posted April 14, 2013 12:14 PM              

You can delete that info now.

posted April 14, 2013 05:52 PM              

Religion is the infusion of life with a tremendous dream.

posted April 15, 2013 07:45 AM            

You're a great writer, I appreciate the link. Of course, as we don't see eye to eye about religion, it's hard for me to read all of that and comment...I disagree with or have questions about many of the assumptions in your writing, though I love your eloquence.

As I see it, religion also does much harm.

For example, I believe that telling children about hell is tantamount to child abuse in some cases. They are too petrified to sleep and have no peace of mind. I've had personal experiences with this, unfortunately.

posted April 17, 2013 05:49 PM              

quote:

---

Thanks for meeting me here!

---

Sorry I'm late.

quote:

---

You're a great writer, I appreciate the link. Of course, as we don't see eye to eye about religion, it's hard for me to read all of that and comment...I disagree with or have questions about many of the assumptions in your writing, though I love your eloquence.

---

I appreciate that. It's good that you have questions. That's sort of the point, in a way. I don't entirely agree with everything I write either. Not for long anyway. But, then, we can only indicate one or two dimensions at any time. Aphorisms, especially, are not intended to be taken as unequivocally as they sound. They are intended to suggest a point of view, which may provide a corrective against an opposite excess. It helps to know when to prescribe them, and when not to. It may be dangerous to make an entire pharmacy available without prescriptions, but what can I say? I'm dangerous.

quote:

---

As I see it, religion also does much harm. For example, I believe that telling children about hell is tantamount to child abuse in some cases. They are too petrified to sleep and have no peace of mind. I've had personal experiences with this, unfortunately.

---

Naturally. But then, we wouldn't tell children about rape and torture either, would we?

quote:

---

And then you think of all the excommunications and estrangements arising from religion. Is "the dream" really worth it?

---

Sounds more like a nightmare, and one we are both trying to correct. You try to wake them up, and I enter the nightmare in order to turn the tide. They are some deep sleepers, after all, and my sense is that it may be easier to let them sleep, and to share more beautiful dreams.

quote:

---

I drew up your chart, your Mercury is conjunct my Venus, fancy that!

---

Yes, that helps balance out your mars opposing my Neptune. I see a lot of aspects, a number of them either exact or off by one degree.

quote:

---

No,... if I say I believe in Jesus. Anything is possible with people, you know?

---

Hmmm... you have a point.

I think we both forgot that it's mine.

quote:

---

Acts 13:48 ESV
Whoever isn't appointed has hell to pay.

---

The KJV says "ordained", not appointed, but I don't know the Greek. I think one could easily argue that a person who is ready to see is ordained, or appointed. It doesn't necessarily mean that God is arbitrarily deciding our fates. It just means that we are not all equally mature. Perhaps "Hell" is a phase of spiritual adolescence, through which all those ordained to "eternal life" have passed.

quote:

---

Then why use the word Christ?

---

Why not use it?
If one is truly unattached,
then one is not attached to unattachment.
One makes use of what is there.

Plotinus wrote:
Leave the many,
Find the One, --
having found the One,
embrace the many as the One.

posted April 17, 2013 10:51 PM              

quote:

---

"the finer points of doctrine"
Which gave rise to violence.

---

Not so. Spiritual immaturity gave rise to violence. If men quarrel over a broom, is the broom unfit for sweeping? Foolish and wicked people have always quarreled, and will always find an excuse to quarrel. They have the words before them of a man they believe to be God, telling them in no uncertain terms:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also... Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you,"

Yet, they still seek to justify war and hatred and torture. Take away everything from the Bible except these words, and they will still find a way to twist and add to them. It is the nature of wickedness and stupidity. Every ideology can be distorted. In many ways, it is a political problem, disguised as a religious one. The Communists were avowed atheists, whose ideology arose out of a simple and beautiful idea about not allowing greed to rule the world, -- but that didn't stop them from killing more people than the Nazis. As much as I find myself drawn to anarchist principles, it seems to me that wicked men will always take power when good men refuse to. All our governments arose out of primordial anarchy, and would do it again and again. One can argue that abolishing governments would at least provide us with a clean slate, a new beginning, but I think it's more likely we would be right back where we started. "If you are going through Hell, keep going" (Churchill)

quote:

---

...they either excommunicate me or pester me for a confession of faith... with a very non-persuasive theology, no less. They seem to put too much importance on the redemptive potential of "easy believism."

