in the Hindu scriptures.

 

Martin Luther King said the following in his speech - Beyond Vietnam

 

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

 

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I’m not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: ---- Let us love one another (Yes), for love is God. (Yes) and every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love --- If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us. --- Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.

 

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: --- Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word..

 

There have been humans who have been able to transcend these differences - their lessons are here for us - the question is whether we will listen and learn. Humans of our day and age could take a lesson from these two men.

 

But... as Marian Wright Edelman said, "A lot of people are waiting for Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi to come back -- but they are gone. We are it. It is up to us. It is up to you."

 

The sad thing is - we're all too busy chasing our version of the "TRUTH" that we forget the lessons of those who have gone before us.

 

GM:Thanks for this link, I have bookmarked it and will study. Its worth remembering as well that fanaticism is not just a religious phenomena - the 20th century has given vivid examples of how people are treated abominably under atheistic and pagan systems as well. Its a fault line in human nature rather than something intrinisc to all belief systems, though I think some by there very nature, i.e monotheistic, tend to exaggerate the problem.

 

Yes, the monotheistic religions do exasperate the problem. And those of us still involved in one of the 3 main monotheistic religions have higher responsibility to work towards education of the literalists in our own ranks.

 

But, I have a question about this dynamic. The most violent religions also affiliated with very dominate cultures in the world....

 

I sometimes wonder if these religions are dominate in the world because the cultures they belong to dominate. You know - the old "conquerors write history" dynamic? I mean - as far as Christianity - I think it is pretty well agreed by most people who have done any research of early Christianity - that there was wide and diverse views amongst the earliest Christians. And it's also pretty common knowledge that the way "orthodox" Christianity came into being - was through political means.

 

As I've said in other threads... I think the history of religion is human history in its fullness. I don't think the fact that Christianity has become such a dominate religion is due to malicious intent by ALL of its participants for ALL of its history. But, the growth of Christianity (like the growth of any other religion) is a human story. And as a human story - there have definitely been people who have used the religion of Christianity for their own political ends. (Thinking of George Bush as a more recent example).

 

So.... just thinking aloud here.... what if the early Christian movement had never even gotten off square one? The conquerors would have still have used another religion to facilitate their own political agenda. So... all these 1000s of years later ... we would still have a dominate religion in the world. It would just have a different name, a different "messiah", but the "TRUE" followers would still be saying and doing the same old things. There would still be violence in the name of some other dominate religion - it would just be violence committed under the name of a different Messiah (the Messiah of the conquerors).

 

Do you know what I mean?

 

Does that make any sense at all.

[Golden Meadows]

The way I look at this issue of truth: I do believe there is such a thing as objective truth that encompasses the whole of reality, not just in the material sphere. The problem is I am not omniscient and my take on reality is heavily filtered by the limitations inherent in my humanity. I have to accept that what may seem true to me, in the moral /spiritual spheres for example, might not be the same as some other sincere person.

 

I agree - that is the most difficult thing... accepting "that what may seem tru to me, in the moral/spiritual spheres for example, might not be the same as some other sincere person". It is hard to set aside our own experiences, our own bias, our own views on things.

 

The extremist cannot see the other persons perspective and is determined to force his values on others, and yet I have to watch that I don't fall into the trap of putting up barriers to extremists because dialogue is the only thing that's going to halt this whole thing - I am sorry for the times when I react badly to what I think is extreme views,

We all have times when we react badly ... that is the humanity of it all. The question is do we make attempts to grow. In order for peace to reign - it will take the effort of all people.

 

There are giants in the field of peace-building. People like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. It is these people we should learn from. Both of these people were willing to learn lessons from other World Religions.

 

Many people do not know that Gandhi studied all the major world religion scriptures. In fact - the Beatitudes were extremely important to him. They were a core part of his understanding of non-violent resistence.

 

Gandhi learned from Christianity - and a generation later a Christian minister would learn non-violent resistance from Gandhi. I am always amazed when I read of Gandhi and King. They were both willing to move outside the boundries of their own religions and traditions to learn the larger lessons that transcend any one religion.

 

Gandhi wrote, in his book: THE WAY TO COMMUNAL HARMONY

 

I hold that it is the duty of every cultured man or woman to read sympathetically the scriptures of the world. If we are to respect others'' religions as we would have them respect our own, a friendly study of the world''s religions is a sacred duty. We need not dread upon our grown-up children the influence of scriptures other than our own. We liberalize their outlook upon life by encouraging them to study freely all that is clean.

 

. . . For myself, I regard my study of and reverence for the Bible, the Koran and the other scriptures to be wholly consistent with my claim to be a staunch Sanatani Hindu. He is no Sanatani Hindu who is narrow, bigoted and considers evil to be good if it has the sanction of antiquity and is to be found in any Sanskrit book.

