Religions vs. religions

[juantoo3]

Apples are so tasty. Gee, could it all be allegory?

<sarcasm>I just love it when non-Christians know my faith so much better than I, thanks.</sarcasm>

Over the course of several conversations there have been gross presumptions about what I believe. All Christians are so predictably alike! That is why we have so many disagreements among our various denominations, because we agree so well on everything.

Rather than spouting the words "I am not a literalist," I had thought I had made my view pretty well known by now. Alas, foolish me.

FWIW, a simple reading of the book of Genesis will reveal that Eve did not tempt Adam with an apple. The question for discerning minds, is what did Eve tempt Adam with? Of course, I am certain non-Christians with a bent towards usurping G-d know that one as well, but I suspect not nearly as well as they believe they do.

I did not enter this discussion to denigrate anybody else's beliefs. Neither will I sit idly by and let mine be denigrated. I made my point explicitly clear, Christ's sacrifice is for Christians. I do not expect anybody else besides Christians to agree, or observe. Neither will I allow anybody to take that promise away from me.

I think it is patently clear, that a universal religion cannot incorporate Christianity without doing away with that promise and all it entails. I think that point is made excruciatingly obvious by the last few posts. I realize you have your point of view, more power to ya! I do not expect you to adopt mine. Therein lies the difference between us, I tolerate you with respect, you cannot tolerate me because I pose a threat to you. Not that I really do, but you perceive me as a threat. You have created that reality in your own mind. Sad, really. But that is what happens when you believe you know better than another what their chosen path actually represents. I haven't walked a mile in your moccasins, so I cannot presume what it is you actually believe beyond what you have posted in this forum. It would be nice if you would not presume what it is I actually believe, especially when you are so way off base.

[Quahom1]

Eve was deceived. Adam was not...he deliberately chose Eve over God...and God knew he would...now the two would work together to meet God, through thick or thin, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health...get it?

Maybe not.

v/r

Q

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Sorry, the Biblical "Adam" means ruddy man, or reddish in skin color (as in red like the clay of the ground). You can check that in the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old testament.

Now that is amazing. I don't know about etymologies in this case ... but consider the following straight out of The Secret Doctrine, from the 10th Stanza of Dzyan:

"THE FIRST (Race)ON EVERY ZONE WAS MOON-COLOURED (yellow-white); THE SECOND, YELLOW, LIKE GOLD; THE THIRD, RED; THE FOURTH, BROWN, WHICH BECAME BLACK WITH SIN. THE FIRST SEVEN (human)SHOOTS WERE ALL OF ONE COMPLEXION IN THE BEGINNING. THE NEXT (seven, the sub-races) BEGAN MIXING THEIR COLOURS"

Now this describes, specifically, the development of the Atlantean race - and although by no means Humanity's First, this is the time period and stage of human development during which things began to go astray. During the previous (Lemurian) race, we might trace the origins of sin (or to an earlier world, even an earlier System, if we like) ... yet there is a general agreement that during Atlantis (and more specifically, during the 4th sub-race, as mentioned above), we screwed up "biggest."

Another specific reference to red can be found in an earlier Stanza, Stanza VIII, in describing the earlier "sin of the mindless," during Lemurian times (somewhere within the past 18 million years ago, and more likely something like 5):

AND THOSE WHICH HAD NO SPARK TOOK HUGE SHE-ANIMALS UNTO THEM. THEY BEGAT UPON THEM DUMB RACES. DUMB THEY WERE THEMSELVES. BUT THEIR TONGUES UNTIED. THE TONGUES OF THEIR PROGENY REMAINED STILL. MONSTERS THEY BRED. A RACE OF CROOKED, RED-HAIR-COVERED MONSTERS, GOING ON ALL FOURS. A DUMB RACE, TO KEEP THE SHAME UNTOLD.

I quote from one of my own "Holy Bibles," because I believe it to be far, far more ancient than both the Torah and the New Testament, or even the Popol Vuh ... yet there are parallels. The second passage provided refers to that time when MAN existed prior to any of the supposed ancestors which modern science still hypothesizes. Indeed, this is the common ancestor referred to - though already an example of the Third Race of Humanity! That the anthropoid ape literally de-volved from us at this stage ("the sin of the mindless"), is exactly what esotericism suggests, which potentially reconciles evolution with creationism - and without bias toward/against either.

andrew

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

<sarcasm>I just love it when non-Christians know my faith so much better than I, thanks.</sarcasm>

Over the course of several conversations there have been gross presumptions about what I believe. All Christians are so predictably alike! That is why we have so many disagreements among our various denominations, because we agree so well on everything.

Rather than spouting the words "I am not a literalist," I had thought I had made my view pretty well known by now. Alas, foolish me.

FWIW, a simple reading of the book of Genesis will reveal that Eve did not tempt Adam with an apple. The question for discerning minds, is what did Eve tempt Adam with? Of course, I am certain non-Christians with a bent towards usurping G-d know that one as well, but I suspect not nearly as well as they believe they do.

