Esoterism and esoterica

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Not at all.

I see the difference as I defend my faith vigorously,
but do not seek to attack others for their faith,
nor do I attack others for their faith.


Thomas

Are you sure?

- c -

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

In regards to Judaism and Christianity, there are those that believe literally that the world is some 6,000 years old, that Adam existed and was created by G-d, that the Garden of Eden are not metaphor but actual fact and all of creation was manifest as it says in seven days, that Moses brought down five complete books off the mount and they celebrate that event.

OK

Originally Posted by wil

Now there are others that believe that much of the bible is a glorious metaphor for life, stories created to satisfy those around the campfire and eventually written down...but all should be taken with a grain of salt and even the most factual fragments contain some fantasy elements added for emphasis, or to inspire, or to convince, conspire...

OK

Originally Posted by wil

There is a small percentage of believers that fit into either of those camps...that the vast majority are somewhere in between, hence our numerous denominations/sects and those that consider themselves nondenominational...

OK

Originally Posted by wil

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.

Where the discussion becomes interesting is on what grounds one decides what is truth and what is fiction ... and the discussion between 'formal truth' and 'material truth' ... but then that is theology, and philosophy, and is an arduous discipline that few are interested in.

Originally Posted by wil

One other piece of info ... I have it from three different sources that took graduate level courses at Loyola in Baltimore ... learning theology from the Jesuits ... that long ago the church discovered that we don't want to know/hear the truth ... that we have no interest in personal responsibility or growth ... that we want someone else to save us and go on our merry way, beer and theater ... is there no truth to that? This isn't theosophists ... but Jesuits.

OK

Are you saying then that the above being the case, it fine for someone else to come along and say the whole thing is a fabrication and a lie perpetuated by a gang of criminals, that the Catholic Church should be dismantled and the Bible reritten?

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Where the discussion becomes interesting is on what grounds one decides what is truth and what is fiction ... and the discussion between 'formal truth' and 'material truth' ... but then that is theology, and philosophy, and is an arduous discipline that few are interested in.

I think you are exactly correct...and those grounds are determined by the denomination/sect one belongs and when one no longer feels that the hierarchy is doing so correctly...one moves on. Hence the creation of so many various aforementioned groups.

The problem occurs...one which CR and any and every interfaith interdenominational group struggles with is when these various and sundry factions try to have discussion about same.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Are you saying then that the above being the case, it fine for someone else to come along and say the whole thing is a fabrication and a lie perpetuated by a gang of criminals, that the Catholic Church should be dismantled and the Bible reritten?

Sure, just as it is ok for you to say that another group is founded on lies...that is called free speech. Does it perpetuate distrust, yes, does it encourage further discussion, no. Does it establish a venue whereby one may see who takes the high road...yes.

You've established a thread discussing biblical esoterism and esoterica...this in my mind you go beyond the literal translations of the bible and basically rewrite some of it. Lets face it for 4,000-2,000 years we've got books we study that haven't been rewritten despite new information that has come in over the past centuries. You are one who would love to discuss the various writers across the period....that puts you completely at odds with those that believe it litterally....we are all points of light along that thread.

[Thomas]

Dear Wil —

You misread me. I did not start a thread on biblical esoterism, I started a thread discussing esoterism in general, and the right of every tradition to its living faith.

Once again, regardless of whaat I have written, I find myself defending Catholicism.

So I assume I am obliged to follow the concensus and allow that in fact we don't, and that only The Theosophical Society can lay a claim to a knowledge of the esoteric.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Dear Wil —

You misread me. I did not start a thread on biblical esoterism, I started a thread discussing esoterism in general, and the right of every tradition to its living faith.

Once again, regardless of whaat I have written, I find myself defending Catholicism.

So I assume I am obliged to follow the concensus and allow that in fact we don't, and that only The Theosophical Society can lay a claim to a knowledge of the esoteric.

Thomas

My bad Thomas, I reread the beginning again, and still seem to think that you were indicating that Christian Esoterica differed from Bhuddist or Taoist or Hindu...as what was similar was exoterica...

I believed your claim to be that because we had a knowledge or thought we had a knowledge of our esoteric thought that did not indicate we had a knowledge of all...

I don't see anyone or any group cornering all knowledge....just their own. Nor do I see any consensus in this regard. Nor do I see you required to defend your beliefs any more than I see Andrew required to defend his. As it pertains to beliefs I think we all tend to defend when we feel attacked.

but it is still a goose and gander thing... everyone has equal opportunity at the olive branch.

[AndrewX]

Well Thomas, your axe, well ground now on the whetstone of Progress and Spiritual Advance ... is thirstier than ever for the blood of every last Theosophist upon this planet.

And, just as we have seen in ages past, it will not matter even as some of us cry out, I am NOT a witch ... for the head is already on the chopping block, and the judgment GUILTY has already been pronounced.