---

Yes, they do. They have a very poor grasp of the doctrine of grace. They think it means that if one believes then one is forgiven, and the only thing left is to shame and judge others until they believe and are forgiven, too. In fact, it means that if one is forgiven one will believe and be inspired to forgive. The idea is that everyone is loved and forgiven, automatically, -- no confession of faith is required, -- and, that this love and forgiveness, rather than giving them a license to "sin", will naturally inspire them to love and forgive others.

Christ said to a woman caught in adultery, "Where are your accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?" They had all dispersed, so she said, "No man, Lord." And he said "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more." She made no confession, she admitted no fault. She addressed him with a title of respect, but she did not receive him as "her personal Lord and Savior" or anything like that. Still, he forgave her.

He told the Pharisees that the more sins a person has, the more they will love you if you forgive them. The next moment, a woman who had many sins washed his feet with her tears and dried them with her hair, and he said "Your sins are forgiven." She made no confession. She didn't call him "The Son of God". She didn't have to.

Some people you will never get through to, but others will listen when you quote their holy book. You can meet them half way. You can meet them somewhere between the dream and the nightmare. Then you can lead them out.

quote:

---

I can't stomach Billy Graham.

---

I don't blame you. It takes a strong stomach.

quote:

---

See how we are in the same boat?
Just speaking different languages...

---

Again, you're making my point.

The only difference is that I'm bi-lingual, and can help to translate, so each of you can understand the other a little better. Of course, if they only knew their own language well enough, they'd be translators, too.

quote:

---

Wow, cool notebooks. Thanks for liking my moon. It's in the 8H.

---

Thanks, they are pretty cool.
Not as cool as a Pisces Moon in the 8th, tho.

quote:

---

Why spend time focusing on the less than pure, except for mere entertainment?

---

Did Christ incarnate for entertainment? Was it for entertainment that the bodhisattvas turned back at the gates of Nirvana, vowing not to enter until all souls were free?

quote:

---

Is there a difference between a "real" Christian and a theologian who behaves well?

---

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
Can you rephrase your question, please?

quote:

---

I guess my Aries energy is evident here.

---

The closest aspect in my chart:

Sun 13°54' in Scorpio
Eris 13°53' in ARIES

I feel pretty in-tune with that one lately.

quote:

---

Thank you, too, for the interesting conversation.

---

posted April 18, 2013 04:21 PM            

quote:

---

People like to forget that second part. We all want to leave the worldly, and cling to what is highest and most pure, but leaving the darkness and cleaving to the light is only the first half of the journey. Coming full circle means bringing the light back into the darkness and illuminating it.

---

I love that. Much more to say but I'm short on time...'will try and get back to you in the next few days.

posted April 19, 2013 06:47 AM            

Well, thanks for getting back to me. I get to exercise my brain, trying to think of how to respond to your puzzles. Maybe my IQ will increase from this chit chat!

quote:

---

Aphorisms, especially, are not intended to be taken as unequivocally as they sound. They are intended to suggest a point of view, which may provide a corrective against an opposite excess.

---

I can see how that's often the case...good point.

quote:

---

Naturally. But then, we wouldn't tell children about rape and torture either, would we?

---

What does it say about a religion that it's rated R? "Suffer the children to come unto me." What's that mean, then?

quote:

---

Sounds more like a nightmare, and one we are both trying to correct. You try to wake them up, and I enter the nightmare in order to turn the tide.

---

I wouldn't describe my interactions that way. I ask religious people a lot of questions...it's like the Socratic method, only it's not a method. In doing so I reveal a lot about the path I've walked and, maybe, I make a case for the non-believer. But I think it would be haughty of me to regard others as people who need "correction." Maybe just that wording rubs me the wrong way.

quote:

---

I think one could easily argue that a person who is ready to see is ordained, or appointed.

