Missionary Religions

[Guest Game of Chance]

yes, the fundamental difference.

and the absolutes I'm referrring to are within the concepts of the God to man relationship. Regardless of what is unfolding around me in the universe, the core of my beleifs are based relationally, not theoretically.

I'm not going to argue with you for 6 pages like last time. I'll simply pose a couple of questions:

What if the concepts of that relationship (or any concept at all), is in itself, infinite? As in, there are an infinite number of possibilities within that one thought. If that were the case, there could, theoretically, be no absolute.

The universe is happening right where you are sitting now, and since you are in fact, part of the universe, wouldn't those core beliefs constantly change as you reflected on them?

Phee's turn, I'm done.

[Guest Game of Chance]

um.. it's absolutly not the same as it was one second ago.

Well, Schroedinger says it is, and it isn't.

That damned cat.

[BrassFusion]

Well, isn't that pretty much Christians with their "fairy stories" being in control because their opinion is the most popular one in the U.S.?

This subject came up on this board before. Some of us disagree that majority rule is the right way to go all the time.

There are some things NOBODY should really rule on, methinks. But that definitely is a whole 'nother thread.

The "neocons" are in control now, because they're brainwashing your garden variety Christians into thinking that all these side issues have anything to do with Christianity in general.

As for majority rule, it's probably the least of many evils. Sometimes the mob will make stupid decisions, but that's what the courts are for.

[sass_in_the_pants]

What do I think of these ideas?

I think religion takes alot of flack for things it hasn't done.

The Aztecs and Druids certainly would not be considered missionary religions, but both of them have a history of brutal violence. And consider the Mormons – missionary work is a requirement of their faith, and though annoying every now and again, and though I find their accounting practices questionable, they certainly could not be accused of violence. They actually lead a number of successful humanitarian efforts. The Catholic Church, certainly a missionary faith, is strongly opposed to the war in Iraq.

Consider Japan, mostly Buddhists and Shintos. The Second Sino-Japanese war saw the mass genocide of at least 6 MILLION Chinese at their hands. The cruelty inflicted by the Japanese was MORE HORRIFIC than that which was inflicted on the Jews. In December 1937, the Chinese invaded Nanking - 300,000 to 600,000 Japanese perished over the following six weeks. And though many fled, do you know who stayed behind to protect the Chinese? 15-20 Westerners, mostly businessmen and (gasp!) Christian missionaries, all led by, unlikely enough, a Nazi named John Rabe.

Yes, I am a Christian and if you choose to worship your ancestors or animal deities, then yes, I think you’re wrong. What of it? Who am I? I’m nobody – so what should anyone care if I think they’re wrong?

If all faiths are equally valid, if all allow equal access to salvation, then on what basis would I choose MY faith? How can faiths which follow conflicting doctrine both be right? If one faith demands human sacrifice for salvation and another demands absolute and unwavering respect for human life, then one of them MUST BE wrong. And all I can do is pray that I have chosen correctly.

[Guest Game of Chance]

The whole concept is...they're potentially all correct in the one Truth that they agree upon. The union of the higher and lower selves.

I realize that gets all fucked up if you only consider "god" as an entity existing solely outside of yourself.

What if all the dogmas, be it suffering, forgiveness, don't eat pork, whatever...are bullshit. And the only Truth is that union with the "divine"?

[Shade Everdark]

As for majority rule, it's probably the least of many evils. Sometimes the mob will make stupid decisions, but that's what the courts are for.

The only problem with that, is that those in power now are trying to strip away the interpretive powers over the Consitution that judges are entrusted with. The courts can't be a watchdog for bad laws if they don't have any power to rule them unconstitutional.

Yes, I am a Christian and if you choose to worship your ancestors or animal deities, then yes, I think you’re wrong. What of it? Who am I? I’m nobody – so what should anyone care if I think they’re wrong?

What of it? Now, that's a good question. Strictly speaking, it probably shouldn't matter that you think non-Christian religions are wrong, provided you don't go about telling non-believers that they are wrong. On the other hand, not a lot of people like to be told that they are wrong, especially about something so personal and fundamental as their faith. And, to be frank, you aren't nobody. I'm not just saying this to sound supportive and positive--you are a representative of your faith, just as surely as your spiritual leaders are, in much the same way as you are a representative of the United States of America, as one of its citizens and (I hope) as one of those who helps shape policy by voting for the officials of your choice. As such, you have the choice as to how you represent yourself to others, in terms of your faith. Really, the only way you will win sympathy to your cause (notice I do not say converts) with such an attitude is if that attitude is accompanied by the business end of a gun.