 

I claim to be a staunch Sanatani Hindu because, though I reject all that offends my moral sense, I find the Hindu scriptures satisfy the needs of the soul. My respectful study of other religions has not abated my reverence for or my faith in the Hindu scriptures. They have, indeed, left their deep mark upon my understanding of the Hindu scriptures. They have broadened my view of life. They have enabled me to understand more clearly many an obscure passage in the Hindu scriptures.

 

Martin Luther King said the following in his speech - Beyond Vietnam

 

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

 

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I'm not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: ---- Let us love one another (Yes), for love is God. (Yes) and every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love --- If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us. --- Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.

 

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: --- Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word..

 

There have been humans who have been able to transcend these differences - their lessons are here for us - the question is whether we will listen and learn. Humans of our day and age could take a lesson from these two men.

 

But... as Marian Wright Edelman said, "A lot of people are waiting for Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi to come back -- but they are gone. We are it. It is up to us. It is up to you."

 

The sad thing is - we're all too busy chasing our version of the "TRUTH" that we forget the lessons of those who have gone before us.

 

GM:Thanks for this link, I have bookmarked it and will study. Its worth remembering as well that fanaticism is not just a religious phenomena - the 20th century has given vivid examples of how people are treated abominably under atheistic and pagan systems as well. Its a fault line in human nature rather than something intrinisc to all belief systems, though I think some by there very nature, i.e monotheistic, tend to exaggerate the problem.

 

Yes, the monotheistic religions do exasperate the problem. And those of us still involved in one of the 3 main monotheistic religions have higher responsibility to work towards education of the literalists in our own ranks.

 

But, I have a question about this dynamic. The most violent religions also affiliated with very dominate cultures in the world....

 

I sometimes wonder if these religions are dominate in the world because the cultures they belong to dominate. You know - the old "conquerors write history" dynamic? I mean - as far as Christianity - I think it is pretty well agreed by most people who have done any research of early Christianity - that there was wide and diverse views amongst the earliest Christians. And it's also pretty common knowledge that the way "orthodox" Christianity came into being - was through political means.

 

As I've said in other threads... I think the history of religion is human history in its fullness. I don't think the fact that Christianity has become such a dominate religion is due to malicious intent by ALL of its participants for ALL of its history. But, the growth of Christianity (like the growth of any other religion) is a human story. And as a human story - there have definitely been people who have used the religion of Christianity for their own political ends. (Thinking of George Bush as a more recent example).

 

So.... just thinking aloud here.... what if the early Christian movement had never even gotten off square one? The conquerors would have still have used another religion to facilitate their own political agenda. So... all these 1000s of years later ... we would still have a dominate religion in the world. It would just have a different name, a different "messiah", but the "TRUE" followers would still be saying and doing the same old things. There would still be violence in the name of some other dominate religion - it would just be violence committed under the name of a different Messiah (the Messiah of the conquerors).

 

Do you know what I mean?

 

Does that make any sense at all.

 

OM,

 

The two giants you mentioned, amongst others, were men of peace and their testimony was written in their own blood. They had to live in the knowledge that each day could end violently for them but they remained lovers of mankind right to the end. I suppose some of Jesus sayings are very much applicable to them, e.g "no greater love has a man than he lays down his life for a friend", "unless a seed fall to the ground and die, it cannot bring forth new fruit." They did lay down their lives and did bring forth much fruit.

 

I don't know how to solve the the inter-religious strife that plagues the world. Its always going to be there to a certain degree because it only mirrors the hatred that dwells in man - religion is only one possible outlet for it. It can be dampened down by removing poverty, injustice, discrimination and all the other things that causes people to use religion as divine sanction for violence but I don't think it will quell the disorder in all hearts.

 

 

The lack of clear hierarchy with effective control is also a big obstacle. Christianity is fragmented and there is no single person who can speak on behalf of it all and curtail the activities of its more beligerent crusaders. As far as I can see the same applies to Islam and Judaism. Monotheism lends itself by its very nature to absolutism, especially when its coupled to a book. I have also said elswhere that it was big loss to the spiritual life of mankind when the emerging monotheistic religions exalted the male attributes of the deity and suppressed the female and in doing so became unbalanced spiritually. I also agree with your point about the dominant force mentality.

 

The fundamentalists of whatever kind are ordinarily not open to considering the good that is in other spiritual experiences because they demonise everything outside their own variety. I think it takes giants like you mentioned to transcend all these barriers that separate us form one another - the power of unaffected love that lights up the world. There doesn't seem to be to many of them around at the moment but I suppose change starts with each of us.

