07 Apr 07
Originally posted by whodeyLOL! Good one! 😵
So considering that you are a non-dualist, does this make you a rebellious teenager I wonder?
Actually, I think my rebelliousness has more to do with the resistance of my own somebody-self construct to it’s ultimate transience, and it’s non-separability from the ocean of being. It really is a rebellious teenager.
“The ocean does not forget that it is a wave,
but the wave forgets that it is an Ocean.”
—Sri H.W.L. Poonja (in This: Prose and Poetry of Dancing Emptiness).
07 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Varqa[/i]We are coming from two paradigmatically different viewpoints here, both of which sometimes use the same language. When the Upanishads use theist language, they are no more positing a theistic being than were the Stoics. It is metaphorical language (reflecting, in part, our nature as relational beings) for Brahman, Ein Sof, the One without a second, the All without another—sometimes the language is personal, sometimes impersonal (an area where I remain agnostic, depending on what one means by those terms). The same when Kashmiri Shaivites speak of “the lord Shiva.”
There are of course enlightened people, those who are better tuned than the average person is to the divine realm. Some examples are Isaiah in Christianity and Imam Hussein in Islam. These people received revelation from God, but the Bible makes a sharp distinction between the enlightened individuals and the Messengers.
[i]If there be a prophet among you, I ...[text shortened]... truth will stand out and be the same in every holy Book, from the Gita to the Quran and beyond.
I think the books, including the Bible, reflect the experiences, and attempts at expressing such experiences, of the ground-and-whole-of-being, by various people—some perhaps more enlightened than others. Someone may feel compelled to bear the message, to reveal it. Nevertheless, I do not see the various scriptures as being in any way “the inerrant word of God.”
Who are you to follow? I can’t tell you. As a matter of fact—not belief, not doctrine, but fact—in making that decision you are following yourself: your own experiences, beliefs, conclusions, predilections; the nature of your own consciousness. It seems to me that you have found your path—may it be for you and others a path of enlightenment and blessing. But the decision that that is the right path was made, at rock bottom, on your own authority; as is every decision to recognize another authority.
In the end, we either realize our existential “entanglement” with the One—our existence as a stream in the ocean, and of the ocean—or we continue locked in the box of the ego-construct. The ego-construct is valuable, but it is not ultimate, though it pretends to be. That is the illusion.
NOTE: I echo Whodey’s question about the word versus interpretations, etc...
07 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdYour a naughty, naughty boy vistesd. 😛
LOL! Good one! 😵
Actually, I think my rebelliousness has more to do with the resistance of my own somebody-self construct to it’s ultimate transience, and it’s non-separability from the ocean of being. It really is a rebellious teenager.
“The ocean does not forget that it is a wave,
but the wave forgets that it is an Ocean.”
—Sri H.W.L. Poonja (in This: Prose and Poetry of Dancing Emptiness).
08 Apr 07
Originally posted by whodeyWhat I am trying to say with my inadequate words is that if someone did not know a thing about the current Bible doctrine and he were to read the Bible for the first time, he would not come to the same conclusions that has now become part of Christian doctrine.
Can you expand on what you mean when you say that the authority to follow in such matters is the Word instead of the interpretations, messangers etc.?
The Bible is full of confusing passages. Add to this confusion the uncertainty in translation and you have the recipe for misinterpretation. You can not honestly say to me that what you believe is the ONLY way to interpret the Bible. There are over 30,000 sects in Christianity, all of whom believe their interpretation is the correct one.
Let's take this example.
"God created man. Man sinned and fell from grace. God sent laws so man could redeem himself. Man was unable to fulfill the law. God then sent His son, a part of the trinity to die for man, to be a sacrifice to get rid o the stain of sin once and for all. Now all we have to do is believe in Jesus and we will someday be saved when He rides on a cloud and raise all the believers up to heaven."
This is not written anywhere in the Bible this clearly. You have to combine many passages scattered all over the Book, make a lot of assumptions, and overlook some other passages before you come to this conclusion.
THIS IS CALLED INTERPRETATION.
You must realize that your interpretation is as valid as the 29999 others, and although each interpretation holds some level of truth, they can not all be correct. You must accept or at least consider the possibility that what you believe may be false. If you ever make this realization, you may feel lost in the wilderness, not knowing which way to go. At that moment your only compass, your only map, your only guide and “AUTHORITY” will be the Bible. The truth, however improbable, is still in there.
I hope I am a little clearer in what I am trying to say.
08 Apr 07
Originally posted by VarqaOne thing, my daughter, Heather and her husband Gandhi, both were Bahai but eventually came to the realization of something that undermined all the bahai faith: as they got deeper into the faith, there was more and more evidence it was simply another religion with a built in bias, namely a bias against women. there are very few women in the upper ranks of the Bahai faith, the same as Islam from which it derived, christianity and a lot of other religions. This alone convinced them of the non-godliness of the religion and all other religions that put men on a higher plane than women in terms of the achiievment of rank inside each of those religions. They concluded all such rellgions are therefore the work of men and not a god, which I firmly believe.
I am a Baha'i, but THinkOfOne is doing such a good job of explaining things that I am afraid to butt in.
The Baha'i Faith teaches that all religions come from the same loving God. Over the years, misinterpretations have crept into each religion making us believe thheyey are different, but they are basically saying the same thing.
Since God is infinite. ...[text shortened]... we progress and can handle more, He opens the door to His knowledge to reveal to us some more.