It is for the good of my soul, I am sure. Yes, I am sure. And that is so very, very comforting.

Do you see? You subtle, subtle man. You are very keen, very shrewd. And not without the same gamut of human emotions as I have. But you are vain, every bit as vain as I myself ... and, I am finding, MORE stubborn, much more stubborn.

I can hand you a fish, and immediately you slice it to shreds ... for all you have seen is a serpent.

I can hand you a loaf of bread, yet having cast it aside, still there is a hungry man before me.

Well friend, I am as hungry as you. And I'm all out of fish, and I just gave my last piece of bread away.

The other people here, on this thread, and at CR, are kindly, gentle souls - for the most part. Here and there, even when there is a stir, there is always such a calm, ready to move in, descending from high, to play its part, and remind us.

Are you a part of that? Are you here to restore that calm?

Or is your motive, even where you sense it not, to cut down?

I will not give you my scythe, for the harvest. A fish, a loaf, and even my cup ... these I will share.

But I will not hand you my scythe.

In giving away my heart, I know that I can only gain.
But if I hand you what you ask, I shall only lose my head.
This, I have seen, time and time again.

Teach, if you must, that Death is our enemy, that death is wrong.
Teach, that the Lord did not create Death Itself, and grant him dominion - over a realm.

TEACH ... that we may cheat death, and wage our war even as we journey toward the Father.

I will teach another way to see things, no matter what my loss.
And when it comes time to count our blessings, and measure our grief, who shall come out ahead?

A fish, a loaf ... a cup.
And a scythe.

Death is a man, just like you and me.
Imagine a talk together, over a cup of tea.

+-+-+-+

Do please, if you have the chance, Thomas, ponder the subject of scapegoats.

What will you do when there are no Theosophists around? Suppose you succeed in defeating us all? When the Crusade is over, the Holy War won, who shall remain as a worthy enough adversary?

One foot on the dragon, tell me your future plans, St. George.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

My bad Thomas, I reread the beginning again, and still seem to think that you were indicating that Christian Esoterica differed from Bhuddist or Taoist or Hindu...as what was similar was exoterica...

That is correct. Each is unique in its own way. What they share in common is the general, what is unique to them, and thus esoteric, is particular. If such were not the case, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them.

Then there are questions of hermeneutics and epistemology to consider. Without which, we can only make generalised assumptions. I am referring specifically to spiritual dynamics.

Originally Posted by wil

I don't see anyone or any group cornering all knowledge....just their own.

Is that not precisely the point I set out to make?

But how is one to respond when told that a group possesses the full and authentic truth of a tradition, and that what I hold in faith is a pack of lies and distortions? Am I not continually being told that I do not hold nor understand the reality of my tradition.

Thomas

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by Thomas

But how is one to respond when told that a group possesses the full and authentic truth of a tradition, and that what I hold in faith is a pack of lies and distortions? Am I not continually being told that I do not hold nor understand the reality of my tradition.

Thomas

Thomas,

You must know this is not true, it is the very essence of your tradition I hear speaking through your words. When it is so strong, why does it need to be so defensive? Can you give the same allowance to others, you give to your own truly? For often it seems you do........and then you dont...... it's own eternal dance, it swings and turns forever.

This the very reason I do not hold with tradition. Yet can appreciate in openness.

peace - c -

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

But how is one to respond when told that a group possesses the full and authentic truth of a tradition, and that what I hold in faith is a pack of lies and distortions? Am I not continually being told that I do not hold nor understand the reality of my tradition.

How many times have I been told I am going to hell for my beliefs, that I am not a Christian? I have no idea.

I've had posts, emails, pm's, some here, some other places that end in 'Go to hell, Godbless' and 'Get behind me Satan' yet my path is with Christ. I'm not saying I have all the answers or know the correct way to respond...I stumble and fall all the time. I say the wrong words, I don't sufficiently get my point across, I am misunderstood. I piss off, and irritate people that I don't mean to due to my inadequacy in communication and tendency to retort without contemplation and meditation.

Lots for me to work on. But if I allow someone else's words or thought to influence my demeanor, who allowed it? If someone tells me my pressed shirt is wrinkled and I can see it is not, why should that bother me?

How should you respond...obviously only you know. What is the end result you wish to achieve...is it communication, education, amicable discourse? If your goal is to drive from here to there and there is a boulder in the road do you go around it or through it?

WWJD? When confronted by the mob, he sat down and doodled in the sand and asked a question. When his disciples were ready to war to save him..he indicated they know not what they do.

In Covey's seven habits he says seek first to understand then to be understood.

I do believe from following these discussions that you have pissed off /shut down Andrew as much as Andrew you...