 

Anyhow I would just like to express my appreciation for your post. My assessment of the present situation might seem somewhat gloomy but I still have hope that spiritual giants/lovers will walk the earth again and draw us back from the precipice by their example. Meantime I thank people like you OM who are trying to do their part in bringing "Peace on earth, Goodwill to all people"

 

Edit: I came across the following quotation today from a speech of JFK. He was gunned down on his way to the place where he was to deliver it. I think they are very fine words:

 

"We in this country, in this generation, are--by destiny rather than choice--the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." JFK 22nd Novemebr 1963

[julian]

OM, a few comments.

 

Yes, the monotheistic religions do exasperate the problem. And those of us still involved in one of the 3 main monotheistic religions have higher responsibility to work towards education of the literalists in our own ranks.

 

I do not find it a coincidence that the most intolerant and insane theists are virtually always monotheists. On the contrary, is it not an effect of monotheism to create this sort of mindset, especially with the dogma being what it is?

 

But, I have a question about this dynamic. The most violent religions also affiliated with very dominate cultures in the world....

 

I sometimes wonder if these religions are dominate in the world because the cultures they belong to dominate. You know - the old "conquerors write history" dynamic? I mean - as far as Christianity - I think it is pretty well agreed by most people who have done any research of early Christianity - that there was wide and diverse views amongst the earliest Christians. And it's also pretty common knowledge that the way "orthodox" Christianity came into being - was through political means.

 

I disagree. Buddhism, Shintoism, the Greco-Roman/Kemetic/Mesopotamian religions and others are examples of religions which dominated their respective regions without becoming truly violent or intolerant.

 

The Roman culture was as dominant as any, but you still found worshippers of other deities all over the empire. That all changed with the introduction of Christianity.

 

As I've said in other threads... I think the history of religion is human history in its fullness. I don't think the fact that Christianity has become such a dominate religion is due to malicious intent by ALL of its participants for ALL of its history. But, the growth of Christianity (like the growth of any other religion) is a human story. And as a human story - there have definitely been people who have used the religion of Christianity for their own political ends. (Thinking of George Bush as a more recent example).

 

While I agree about political gain, there is an aspect to the growth of monotheism that defies such an explanation. The intent, malicious or otherwise, of the people who converted practically the whole of Europe, the Americas and Africa (even Goa) led to its dominance (coupled with European conquest).

 

So.... just thinking aloud here.... what if the early Christian movement had never even gotten off square one? The conquerors would have still have used another religion to facilitate their own political agenda. So... all these 1000s of years later ... we would still have a dominate religion in the world. It would just have a different name, a different "messiah", but the "TRUE" followers would still be saying and doing the same old things. There would still be violence in the name of some other dominate religion - it would just be violence committed under the name of a different Messiah (the Messiah of the conquerors).

 

No way. The Romans had been conquering for centuries before Christianity without any such "messiah". Before them, the Assyrians conquered Mesopotamia, even conquering themselves out of existence, all without a "messiah". The Gupta Empire came to encompass most of the Indian subcontinent, and no "messiah" was to be found. The Mongolians spread across just about all of Asia and parts of Europe and the Middle East, and their religion was about as simple as you can get.

 

Let's say that the doomsday cults never occured. The Eastern Roman Empire would still have fought against the Persians and then the Muslims and yielded the same amount of land and power.

[Open_Minded]

"We in this country, in this generation, are--by destiny rather than choice--the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." JFK 22nd Novemebr 1963

 

Hello G_M

 

Your quotation from Kennedy impacted me greatly. It has been difficult for me to find the words to respond.

 

What I was going to say is that there really is no way to respond to any of it. I would like to believe humanity is growing and moving towards seeking peaceful solutions instead of violent solutions.

 

And generally - like you - I try to remain optimistic. My father always tells me to take the "long view of history". And still - I remember the first time I saw him weep was the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

My father - a man who worked hard to eliminate poverty during the 60s, who actively supported the civil rights movement and actively worked to end conflict in Vietnam. Dad - the classic 1960s liberal - who has (now in his late 70s) watched as the ultra-conservatives in our country undo so much of the gains made in the 60s. The classic 1960s liberal who has watched our nation wreck havoc on the world - not only with weapons of war, but with apathy towards its place in finding solutions for the environmental problems of our planet, apathy towards its place in finding solutions to human rights problems, problems of world and national poverty, just simply apathy towards any real leadership in the world. This man - now watching so much of what he has worked for all of his life being chipped away, chipped away by people hungry for power and using religion to manipulate the masses, this man still says to me, "take the long view of history". Somedays - it's hard to "take the long view of history".