And having one set faith does not mean that one necessarily has to consider it the 'right' one, or that ergo others must be considered 'wrong'. I remember reading one of the Buddhist sutras during my Japanese studies. Part of the sutra essentially tells those reading that if they aren't satisfied with Buddhism, then they should seek their inner peace, their spirituality, and their emotional and spiritual growth elsewhere. Likewise, as an atheist, I don't consider those who believe in god(s) to be wrong, I simply can't share in that belief, and only consider them to be rather more trusting than I am. (The fundamentalists I will admit to considering gullible and a bit stupid.)

[Steven]

I'm not going to argue with you for 6 pages like last time. I'll simply pose a couple of questions:

What if the concepts of that relationship (or any concept at all), is in itself, infinite? As in, there are an infinite number of possibilities within that one thought. If that were the case, there could, theoretically, be no absolute.

The universe is happening right where you are sitting now, and since you are in fact, part of the universe, wouldn't those core beliefs constantly change as you reflected on them?

Phee's turn, I'm done.

Question 1: if the concept of the God to man relationship is actually infinite then I am foolishly wasting my time pursuing each layer of just that one absolute.

I have no problem with that possibility.

I just dont beleive it.

Just like you just dont beleive in one singular pathway.

Question 2: Could there theoretically be no absolute?

Yes.

You could be right.

And, so could I.

what to do what to do what to do.....

[Steven]

The only problem with that, is that those in power now are trying to strip away the interpretive powers over the Consitution that judges are entrusted with. The courts can't be a watchdog for bad laws if they don't have any power to rule them unconstitutional.

What of it? Now, that's a good question. Strictly speaking, it probably shouldn't matter that you think non-Christian religions are wrong, provided you don't go about telling non-believers that they are wrong. On the other hand, not a lot of people like to be told that they are wrong, especially about something so personal and fundamental as their faith. And, to be frank, you aren't nobody. I'm not just saying this to sound supportive and positive--you are a representative of your faith, just as surely as your spiritual leaders are, in much the same way as you are a representative of the United States of America, as one of its citizens and (I hope) as one of those who helps shape policy by voting for the officials of your choice. As such, you have the choice as to how you represent yourself to others, in terms of your faith. Really, the only way you will win sympathy to your cause (notice I do not say converts) with such an attitude is if that attitude is accompanied by the business end of a gun.

And having one set faith does not mean that one necessarily has to consider it the 'right' one, or that ergo others must be considered 'wrong'. I remember reading one of the Buddhist sutras during my Japanese studies. Part of the sutra essentially tells those reading that if they aren't satisfied with Buddhism, then they should seek their inner peace, their spirituality, and their emotional and spiritual growth elsewhere. Likewise, as an atheist, I don't consider those who believe in god(s) to be wrong, I simply can't share in that belief, and only consider them to be rather more trusting than I am. (The fundamentalists I will admit to considering gullible and a bit stupid.)

I actually like this post a great deal, because the idea of "right and wrong" (as a motivator) is so often misapplied or blown out of porportion.

[Steven]

The whole concept is...they're potentially all correct in the one Truth that they agree upon. The union of the higher and lower selves.

I realize that gets all fucked up if you only consider "god" as an entity existing solely outside of yourself.

What if all the dogmas, be it suffering, forgiveness, don't eat pork, whatever...are bullshit. And the only Truth is that union with the "divine"?

then I refer back to the other questions you asked me.

see this is what makes it hard Steve - to describe to each other the value of our personal positions. We embrace and are motivated by different things. Different possibilities excite us, fuel us, cause us to give pause. For example you might feel that if I opened my mind more and took in more varied information from other outside spiritual teachers, then perhaps my eyes would open up and I could embrace a wider range of possibilities....especially since absolutes and walls and order and structure and method in a spiritual sense is the opposite of deity. I actually get that.

But that's not really how it works for me, especially since I've previously described myself as a non-linear thinker, and someone who also relies heavily on their instincts. There is a great deal that i feel I have learned or studied thru a great many experiences in my 40 years on planet earth. Those thigns also - if not more - lead me along the spiritual path that I am on. To me my path is one of freedom and strength, wisdom and individual thought - liberty even. But what I try to exemplify as a support for those claims does not hit home for you, and perhaps even triggers a repulsion. And vice versa.