---

I take it you're not familiar with the Westminster Confession of Faith? One could easily argue that, but their argument would not be Scriptural, insofar as the Scripture repeatedly speaks of election. And to me this is a critical issue: if the God of the Bible predestines some to heaven and others to hell (and I firmly believe that,) then you have to wonder, "Why? What kind of God creates people knowing they will suffer eternally?"

quote:

---

Perhaps "Hell" is a phase of spiritual adolescence, through which all those ordained to "eternal life" have passed.

---

Honestly, I don't see the point of picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to take very seriously, and which to be dismissive about. Burning in a lake of fire eternally cannot be a "phase." There's a point where interpretations are so liberal that they are not substantially different from pure fiction...and I think that if one is devoting one's life to conforming to the exhortations of a fictional authority, that is a wasted life.

quote:

---

Why not use it?

---

It might displease the other gods, for one thing.

Have you played Pascal's Roulette?

quote:

---

If men quarrel over a broom, is the broom unfit for sweeping?

---

If the broom had become a god to the people, and then made all the decrees that God did, about who should be spared and who should be killed, then yes, it is unfit.

When an idea (or object) becomes a receptacle for the collective, reigning notions of the masses or the elites who control them, the idea/object is no longer strictly neutral (as a broom) but neutral AND, at another level, infused with all the power ascribed to it. Think of guns...just neutral objects, but reflecting the history of violence that gave rise to their creation, and carrying the potential to amplify harm in the future. I see notions of god the same way. Gods are created like brooms, they represent a value system (cleanliness, in the broom's case) and sustain it.

*edited

quote:

---

Yet, they still seek to justify war and hatred and torture. Take away everything from the Bible except these words, and they will still find a way to twist and add to them. It is the nature of wickedness and stupidity.

---

I think it's a combination of human nature and the contradictory nature of the Bible. At certain times and places, the Chosen were commanded to pillage and destroy.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -Psalm 137:9

That's "happy" for ya!

quote:

---

As much as I find myself drawn to anarchist principles, it seems to me that wicked men will always take power when good men refuse to.

---

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's not about good men seizing leadership but about the people choosing who they will submit to. And most won't submit except through the threat of force, except when they are all unified by a truly spiritual aim...how often does that happen? Maybe Gandhi's revolution was like that.

posted April 19, 2013 07:32 AM            

quote:

---

They have a very poor grasp of the doctrine of grace. They think it means that if one believes then one is forgiven, and the only thing left is to shame and judge others until they believe and are forgiven, too. In fact, it means that if one is forgiven one will believe and be inspired to forgive.

---

I think the doctrine of grace doesn't exist in reality, so there's nothing to have a grasp of. All you have is a more or less convincing theoretical construct, depending on how many Bible verses you can dredge up to support the premise of your choice.

Romans 9:8 They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

^This tells me I am not necessarily forgiven.

And do I even want forgiveness? Forgiveness for what? If I think of all people are interconnected, then all sin is communal. I wouldn't have made certain choices if not for bad choices others made, and sometimes being put in a situation where the path was not clear. Was there a good path and a bad path?

Without a religious framework, moral absolutes tend to fall apart.

quote:

---

The only difference is that I'm bi-lingual, and can help to translate, so each of you can understand the other a little better. Of course, if they only knew their own language well enough, they'd be translators, too.

---

Bi-lingual in what respect?

quote:

---

Did Christ incarnate for entertainment?

---

Did Christ incarnate?

quote:

---

Is there a difference between a "real" Christian and a theologian who behaves well?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
Can you rephrase your question, please?

---

What are the criteria you would use to determine whether or not a person is a real Christian? Is having a brain full of Bible enough? Or does there have to be an emotional interaction with that storehouse of knowledge? Obviously one cannot be a Christian without words. To honor a nameless Supreme Being cannot be construed as a form of Christianity.

What does "being a Christian" entail, in your opinion?

Cheers, have a good day.

posted April 20, 2013 02:22 AM            

-if your conscience convicts you, there is a problem as Paul taught

-some have a conscience that has been seared (in that time wounds were often treating via heating iron and basically scarring the wound closed)

posted April 20, 2013 04:04 AM              

quote:

---

Well, thanks for getting back to me. I get to exercise my brain, trying to think of how to respond to your puzzles. Maybe my IQ will increase from this chit chat!