 

And yet - it's the only hope humanity has. To get up every morning and know that what we do today - does not always have value for today. That we must do our part and affirm that our sons and daughters, our grandchildren and great grandchildren will reap the benefits of the work we do today.

 

If we were to all throw our hands up in the air and walk away from it - then - there would be no hope at all.

 

Golden Meadows - I've enjoyed this conversation with you, your posts have meant much to me. Especially the quote from JFK. I had never run into it before - and it did strike me deeply.

 

___________________

 

Welcome back Julian .... I came onto the board this evening to answer G_M and found your post. As usual - you give me much to think about.

 

It took me a few days to answer G_M, so please do be patient with a response to your post.

[Antlerman]

And yet - it's the only hope humanity has. To get up every morning and know that what we do today - does not always have value for today. That we must do our part and affirm that our sons and daughters, our grandchildren and great grandchildren will reap the benefits of the work we do today.

 

If we were to all throw our hands up in the air and walk away from it - then - there would be no hope at all.

Ahh.. memetic evolution! Yes, we serve humanity in all we do. We are all paricipants in defining the face of humanity! We are all of humanity. (just feeling particularly philosophical tonight )

[Open_Minded]

Hello Julian:

 

I sometimes wonder if these religions are dominate in the world because the cultures they belong to dominate. You know - the old "conquerors write history" dynamic? I mean - as far as Christianity - I think it is pretty well agreed by most people who have done any research of early Christianity - that there was wide and diverse views amongst the earliest Christians. And it's also pretty common knowledge that the way "orthodox" Christianity came into being - was through political means.

I disagree. Buddhism, Shintoism, the Greco-Roman/Kemetic/Mesopotamian religions and others are examples of religions which dominated their respective regions without becoming truly violent or intolerant.

Julian – what I was getting at when I pondered whether “these religions are dominate in the world because the cultures they belong to dominate” was the thought process that humanity creates a religion which is a reflection of itself.

 

I was not pondering whether the dominate religion is violent. You mention that Buddhism, Shintoism, etc... are examples of religions which dominate their respective regions without becoming truly violent. My question is – do these religions dominate their respective areas because they are a reflection of the world-view in their respective areas?

 

Like-wise do the concrete theistic, take it all or leave it all, monotheistic religions dominate in the west – because these religions are a reflection of the western mindset?

 

The Roman culture was as dominant as any, but you still found worshippers of other deities all over the empire. That all changed with the introduction of Christianity.

No, actually Christianity was part of the Roman Empire for several hundred years before it became the state sponsored religion. In fact Christianity was a very diverse group of beliefs until the Emperor of Rome (Constantine) got a hold of it, called the Council of Nicea and used political means to consolidate and centralize an otherwise very diverse set of religious beliefs.

 

Before a political ruler took control, Christianity was one (very diverse) set of beliefs among many. And – in fact – Christians suffered occasional bouts of persecution themselves because they would NOT sacrifice to the Roman state gods. This did not happen under every Roman Emperor for 300 years – but there were periods when it did.

 

So, we are back to the question – is religion a reflection of the culture, the mindset, the world-view it grew out of? Constantine makes Christianity the state sponsored religion – calls the Council of Nicea and political means are used to take a very diverse – unorganized – group of religious sects and turn it into a centralized religion controlled from the top down. And the final doctrines, creeds, canon reflect those in political control, reflect their world-view, reflect the cultures and line of authority that they are accustomed to. This is my wondering.

 

Like Antlerman often says – and I’ve read it elsewhere on this board as well – humans create god in their image. My stand is that this extends to cultures as well – cultures create god and religion in their image as well.

So.... just thinking aloud here.... what if the early Christian movement had never even gotten off square one? The conquerors would have still have used another religion to facilitate their own political agenda. So... all these 1000s of years later ... we would still have a dominate religion in the world. It would just have a different name, a different "messiah", but the "TRUE" followers would still be saying and doing the same old things. There would still be violence in the name of some other dominate religion - it would just be violence committed under the name of a different Messiah (the Messiah of the conquerors).

No way. The Romans had been conquering for centuries before Christianity without any such "messiah". Before them, the Assyrians conquered Mesopotamia, even conquering themselves out of existence, all without a "messiah". The Gupta Empire came to encompass most of the Indian subcontinent, and no "messiah" was to be found. The Mongolians spread across just about all of Asia and parts of Europe and the Middle East, and their religion was about as simple as you can get.

 

Well let’s look at this dynamic – shall we?

 

First - in ancient middle eastern history you know that the status of kings/emperors/etc... was NEXT TO divine if NOT divine.