[Steven]

The "neocons" are in control now, because they're brainwashing your garden variety Christians into thinking that all these side issues have anything to do with Christianity in general.

As for majority rule, it's probably the least of many evils. Sometimes the mob will make stupid decisions, but that's what the courts are for.

theyre not brainwashing me, Love.

I'm the fly in the ointment.

[Guest Game of Chance]

Question 1: if the concept of the God to man relationship is actually infinite then I am foolishly wasting my time pursuing each layer of just that one absolute.

I have no problem with that possibility.

I just dont beleive it.

Just like you just dont beleive in one singular pathway.

Isn't that diametrically opposed to being a follower of christ and christ alone?

[Guest Game of Chance]

then I refer back to the other questions you asked me.

see this is what makes it hard Steve - to describe to each other the value of our personal positions. We embrace and are motivated by different things. Different possibilities excite us, fuel us, cause us to give pause. For example you might feel that if I opened my mind more and took in more varied information from other outside spiritual teachers, then perhaps my eyes would open up and I could embrace a wider range of possibilities....especially since absolutes and walls and order and structure and method in a spiritual sense is the opposite of deity. I actually get that.

But that's not really how it works for me, especially since I've previously described myself as a non-linear thinker, and someone who also relies heavily on their instincts. There is a great deal that i feel I have learned or studied thru a great many experiences in my 40 years on planet earth. Those thigns also - if not more - lead me along the spiritual path that I am on. To me my path is one of freedom and strength, wisdom and individual thought - liberty even. But what I try to exemplify as a support for those claims does not hit home for you, and perhaps even triggers a repulsion. And vice versa.

Frankly, I feel that you've rejected any idea that is not christ. To me, that's the only sin...restriction.

Having said that, I could care less what you think or how you feel.

I just can't wait until the restriction of the old Aeon has finally breathed its very last breath. Look at how fall the church has fallen. Its coming.

[Steven]

Isn't that diametrically opposed to being a follower of christ and christ, alone?

you lost me.

you mean when I say that I dont have a problem with considering that there might be the possibility of another pathway? you mean that?

[Guest Game of Chance]

I thought it was a sin to be a jew. Or a muslim...certainly a devil-worshipper. Careful, you're reaching into the realm of free-thinking.

[Steven]

Frankly, I feel that you've rejected any idea that is not christ. To me, that's the only sin...restriction.

Having said that, I could care less what you think or how you feel.

I just can't wait until the restriction of the old Aeon has finally breathed its very last breath. Look at how fall the church has fallen. Its coming.

Basically - I have done that (the rejection thing), yes. Because I am convinced. But I'm not afraid to say I may be wrong, I just dont think i am. SOunds like a contradiction I know - but my relationship with Christ is based on personal choice and the freedom that accompanies that.

Next - Im not going to load up on you again dude but I dont know why you keep telling me you dont care when I'm not asking you anymore if you do care.

Finnally - yes indeed the church and christendom in general will collpase. That to me, is a concept that is thousands of years old and was foretold by Christ himself. Your not the only one waiting for it. I certainly do not fear it, I have always beleived that I would see the beginning of its visible end.

[Steven]

I thought it was a sin to be a jew. Or a muslim...certainly a devil-worshipper. Careful, you're reaching into the realm of free-thinking.

you miss my constant point: we are alive with sin, it is a part of us. I cannot become "more" of a sinner.

and the arguments you seem to be presenting here dont really apply to what I've been talking about, cant help you on what I'm NOT trying to defend.

[Steven]

Isn't that diametrically opposed to being a follower of christ and christ alone?

Found my thought on this:

the one thing that diametrically opposes Christ is faithlessness. It prevents that connection, prevents you from letting go and gettign out of the way, because its an attempt to control all things yourself.

Look at Christ's example: what was he most moved by, constantly referred back to, and taught as a principle of power:

Faith.

Not understanding.

or even agreement.

and definately NOT legalism

Faith.

I can tell you that YES, of course I amy be wrong. there may be - other pathways. But my faith leads me to one and one only. I am therefore living out my faith, allowing it to take action, moving in a distinct direction, allowing it to shape me and my thoughts. There is no opposition in that.