I cannot speak for the rest...but you two constantly drive me to the dictionary, the bible, webpages, and everywhere else just to barely keep up with what you contemplate. I so honor both of your heartfelt positions and the discussion between you two. It is this selfishness on my part causes me to publicly get involved to see discussion continue...

[Ciel]

Emperor Andrew,

Can I give you a new suit of clothes?

That red atire is provoking you to dance more like the devil himself.

love - c -

[Thomas]

OK — Here's something from a different tack, on the point of esoterism:

Below are nine propositions of Catholic dogma (the Orthodox would argue point 3). I would argue that they are esoteric, because they can only be understood from within the context of Christianity (you won't find a Buddhist making these assertions), but also that they are accessible, because Christianity by its nature is 'an esoterism in plain sight':

(Please note: I am not saying that these are 'secret', but I do think it fair to say that even though they may be known, this does not mean they are fully understood.)

1. There are Three who give testimony of the Godhead:
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
2. From the Father is, eternally, the Son.
3. From the Father and Son is, eternally, the Holy Spirit.
4. The Father is the One God.
5. The Son is the One God.
6. The Spirit is the One God.
7. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit.
8. The Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit.
9. The Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son.

My points are:

Unless you understand Christian doctrine, you will assume tritheism (as famously Islam accuses us).

Therefore as a monotheist, you cannot assent to these propositions, without an understanding of Christian doctrine (or you can, without the slightest idea of what you are assenting to).

You will not find this doctrine, nor, I think, its correlate or equivalent, in any non-Christian tradition — therefore it may be true, but it is not necessarily universal, that is, it is not a belief held in common by all.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Just one thing Wil —

WWJD?

When confronted, Jesus never backed down. The drawing in the sand was not a confrontation against him, but another — and there is a lesson even in that.

When challenged, as He was often, He was vigorous, robust and uncompromising in His response. He didn't mince words, nor spare the feelings of His audience. He told His disciples 'not to cast pearls before swine', 'not to give what is holy to dogs', and if they were not well received, to 'shake the dust from their heels' (a culturally offensive gesture) and walk away.

Why d'you think He called Paul, specifically? 'Lukewarm Christians'? He's got no time for 'em.

If Christians didn't stand up for what they believed in, in a time when they were liable to be killed for it (as they are today) we would never have heard of Him.

Thomas

[wil]

In regards to 7 & 8 isn't John 10:30 used to prove the Trinity?

While the trinity doctrine is prevalent in Christianity it isn't in all denominations...and various denominations have various interpretations..so their esoterica varies?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

....When challenged, as He was often, He was vigorous, robust and uncompromising in His response. He didn't mince words, nor spare the feelings of His audience.

Why d'you think He called Paul, specifically? 'Lukewarm Christians'? He's got no time for 'em.

If Christians didn't stand up for what they believed in, in a time when they were liable to be killed for it (as they are today) we would never have heard of Him.

You gotta help me here...Jesus called Paul what?? I thought they never met? Lukewarm Christians?? I'm baffled Jesus was Jew...there weren't any Christians were there? talk about hidden knowledge...I've missed it all!!!

I agree, your decision to make whatever response you choose is yours. We have free will and choice, we can just not choose the consequences of our choices. Whatever your goal is, my question remains, does the tack that is currently being followed move toward the goal or away from it, and in the end will it achieve it?

What do we know about this site? This is a place for education and discussion..not for conversion.

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by Thomas

1. There are Three who give testimony of the Godhead:
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
2. From the Father is, eternally, the Son.
3. From the Father and Son is, eternally, the Holy Spirit.
4. The Father is the One God.
5. The Son is the One God.
6. The Spirit is the One God.
7. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit.
8. The Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit.
9. The Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son.

...You will not find this doctrine, nor, I think, its correlate or equivalent, in any non-Christian tradition — therefore it may be true, but it is not necessarily universal, that is, it is not a belief held in common by all.

Okay, I'm not expecting anyone to agree that these are necessarily refering to the exact same things, but I can list similar beliefs to some of the above from the Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism which could make for an interesting comparison? :

1. There are Three who give testimony of the Godhead:
Bhagavan (the Supreme God), the Guru (pure representative of God), and the Paramatma (God within the heart).

2. From the Father is, eternally, the Son. [Not entirely sure what this means?]
3. From the Father and Son is, eternally, the Holy Spirit.[Again, not entirely sure what this means?]

4. Bhagavan is the One God.
5. The message of the Pure Guru is non-different from the message of Bhagavan.
6. The message God instructs from within (as Paramatma) is non-different from that of Bhagavan.
7. Bhagavan is different from both the Guru and the Paramatma.
8. The Guru is not God (Bhagavan) nor the Paramatma.
9. The Paramatma is different from both Bhagavan and the Guru.

I'm not saying this to be pedantic, but as I looked at the nine points I couldn't help but see some similarities.

Best Wishes,

... Neemai