 

In pre-Christian Rome (for example) many of the Emperors were considered “sons of gods”. Many of the Emperors had cult followings and temples built in their honor. The following is from Wikipedia:

 

... Generally Roman emperors avoided claiming the status of a deity in their own lives, even if some critiques insisted they should, and not doing so would be considered a sign of weakness. Other Romans would ridicule the notion that a Roman emperor was to be considered a living god, or would even make fun of the deification of an emperor after his death: Seneca the Younger's only known satirical writing, the Apocolocyntosis divi Claudii, shows bitter sarcasm regarding Claudius' foreseeable deification, which, according to Tacitus, however was already effectuated at the Emperor's funeral in 54 (Ann. XII, 69).

 

Most often, deceased emperors were the subject of worship during this period — at least, the ones who did not become so unpopular with their subjects that the populace considered their assassination a relief. Most emperors benefited from a speedy deification of their predecessor: if that predecessor was a close relative (even if only by adoption), that meant that the new emperor could count on a "near to deified" status of being a divi filius, without needing to be too presumptuous regarding his own godhead status. A famous deathbed remark, allegedly by Vespasian, claims that his last words were puto deus fio — "I think I'm turning into a god."

 

....

Civil religion

until abolishment by Constantine

After Hadrian,

(17–138 C.E.) the power of the emperors had become so absolute and consolidated that the later emperors could claim divinity during their own lives.

During the persecution of Christians that took place in the Roman empire,

the imperial cult became an important aspect of that persecution. To the extent that participation in the imperial cult became a loyalty test, the imperial cult was a particularly aggressive sort of civil religion.

Loyal citizens of the Empire were expected to make a periodic offering of incense to the genius, or tutelary spirit, of the Emperor, and upon doing so they received a certificate that they had in fact demonstrated their loyalty by sacrificing. Christians, of course, refused to worship the Emperor, considering the cult to be idolatry. The sacrifice was used as a law enforcement tool to ferret them out.

 

The imperial cult was abandoned when Constantine I - who had adopted the christian religion - became Emperor. From then on high religious claims by Roman and Byzantine emperors, no longer stated in terms of godhead of the Emperors, but in terms of challenging the religious authority of the highest non-secular leaders of the Church, would be indicated as Caesaropapism.

 

So ... in the case of Constantine’s Christianity – it would seem that Constantine and the early leaders of the centralized and organized Christian religion replaced an “aggressive sort of civil (after the Emperors themselves) religion” with an “aggressive sort of” (well new) state religion (after Jesus – rather than the Emperors). The only difference being that one did not worship the Emperor as a god – but Jesus as god. But – in essence the violence preceded and continued into the new “state” religion. Again – back to the question - is religion a reflection of the culture, the mindset, the world-view it grew out of?

 

The Christianity that came out of the Council of Nicea certainly reflected the world-view of the people sitting around the table. It certainly reflected the world-view of Constantine. One could argue that Christianity must have already had a strain of violence to be accepted by Constantine in the first place – I wouldn’t argue this point at all. It is a religion of its time and place.

 

How many times have people on this board nailed literalist Christians up against the wall – showing them how much early Christianity borrowed from the pagan religions. Pagan religions were used to wage war as well as the monotheistic Hebrew religion. This is common knowledge – when one Mesopotamian country went to war with another the battles were often seen as battles between competing gods. Not much different from what one sees in the Mid-East today. But, then the Mid-East is also a culmination of its own history.

 

You mentioned the following:

the Assyrians conquered Mesopotamia, even conquering themselves out of existence, all without a "messiah".

That’s just simply not the case. See the following: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...n%20king%20list

The Sumerian king list is an ancient text in the Sumerian language listing kings of Sumer from Sumerian and foreign dynasties. The later Babylonian king list and Assyrian king list were similar. There are also slight similarities between the antediluvian portion of the list and the two sets of Genealogies of Adam in the Torah. Description: The list records the location of the "official" kingship and the rulers, with the lengths of their rule.

The kingship was believed to be handed down by the gods, and could be

passed from one city to another by military conquest.

 

Military conquest and religion have gone hand-in-hand since the beginning of recorded human history. Check out the following Wikipedia article on Mesopotamia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia ... on its Religion

 

Mesopotamian religion is the oldest religion on record. Mesopotamians believed that the world was a flat disc, surrounded by a huge, holed space, and above that, heaven. They also believed that water was everywhere, the top, bottom and sides, and that the universe was born from this enormous sea. Mesopotamian religion was highly polytheistic, that is people believed in many gods.