[Guest Game of Chance]

you miss my constant point: we are alive with sin, it is a part of us. I cannot become "more" of a sinner.

and the arguments you seem to be presenting here dont really apply to what I've been talking about, cant help you on what I'm NOT trying to defend.

No way, dude.

The only "sinful" part of me is the part that holds me back from doing my Will. The self-doubt, the part of me that listens to what other people think, anything that holds me back.

I won't ask forgiveness either, merely do better next time to ignore it next time.

[Steven]

No way, dude.

The only "sinful" part of me is the part that holds me back from doing my Will. The self-doubt, the part of me that listens to what other people think, anything that holds me back.

I won't ask forgiveness either, merely do better next time to ignore it next time.

thats your right.

but I may not be as weak as you think, because i likewise do not live to please other people, only Christ. That too, brings me tremendous freedom. there is no fear in that approach. I put it out there, and I move along....

[Steven]

No way, dude.

The only "sinful" part of me is the part that holds me back from doing my Will. The self-doubt, the part of me that listens to what other people think, anything that holds me back.

I won't ask forgiveness either, merely do better next time to ignore it next time.

thats your right.

but I may not be as weak as you think, because i likewise do not live to please other people, only Christ. That too, brings me tremendous freedom. there is no fear in that approach. I put it out there, and I move along....

[Steven]

damn, the beer is kickin in...a double doo dah

[Guest Game of Chance]

Found my thought on this:

the one thing that diametrically opposes Christ is faithlessness. It prevents that connection, prevents you from letting go and gettign out of the way, because its an attempt to control all things yourself.

Look at Christ's example: what was he most moved by, constantly referred back to, and taught as a principle of power:

Faith.

Not understanding.

or even agreement.

and definately NOT legalism

Faith.

I can tell you that YES, of course I amy be wrong. there may be - other pathways. But my faith leads me to one and one only. I am therefore living out my faith, allowing it to take action, moving in a distinct direction, allowing it to shape me and my thoughts. There is no opposition in that.

You're certainly missing the point again. Your "faith" to become more christ-like is the same as the buddhist quest to become more like buddha. As the moslem to be closer to allah. etc, etc, etc.

My point is...you don't need the morals and dogma to do that...

christ (or buddha or allah or krsna), or whatever you want to call it (personally I don't care if its the "devil"), is inside of you.

One of my favorite lines from the Hymn to Pan is "Devil or God to me, to me". Over the years of yoga training that I've put myself through, certainly I've felt a connection with the divine. You get to a point, honestly, where you could care less what it is. You just know that its right.

Its not a matter of faith. Its a matter of certainty.

And with that friends, I truly am done. I wish you luck in your spiritual quest.

[Steven]

right on.

[torn asunder]

christ (or buddha or allah or krsna), or whatever you want to call it (personally I don't care if its the "devil"), is inside of you.

since he's done, i won't direct this at him - just a general observation on my part - christ, the buddha, krishna (not sure about allah) were people whom embodied the spirit of "god". (in my opinion) christ can't be in me, any more than every single human whose ever lived is in me. these spritually enlightened men were connected with "god" (or whatever you call it) but they weren't "god" any more than you or i. yes, "god" is within each and every one of us, but most people are unwilling to accept that and take responsibility for their own lives and spirituality. i've said it before, as long as one believes that "god" is a separate, external being, one will never have true peace in their lives, even if they lie to themselves that they do. "i am god" isn't blasphemous, it's what christ, and many others, were trying to tell you. we all come from the same source, we're all one in "god", and anything that contradicts that notion will eventually cause pain and suffering in the world...

:fear

[Fierce Critter]

Interesting.

I've never felt that "I am God."

I've always kinda taken the jargon about God being within all of us to be sort of symbolic.

I'm very comfortable with the thought of "God", however you define it/him/her/them being a totally separate being from myself.

I'm willing to accept that there is, somehow, "God" within me. But I don't really worry about it.

I live my life trying to be good to myself, while trying to not be bad to others. I am feeling more comfortable with the Catholicism of my childhood than I ever have in my life, but I'm fully accepting of just about every other religion/spirituality as valid. Which, I guess, prevents me by definition from ever considering myself 100% "Christian".

I'm feeling happy with the atmosphere, but not the dogma. Kinda like I like going to a party at someone's house, but wouldn't necessarily like it if they set-up rules dictating I have to dress a certain way or only talk about certain subjects if I'm going to be in the room.

Poor example in retrospect. But I'm brain-tired today.