---

This, this kind of discussion, is my greatest pleasure. I believe it exercises -- and exorcises -- more than our brains. These aren't just brain teasers; these puzzles are eternal mysteries, touchstones of the soul, meant to be enjoyed. I feel myself tumbling, spiraling weightless. The questions, not the answers, keep us challenged; sane; among the living.

quote:

---

What does it say about a religion that it's rated R?

---

It says the religion does not shrink from the deepest, darkest questions of our fate. What is an affirmation worth, if it cannot affirm the world, and God, in spite of the most unflinching horror?

quote:

---

"Suffer the children to come unto me." What's that mean, then?

---

It means we ought to receive moral instruction early, and that certain matters are simple, and only complicated by the pride of intellects; that we should approach him as children; humble, attentive, receptive, flexible, open-minded, not puffed-up with all our past experience. "And a child shall lead them."

quote:

---

I ask religious people a lot of questions... it's like the Socratic method, only it's not a method. In doing so I reveal a lot about the path I've walked and, maybe, I make a case for the non-believer.

---

Questions are good. Especially, I think, because learning about the path they're on, and being willing to walk a mile in their sandals, can teach us how best to communicate with them, and what it is they may benefit from hearing. Finding a common ground, a place of agreement, is fundamental. Only then can we bypass defenses, and lead one another into foreign territories.

quote:

---

But I think it would be haughty of me to regard others as people who need "correction." Maybe just that wording rubs me the wrong way.

---

I hear you. People don't like to feel that we are trying to change them. What does Proverbs say? "Fools despise correction." The ego sends up red flags the instant it senses any threat to itself. I think refusing to submit to correction is more haughty than supposing we may be in a position to correct.

quote:

---

I take it you're not familiar with the Westminster Confession of Faith? One could easily argue that, but their argument would not be Scriptural, insofar as the Scripture repeatedly speaks of election. And to me this is a critical issue: if the God of the Bible predestines some to heaven and others to hell (and I firmly believe that,) then you have to wonder, "Why? What kind of God creates people knowing they will suffer eternally?"

---

If it is not permissible to contradict the scriptures, why did Christ do just that? "Ye have heard it said 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', but I tell you..." If Christ can do it, so can those to whom he has given authority. When he sent out his disciples, he did not say, "Consult the scriptures," or "Repeat after me," but, rather, "Take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." With this, he places primacy on the Spirit, not the scripture. Moreover, he repeatedly distinguishes between the letter and the spirit of the law, and bids us read according to that spirit. Again, he says, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." Perhaps the notion of election provided a corrective against the rampant judgement that was taking place. How shall we judge, if all is determined? Likewise, when he quotes, "The Lord says, Vengeance is mine, I shall repay," it is not for the sake of evoking, once more, a God of fire and brimstone, but of pleading with men to quit placing themselves in the seat of judgement. Our part, he says, is only to be merciful, to love and forgive. Leave the rest to God. My contention is that this was what the people could bear. And, if they could bear more, he would have told them more. He would have said, "There is no severity with God, for God is absolute love and mercy. You have only fashioned for yourselves an idol in your own judgmental image." I believe he would have liked very much to say this, but then he would have reached no one. He spoke to a people thoroughly steeped, saturated in notions of a legalistic God, who sits in judgement and rules with an iron fist. There was no precedent for what he wanted to convey, so he had to begin with something they could begin to understand. "Judge not, lest ye be judged," really means, "Judge not, for God shows mercy on all."

quote:

---

Honestly, I don't see the point of picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to take very seriously, and which to be dismissive about.

---

The Bible itself has been picked and chosen from numerous scriptures. What of that? There are many cooks in this kitchen, not all of them inspired by a sense of the holy. Even the most illumined were not always so. But isn't this simply the nature of all things? Nothing is pure. The chaff must be separated and the wheat retained. "Milk for babes and meat for strong men," means that fools may suckle at the breast and receive all that is given, but a wise man practices discrimination; he chews his meat, and breaks it down; he does not swallow it whole.

Two parables which apply perfectly here.