 

Although the beliefs described above were held in common among Mesopotamians, there were also regional variations. The Sumerian word for universe is an-ki, which refers to the god An and the goddess Ki. Their son was Enlil, the air god. They believed that Enlil was the most powerful god. He was the chief god of the Pantheon, as the Greeks had Zeus and the Romans had Jupiter. The Sumerians also posed philosophical questions, such as: Who are we?, Where are we?, How did we get here?. They attributed answers to these questions to explanations provided by their gods.

 

If someone was sick they prayed to the gods so that person would recover. As mentioned above, the Mesopotamian doctors were not medically advanced, so instead people asked help from the gods.

 

Primary gods and goddesses

An was the Sumerian god of the sky, later known as Anu. He was married to Ki, but in some other Mesopotamian religions he has a wife called Uraš.

Marduk was the principal god of Babylon. The people glorified him, so he would allow Babylon to rise into a great empire from a small state.

 

Same article ... now on Warfare:

 

The civilizations, and within them city-states, of Mesopotamia had many wars, amongst each other for land and power. They also fought for the rivers’ control, transportation, irrigation, and for places they could get timber, stone and metal. When empires were created, they went to war more with foreign countries. King Sargon, for example conquered all the cities of Sumer, some cities in Mari, and then went to war with northern Syria. Many Babylonian palace walls were decorated with the pictures of the successful fights and the enemy, whether desperately escaping, or hiding amongst reeds.

A king in Sumer, Gilgamesh, was

thought two-thirds god and only one third human.

There were legendary stories and poems about him, which were passed on for many generations, because he had many adventures that were believed very important, and he won lots of wars and battles

 

Again – we are back to the question, Is religion a reflection of the culture, the mindset, the world-view it grew out of?

[julian]

Hello Julian:

 

Julian – what I was getting at when I pondered whether “these religions are dominate in the world because the cultures they belong to dominate” was the thought process that humanity creates a religion which is a reflection of itself.

 

I was not pondering whether the dominate religion is violent. You mention that Buddhism, Shintoism, etc... are examples of religions which dominate their respective regions without becoming truly violent. My question is – do these religions dominate their respective areas because they are a reflection of the world-view in their respective areas?

 

Hi. To answer your question on reflection, I do not think so. Buddhism became a major religion in China, but it was not always that way. The Chinese accepted it after time, but they had philosophies of their own before that. So how could you say that Buddhism became a major school of thought in China if it did not come to China organically? Likewise, Islam was imported to places like Pakistan and Indonesia, and that has absolutely nothing to do with how much it reflects the society of those regions, the society molded to the religion in those instances.

 

Like-wise do the concrete theistic, take it all or leave it all, monotheistic religions dominate in the west – because these religions are a reflection of the western mindset?

 

No. Not at all. Why would they reflect the western mindset if they were not produced by the west? That makes no sense. They influenced the west, unfortunately, because they took over and destroyed what was there.

 

No, actually Christianity was part of the Roman Empire for several hundred years before it became the state sponsored religion. In fact Christianity was a very diverse group of beliefs until the Emperor of Rome (Constantine) got a hold of it, called the Council of Nicea and used political means to consolidate and centralize an otherwise very diverse set of religious beliefs.

 

No, Christianity was IN the Roman Empire for awhile, that is all. It was not dominant, it was not significantly influential for a long time, it did not even exist when Romans were openly flaunting their attitudes for around 250 years and then some.

 

Also, with the Council of Nicea, it became apparent that with a dogmatic religion, such consolidation and centralization was possible, unlike the other non-monotheistic faiths of the Mediterranean world.

 

Before a political ruler took control, Christianity was one (very diverse) set of beliefs among many. And – in fact – Christians suffered occasional bouts of persecution themselves because they would NOT sacrifice to the Roman state gods. This did not happen under every Roman Emperor for 300 years – but there were periods when it did.

 

Before it became institutionalized, it was diverse, and the different groups squabbled and fought incessently. Oh, and please, the Romans were suspicious of the Christians because they were so whimsical and myopic. They were understandably perplexed by the fact that Christians scorned other religions and could not bring themselves to tolerate others. However, in spite of this, the Romans were quite understanding and tolerant, as Paul (IIRC) was even allowed to proslytize from his home by the Roman state.

 

So, we are back to the question – is religion a reflection of the culture, the mindset, the world-view it grew out of? Constantine makes Christianity the state sponsored religion – calls the Council of Nicea and political means are used to take a very diverse – unorganized – group of religious sects and turn it into a centralized religion controlled from the top down. And the final doctrines, creeds, canon reflect those in political control, reflect their world-view, reflect the cultures and line of authority that they are accustomed to. This is my wondering.

 

It can be considered a reflection of the culture which produced it, yes, but Europe did not produce Christianity. A bunch of people produced it and peddled it to others.