08 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by VarqaI think I understand. So I must renounce or at leat consider renouncing Christ as the only way to God because not everyone interprets this message the same way in the Bible. After all, they can't all be right. At that point I will then be enlightened, even though I will feel lost. I must then re-read the Bible once again and revert back to the days before my conversion, even though when I read the Bible for the first time my eyes were spiritually darkened and next to nothing made sense to me at that time.
What I am trying to say with my inadequate words is that if someone did not know a thing about the current Bible doctrine and he were to read the Bible for the first time, he would not come to the same conclusions that has now become part of Christian doctrine.
The Bible is full of confusing passages. Add to this confusion the uncertainty in translation an improbable, is still in there.
I hope I am a little clearer in what I am trying to say.
There are two types of "revelation" for me, so to speak. You have both intellectual as well as spiritual revelation concerning the truth and I have experienced both and the truth has set me free. Why would I then revert back to anything else? I think back to a comment the Peter made when Chist asked him if he were to continue following him. Peter said something to the effect that Christ was the only one with words of life. Who else were they to follow? Perhaps you feel the same way about Bahali, I don't know.
08 Apr 07
Originally posted by whodeyI am not saying you do any of that. If you are perfectly happy with what you believe, and you do not see any holes in the interpretation, then stick to it.
I think I understand. So I must renounce or at leat consider renouncing Christ as the only way to God because not everyone interprets this message the same way in the Bible. After all, they can't all be right. At that point I will then be enlightened, even though I will feel lost. I must then re-read the Bible once again and revert back to the days before ...[text shortened]... e. Who else were they to follow? Perhaps you feel the same way about Bahali, I don't know.
And yes, Jesus was the only one with the words of life. I believe that 100%. But you must not take the statement out of contexts. Jesus was God's mouthpiece on earth at the time. There were other religious leaders who claimed to have the truth. Peter simply said at the time Jesus was the only one they needed to follow. No one goes to the Father except they go through Jesus. If you want to believe that Peter was talking about eternity, that is ok too.
09 Apr 07
3 edits
Originally posted by VarqaBut what I am hearing you say is that there is nothing special about Christ in terms of comparing him to other "mouthpieces" that God has provided for us in the past in order to communicate to mankind. However, if this is not your position, what sets Christ apart from other "mouthpieces" in your opinion?
I am not saying you do any of that. If you are perfectly happy with what you believe, and you do not see any holes in the interpretation, then stick to it.
And yes, Jesus was the only one with the words of life. I believe that 100%. But you must not take the statement out of contexts. Jesus was God's mouthpiece on earth at the time. There were other religi ...[text shortened]... go through Jesus. If you want to believe that Peter was talking about eternity, that is ok too.
09 Apr 07
Originally posted by sonhouseWould'nt you know it, they allow sinners in the church's as well.
One thing, my daughter, Heather and her husband Gandhi, both were Bahai but eventually came to the realization of something that undermined all the bahai faith: as they got deeper into the faith, there was more and more evidence it was simply another religion with a built in bias, namely a bias against women. there are very few women in the upper ranks of t ...[text shortened]... oncluded all such rellgions are therefore the work of men and not a god, which I firmly believe.
09 Apr 07
Originally posted by whodeyAbraham, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, the Bab and Baha'u'llah were the mouthpieces of God. The mouthpiece is special only because it delivers the Word of God. They are the perfect mirrors in which we see the image of God. A perfect mirror that reflects the intense light and the warmth of the sun is of course special. No one else is pure enough.
But what I am hearing you say is that there is nothing special about Christ in terms of comparing him to other "mouthpieces" that God has provided for us in the past in order to communicate to mankind. However, if this is not your position, what sets Christ apart from other "mouthpieces" in your opinion?
It is natural for you to consider Jesus to be above and beyond any other. You have been thought that. Can you imagine a priest telling you that Jesus is the same as Moses? The churches want monopoly on God. They want you to believe that they are the only way, so that you will never leave the church. In the same way, the Mullahs tell their followers that Islam is the only way, and so on and so on. The priests point to passages where God is speaking through Jesus and say "see He is the Alpha and the Omega," but they have nothing to say about when Jesus says of myself I can do nothing. I only say what I hear and do what I am told.
Jesus was the Messenger of God at the time. He was the Word of God made flesh to walk the earth. He was the Bread and the water of life, because the word of God gives spiritual life, and without it we are dead. He gave His life to save us, because if we follow His example we stop being dead and start to live. We stop being blind and we begin to see. These are all spiritual symbols. I am just rambling on. Go to bed.
09 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeywhodey: even though when I read the Bible for the first time my eyes were spiritually darkened and next to nothing made sense to me at that time.
I think I understand. So I must renounce or at leat consider renouncing Christ as the only way to God because not everyone interprets this message the same way in the Bible. After all, they can't all be right. At that point I will then be enlightened, even though I will feel lost. I must then re-read the Bible once again and revert back to the days before e. Who else were they to follow? Perhaps you feel the same way about Bahali, I don't know.
Thank goodness you had somebody else available to tell you what to believe. Try not to go to any Al Qaeda meetings.
09 Apr 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYou assume here that someone lifted the vails from my eyes rather than God doing it himself.
whodey: even though when I read the Bible for the first time my eyes were spiritually darkened and next to nothing made sense to me at that time.
Thank goodness you had somebody else available to tell you what to believe. Try not to go to any Al Qaeda meetings.