The first speaks of weeds being sown along with the good seed. And the men ask if they should tear out the weeds, and the master says, "No, lest you tear out the wheat along with it. Let it grow, and in the time of the harvest, take them up together, and bind the weeds and burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn." The Bible is that field, full of weeds and wheat, and we receive it as is, -- but when we harvest, we do not gather weeds into the barn.

The second also speaks of a field, which the master left to his servants. The first servant kept the field as he found it, and did nothing with it, so he might return it to the master just as he found it, with nothing missing. But the second servant worked the field and returned it better than he found it. Is it necessary to interpret, or do you see the point now?

quote:

---

Burning in a lake of fire eternally cannot be a "phase."

---

I've already explained how "eternally" may be reasonably and beneficially interpreted. Eternity is a realm of intensity, not duration. The soul is not concerned with space and time, but with its own perception. Eternity is what we perceive when hope is abandoned. A person in absolute despair sees no possible end to her suffering. For her, it is eternal. Even though, an instant later, she may be relieved. Likewise, a perception of overwhelming bliss does not look forward to anything, for the moment is enough. The moment is eternal. Nevertheless, time flies when we're having fun.

quote:

---

There's a point where interpretations are so liberal that they are not substantially different from pure fiction...

---

It's conservative to hold to the interpretation we've been taught. Even when that interpretation comes from an admittedly false authority, a fiction, we may still insist upon it. What is new is often called liberal, but, just because it departs from the past does not make it less reasonable.

quote:

---

and I think that if one is devoting one's life to conforming to the exhortations of a fictional authority, that is a wasted life.

---

There is a curious contradiction in your position. On the one hand, you insist that we dispense with this "fictional authority", while, on the other hand, you object when I rely upon my own intuitive guidance to reshape that fiction into something which holds true for myself. How can the authority be fictional, when my own interpretive spirit has become the authority?

And why are you reluctant to take the "haughty" position that we might correct others, yet you have no difficulty in calling theirs "a wasted life"?

I cannot help playfully challenging you, but I don't mean to upset you. It is easy to become defensive of our own views, and to get tangled in all this intellectual banter, forgetting that we are both struggling for the same noble ends. <3

quote:

---

It might displease the other gods, for one thing.

---

I imagine it will displease them all, -- but that is the price one pays for devotion to one's ideal. In the end, though, I suspect one cannot perfect a single virtue without paying tribute to all the virtues. Courage is not courage, unless it is also beautiful. Beauty is not beauty, unless it has something of order in it. We cannot be all signs at once, yet, whatever virtue we make central becomes the Sun, and compels all the others to orbit itself.

I have as little to do with Pascal as with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They are equally absurd. One who attempts to follow Christ for the sake of a reward, follows only the reward. And since when did the Flying Spaghetti Monster inflame anyone's heart with a martyr's love? Dawkins does well to confine his attacks to the most ridiculous exemplars of Christianity, and to ignore the mystics, the martyrs, and reformers who lived and died for love. And when I say he does well, I mean he makes a "decent" living. Making fun of fundamentalists is like shooting fish in a barrel. But I can't imagine anyone taking so much pride in shooting fish in a barrel. Do you want to know the definition of "haughty"? Look up Richard Dawkins. Has anyone ever been so condescending towards something so far superior to himself, of which he knows nothing? When he is done knocking around those puny fundies, let him step into the ring with a great soul, like Francis of Assisi, and see how well he fairs then. The greatness of a man may be judged by the greatness of his enemies. He is a small man, since he dodges Christ, in order to abuse the most ignorant Christians.

quote:

---

If the broom had become a god to the people, and then made all the decrees that God did, about who should be spared and who should be killed, then yes, it is unfit.

---

You seem to cling as tenaciously to that broom as the fundamentalists do. Like them, you would rather make it a cause for bickering than put it to the better use it was made for.

quote:

---

When an idea (or object) becomes a receptacle for the collective, reigning notions of the masses or the elites who control them, the idea/object is no longer strictly neutral (as a broom) but neutral AND, at another level, infused with all the power ascribed to it. Think of guns...just neutral objects, but reflecting the history of violence that gave rise to their creation, and carrying the potential to amplify harm in the future. I see notions of god the same way. Gods are created like brooms, they represent a value system (cleanliness, in the broom's case) and sustain it.