 

Like Antlerman often says – and I’ve read it elsewhere on this board as well – humans create god in their image. My stand is that this extends to cultures as well – cultures create god and religion in their image as well.

 

Yes, and Christianity was produced not by Rome, not by Athens, not by Gaul, not by Carthage but by a bunch of people over time who sold their mindset to others.

 

Well let’s look at this dynamic – shall we?

 

First - in ancient middle eastern history you know that the status of kings/emperors/etc... was NEXT TO divine if NOT divine.

 

Mesopotamian religions generally thought their kings to have divine mandates (I know one Sumerian king tried to portray himself as divine, but that is a mere exception). Egyptians held their pharoahs as divine. However, you are comparing apples to oranges, as those were organic, Christianity was not.

 

In pre-Christian Rome (for example) many of the Emperors were considered “sons of gods”. Many of the Emperors had cult followings and temples built in their honor. The following is from Wikipedia:

 

... Generally Roman emperors avoided claiming the status of a deity in their own lives, even if some critiques insisted they should, and not doing so would be considered a sign of weakness. Other Romans would ridicule the notion that a Roman emperor was to be considered a living god, or would even make fun of the deification of an emperor after his death: Seneca the Younger's only known satirical writing, the Apocolocyntosis divi Claudii, shows bitter sarcasm regarding Claudius' foreseeable deification, which, according to Tacitus, however was already effectuated at the Emperor's funeral in 54 (Ann. XII, 69).

 

Most often, deceased emperors were the subject of worship during this period — at least, the ones who did not become so unpopular with their subjects that the populace considered their assassination a relief. Most emperors benefited from a speedy deification of their predecessor: if that predecessor was a close relative (even if only by adoption), that meant that the new emperor could count on a "near to deified" status of being a divi filius, without needing to be too presumptuous regarding his own godhead status. A famous deathbed remark, allegedly by Vespasian, claims that his last words were puto deus fio — "I think I'm turning into a god."

 

....

Civil religion

until abolishment by Constantine

After Hadrian,

(17–138 C.E.) the power of the emperors had become so absolute and consolidated that the later emperors could claim divinity during their own lives.

During the persecution of Christians that took place in the Roman empire,

the imperial cult became an important aspect of that persecution. To the extent that participation in the imperial cult became a loyalty test, the imperial cult was a particularly aggressive sort of civil religion.

Loyal citizens of the Empire were expected to make a periodic offering of incense to the genius, or tutelary spirit, of the Emperor, and upon doing so they received a certificate that they had in fact demonstrated their loyalty by sacrificing. Christians, of course, refused to worship the Emperor, considering the cult to be idolatry. The sacrifice was used as a law enforcement tool to ferret them out.

 

The imperial cult was abandoned when Constantine I - who had adopted the christian religion - became Emperor. From then on high religious claims by Roman and Byzantine emperors, no longer stated in terms of godhead of the Emperors, but in terms of challenging the religious authority of the highest non-secular leaders of the Church, would be indicated as Caesaropapism.

 

So ... in the case of Constantine’s Christianity – it would seem that Constantine and the early leaders of the centralized and organized Christian religion replaced an “aggressive sort of civil (after the Emperors themselves) religion” with an “aggressive sort of” (well new) state religion (after Jesus – rather than the Emperors). The only difference being that one did not worship the Emperor as a god – but Jesus as god. But – in essence the violence preceded and continued into the new “state” religion. Again – back to the question - is religion a reflection of the culture, the mindset, the world-view it grew out of?

 

The Christianity that came out of the Council of Nicea certainly reflected the world-view of the people sitting around the table. It certainly reflected the world-view of Constantine. One could argue that Christianity must have already had a strain of violence to be accepted by Constantine in the first place – I wouldn’t argue this point at all. It is a religion of its time and place.

 

It also reflected Christianity, something which was produced by people who weren't really Roman (in the true sense of the word) or anything close to it (they could have been citizens of the Empire, but that's a different thing). It is not really a religion of its time and place, as it became the religion of practically the entire Empire, taking the place of religions which were radically different in many ways.

 

How many times have people on this board nailed literalist Christians up against the wall – showing them how much early Christianity borrowed from the pagan religions. Pagan religions were used to wage war as well as the monotheistic Hebrew religion. This is common knowledge – when one Mesopotamian country went to war with another the battles were often seen as battles between competing gods. Not much different from what one sees in the Mid-East today. But, then the Mid-East is also a culmination of its own history.

 

You oversimplify quite direly. First, pagan religions were generally tolerant of one another, you could worship Athena and not get too much crap from people in the mysteries of Dionysus. You could have coexistence quite easily. When you say "wage war", you should clarify. Sure, Assyrian kings would boast of how they captured the other cities' gods, but this does not mean they thought totally ill of those other religions.

 

 

You mentioned the following:

the Assyrians conquered Mesopotamia, even conquering themselves out of existence, all without a "messiah".

That’s just simply not the case. See the following: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...n%20king%20list

The Sumerian king list is an ancient text in the Sumerian language listing kings of Sumer from Sumerian and foreign dynasties. The later Babylonian king list and Assyrian king list were similar. There are also slight similarities between the antediluvian portion of the list and the two sets of Genealogies of Adam in the Torah. Description: The list records the location of the "official" kingship and the rulers, with the lengths of their rule.

The kingship was believed to be handed down by the gods, and could be

passed from one city to another by military conquest.

 

What is your point? That the kings were involved with the divine does not make them a "messiah", a person who was to save others from "false" religions or anything like that. You are trying to compare adam's apples and oranges.

 

 

Same article ... now on Warfare:

 

First of all, no one said that religion was always devoid of violence and never tied to warfare. That's not the point. Secondly, you are again making false comparisons and nonexistent parallels. Gilgamesh is nowhere near anything of a figure like a "messiah". He's like Hercules, a hero who is partially divine, but is not a "saviour" or anything of the sort.

 

 

Again – we are back to the question, Is religion a reflection of the culture, the mindset, the world-view it grew out of?

 

As I've said before, it can be a reflection of the culture it grows out of, but what did Christianity grow out of? It was not created by Constantine or the Council of Nicea as you try to assert, it was only harnessed by those forces.

[Guest ninzbinz]

1. all the evidence used for evolution is theoretical and not a shred of phisicall substance exists for macro evolution eg monkey to man type evolution.

 

2. all the evidence used by creation science is factuall sure we have a bible but we take the quotes we need concerning history and then can proove them using real archeological data and facts. we dont need dum elogical lies.

 

3. the jews to this day are not allowed to read daniel chapter 9 which all historians agree predates jesus and fortels of his comming to the year. they say there is a curse on anyone who reads daniel 9. why band something from your own holy book makes no sence?

 

4. to this day jews also propigate a lie concerning jesus resurection. that lie is spoken of in the new testament. why make up a lie about something if it does not exist?

 

5. all historians from jew to roman and all other alike agree jesus was a real man and even give account of miracles.

 

6. one example of what is imposible for the jew to know in there ancient day. the circumsision of baby boys on the 8th day. it is on the 8th day that the baby male boy has more blood clotting agent then any other day in his life because that is when certain organs kick in to full effect so blood cloting agent becomes higher then it ever will be in his life ever again. thats proven fact how do sheep herders work that out if you so smart.

 

7. what about the people that have been raised from the dead after 3 or more days even after rigamortas has been set in. they have death certificates from many doctors proving there death. people say mind over matter i say the brain is dead after 3 days of no breathing and rigamortas set in.

 

8. every debate of evolution vs creation is people think ther is a choice to make? well the fact is there isnt because all the evolutionist needs to accept is that the world was fully underwater some 5000+- years ago. this can be proven by chalk layer that streches world wide across earth crust. which contains micro marine organisms. impossible to have formed on dry land and covering the entire globe. not to mentiom that the worlds oldest tree is only about this age. and that the oldest first generation forest is of this age also. so just on this alone evolution is imposible because it would have wiped out most if not all land dwelling animals. science cannot accept this but they simply agnolidge it as fact but do not tell anyone about it.

 

9. why do all salt water fish have a kidney type feature that is unable to function in salt or fresh water. this feature is only used in fish that live in fresh water. hmmm so all fish evolved from fresh water fish how interesting. perhaps the water was far less salty before it mixed with al the salt from the earths crust. interesting.

 

10.why does the current rate of errosion supose that entire continents would have been wipped of the face of the earth more then 20 times if the earth is actualy as old as supposed scientists say it is? they never tell you about this. but they agree with it.

 

conclusion:

 

the truth about god wethere you like him or not is that. so called science is propogated by men who are in positions of power they dont want you to think that there is good and evil or after life. they want to set the standard for good and evil so they can get away with murder. that is why they love evolution and will never tell you the truth. its not a truth telling exersise to them as much as a control exercise. i have DVDs that will convince even the most skeptical. they are made by a south african profesor of zuology biology and other stuff. he has spent a lot of his life digging this up. i will post for free to anyone who wants a copy. as far as personal beleife goes i think the churches today havent a clue. i think its a personal thing you wil answer for yourself on judgement day. we are not bound to churches if they are in error what would the point of that be. no we do not get the bible from the roman catholics, again much fact on this also. they have there own bible. and the ckumran scrols have validated the acuracy of the bible for thos who want to argue.