---

The idea, indeed, is infused with great power. We can use that power for good, or for evil. You choose not to use it at all. I choose not to leave it in the wrong hands. While a gun would appear to be a fair metaphor, we might remember that, besides being a pacifist, Christ was fond of quoting Isaiah, who looked forward to the day when men would "beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks." Sure, we could go the other way, and turn brooms into weapons, as many have done, and as you have done here. But that would only tighten their grip. It won't get them out of anybody's hand. Not as long as they desire something to hold. And you cannot give them nothingness to hold. Whether it is the cold vacuum of space, which Dawkins favors, or the more exalted emptiness of the Vedantists. Don't you see? When you demonize religion, you only confirm their demonic interpretations of it. That you oppose it, while they favor it, makes little difference. You already agree on its substance. You interpret it exactly as they do. You say it is bad, they say it is good, but you say the same thing. I say it is something else entirely.

"I, for my part, do not wish to blame Christianity for what men have done to it." ~ C.G. Jung

quote:

---

I think it's a combination of human nature and the contradictory nature of the Bible. At certain times and places, the Chosen were commanded to pillage and destroy. "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -Psalm 137:9 That's "happy" for ya!

---

That Psalm is quite beautiful, -- right up until the last line; the only one you chose to quote; the only one you chose to see. Again, you resemble the people who use the Bible to justify their hate. You say, "See? It's in the Bible!" They love it for the very reason you despise it, -- because it appears to justify their hate. Does it matter that they hold so tightly to the book, while you would like to burn it?

"[If] our theory of revelation-value were to affirm that any book, to possess it, must have been composed automatically or not by the free caprice of the writer, or that it must exhibit no scientific and historic errors and express no local or personal passions, the Bible would probably fare ill at our hands. But if, on the other hand, our theory should allow that a book may well be a revelation in spite of errors and passions and deliberate human composition, if only it be a true record of the inner experiences of great-souled persons wrestling with the crises of their fate, then the verdict would be much more favorable."
~ William James

quote:

---

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's not about good men seizing leadership but about the people choosing who they will submit to. And most won't submit except through the threat of force, except when they are all unified by a truly spiritual aim... how often does that happen? Maybe Gandhi's revolution was like that.

---

posted April 20, 2013 04:25 AM              

If not for the law, we would not have known sin. We would still be innocent. But the law became a stickler, and a stumbling block. For we know what is good, but there is another law in our members, which causes us to do those things we would not. If we judge ourselves, and others, according to that law which is in our members, then we are all in sin. Wherefore, we are given grace according to that spiritual law which judges according to the inward man, who is identified with Christ. So, if we believe in Christ, we testify also that Christ is in us. We no longer judge according to the flesh, for the flesh is dead, and we are dead to the flesh, being resurrected unto life in Jesus Christ.

posted April 20, 2013 05:18 AM              

quote:

---

^This tells me I am not necessarily forgiven.

---

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

Paul speaks of perception. Spiritual writing frequently speaks of what is perceived, and not of what necessarily is; for what is can only be an experience of what is perceived. If you perceive what is "flesh", then you perceive what is external, and if you continue in that perception, you will perceive yourself perishing with what is external. For everything passes away, but what is spiritual. Hence, if you perceive yourself as spirit, then you will not perceive yourself as passing away with what is external. You will abide with that which abides. The sense here is not obscure to me. We are ALL spirits, and we will all ascend as spirits, shedding our bodies, shedding our egos, and all that appears to belong to us but is not us. Yet, those who have identified with externals, will suffer through that attachment. Only when they have been deprived of all they possessed, all that they perceived themselves to be, will they realize their true nature as spirits. But those who perceive themselves as they are in eternity, who are not identified with the worldly, transitory things of this life, already have their reward in this life. They are already risen. The world is a dream, which they are in, but not of. This does not seem like a far-fetched interpretation of Paul's doctrine, but, rather, the only one which makes perfect sense of it.

quote:

---

And do I even want forgiveness? Forgiveness for what?

---

If no one accuses you, no one needs to forgive you; and if you do not accuse yourself, neither do you need to forgive yourself. Those who perceive God as having judged them benefit greatly from the notion of His mercy and forgiveness. But you speak of a higher way. For, judgment is the antithesis of understanding; hence, where there is understanding, judgment and forgiveness may be dispensed with together and at once. But, where there is love, even understanding makes no sense. Love doesn't need to understand, in order to dispense with the rest. Love accomplishes all things.

quote:

---

Without a religious framework, moral absolutes tend to fall apart.

---

On the contrary, my religious framework
is clearly compatible with moral relativism:
"Milk for babes, and meat for strong men."

quote:

---

Bi-lingual in what respect?

---

I am in the Church, but not of it.

quote:

---

Did Christ incarnate?

---

The incarnation can mean many things,
and I could answer this in many ways.

If you believe he incarnated,
regardless of what sense you mean it,
then, yes, without a doubt, he did.

If you doubt he incarnated,
regardless of what sense you mean it,
then it is doubtful that he did.

Let each be persuaded in her own mind.

quote:

---

What are the criteria you would use to determine whether or not a person is a real Christian? Is having a brain full of Bible enough? Or does there have to be an emotional interaction with that storehouse of knowledge? Obviously one cannot be a Christian without words. To honor a nameless Supreme Being cannot be construed as a form of Christianity. What does "being a Christian" entail, in your opinion?

---

Again, this is a loaded question. As much as you, and others, may wish to make it concrete, and may distrust anyone who does not answer it simply, the fact remains that it is subtle beyond words.

In one sense, I may say that everyone who bears the name is Christian; though some are more Christian than others. In another sense, I may say that the name is unnecessary, and we are all Christians. But, if it offends you to be called a Christian, I will respectfully withdraw it, as I only extend it as a gesture of inclusion. In yet another sense, we may say that one is Christian only when one loves; forgetting or sacrificing oneself under the inspiration of love, or goodness, selflessness, Christianity, or whatever you choose to call it. In that sense, I cease to be a Christian when I cease to love. Knowledge of the Bible would be unnecessary, and could even be a hindrance. Again, we may say that one is Christian only when one no longer identifies with the name of Christian, or with any label, but only with the One Spirit which pervades and underlies all names and forms. In that sense, you may be more of a Christian than I am! Yet again, we may say that one is Christian who experiences a unique affinity with the Christian tradition, relating to other Christians as brothers and sisters, and to people of other faiths as cousins or neighbors. We may say that only she who interprets that tradition according to the spirit of it, and not the letter, is a true Christian; in other words, who relies upon her own intuitive Holy Spirit, and not on the dogmatic interpretations of others, nor even on the limited sense which the author may have intended. For scripture, like the world it belongs to, is endless, and the more inspired a person is, the more interpretations she will be able to draw from any single verse. It is my belief that the most inspired authors of scripture knew perfectly well that their words contained hidden meanings which even they could not perceive; for we have not the time nor the capacity to perceive all that is there. God only knows.

quote:

---

Cheers, have a good day.

---

I'll have a good sleep! lol

posted April 20, 2013 06:30 AM            

quote:

---

You seem to cling as tenaciously to that broom as the fundamentalists do. Like them, you would rather make it a cause for bickering than put it to the better use it was made for.

---

I didn't think this was bickering. If my differing with you in my earnest opinions constitutes bickering, I will stop.

I think you miss the gist of what I'm trying to say anyway.

This has been an interesting conversation, and I really appreciate many of your points. But as it turns out you are reminding me too much of former religious friends who always want something from me: an admission that they are right. They want me to stand corrected. I have no interest in being corrected, I like my spiritual path, and have worked VERY hard and made many heart-wrenching sacrifices to get here.

And I have nothing to teach you either. As the song goes,

Let's leave it alone
Cause we can't see eye to eye
There ain't no good guy
There ain't no bad guy
There's only you and me and
We just disagree.

song

Best wishes to you going forward.

posted April 20, 2013 03:09 PM              

I'm glad you found a path that works for you.

I would not have it any other way.

posted April 26, 2013 01:15 PM            

quote:

---

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also... Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you,"

Yet, they still seek to justify war and hatred and torture. Take away everything from the Bible except these words, and they will still find a way to twist and add to them. It is the nature of wickedness and stupidity.

---