I did not enter this discussion to denigrate anybody else's beliefs. Neither will I sit idly by and let mine be denigrated. I made my point explicitly clear, Christ's sacrifice is for Christians. I do not expect anybody else besides Christians to agree, or observe. Neither will I allow anybody to take that promise away from me.

I think it is patently clear, that a universal religion cannot incorporate Christianity without doing away with that promise and all it entails. I think that point is made excruciatingly obvious by the last few posts. I realize you have your point of view, more power to ya! I do not expect you to adopt mine. Therein lies the difference between us, I tolerate you with respect, you cannot tolerate me because I pose a threat to you. Not that I really do, but you perceive me as a threat. You have created that reality in your own mind. Sad, really. But that is what happens when you believe you know better than another what their chosen path actually represents. I haven't walked a mile in your moccasins, so I cannot presume what it is you actually believe beyond what you have posted in this forum. It would be nice if you would not presume what it is I actually believe, especially when you are so way off base.

oh my goodness. i was busting my gutt when i was reading this. i am dying, my smiling face muscles actually hurt.
i choose harry potter, so you must choose harry potter.

[akbar]

Friends,
As you know that I believe that there is a God mentioned in holy books or not. I believe that there may not any religious God as no religious God may be taken as universal or omnipresent.
I also believe that humans are exposed to evil though basically having a good nature liked by the God and if they are not induced or taken over by the evil they are supreme beings. This inducement may be by any devil/devils or within themself which they are required to supress.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by taijasi

And I leave it to the eye of Wisdom (operative within the Heart) to discern and acknowledge that a World Religion cannot exist so long as the color green asserts itself to be better than all other colors - and to itself be the One White Light. Green, is but one of many wavelengths. Nor is orange the "one true sacred color" - all others being but poor imitations, and incomplete, on their own. No, juantoo3, orange is not white, either! And no matter how you insist, or how much you try to feel scapegoated, and play the victim (and that's the sad story, if you ask me, that one must cling so tenaciously to one's beliefs that none other can be admitted - as even possibly compatible) ... separated colors remain just that. White Light will never be obtained by simply straining away at one tiny portion of the spectrum.

When someone says that only certain wavelengths of whole range of the color "orange" {585-620 nm} are "valid", and the other wavelengths are "invalid," one is "blackening out" a large portion of that color. Black is not a true color, but is an absence of the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum. By declaring aspects of another's beliefs as invalid, is that not what you are doing, but removing the light? Doesn't orange have a valid point to complain when someone else attempts to blacken out certain wavelengths within that color range by declaring aspects of their belief are invalid, especially when those wavelengths are staying in their proper place within that color range?

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

When someone says that only certain wavelengths of whole range of the color "orange" {585-620 nm} are "valid", and the other wavelengths are "invalid," one is "blackening out" a large portion of that color. Black is not a true color, but is an absence of the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum. By declaring aspects of another's beliefs as invalid, is that not what you are doing, but removing the light? Doesn't orange have a valid point to complain when someone else attempts to blacken out certain wavelengths within that color range by declaring aspects of their belief are invalid, especially when those wavelengths are staying in their proper place within that color range?

Let's not mince words, get technical, and make applesauce, seattlegal. Orange is orange is orange is orange. And so with every other color. Truth will never be arrived at by "blacking out" what does not suit, or does not fit. But this is not what I do, when I simply present a different interpretation ... and suggest that there are more than ONE, NARROW SET of wavelengths involved, in the color orange, for example. To be certain (assuming I look it up), the spectral range you provide is orange. And every bit as objectively, I hold that there is a truth to what Christ taught. Before you feel the need to rush valiantly to someone's defense, please at least allow juantoo3 the opportunity to address specific points of disagreement or dispute. And spare me a second face which will defend the notion that simply because one believes something, it is valid, true, etc. We have played that little game before, and you can't have it both ways. Either there is objectivity to this picture, or indeed, ORANGE is purely subjective, after all!

So which is it? Let ME rush to juantoo3's defense, instead, by sharing one of my favorite Voltaire mis-quotes (which still makes the point, regardless):

"I may not agree with what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it!"

Let us exercise a little distance from our cherished and sacred beliefs, if we are to discuss them rationally. If we cannot do the former, we should not pretend to do the latter.

And if we're going to speak of the various wavelengths of light and get technical, let's not forget infrared, ultraviolet, Gamma Rays, X-Rays, Cosmic Rays ... and spectra which are so far beyond our ken, that "Vision" really conveys nothing to us of what that kind of "Light" actually is! What can be said about the Religion(s) of the other planets of our own Solar System - far let alone those of planets circling other stars entirely? Oh, you don't believe in such (you might, I'm just being hypothetical)? Ah well, again, your right to believe. But what would it take? The UFO on the White House Lawn, and the familiar, "take us to your leader?" Hmmm, perhaps just an actual craft, or a piece of alien technology. And what did you say the nature of the CPU is again, which you're using to get these words out here in the ether? Hmmmm. Where did you say they come from? Hmmmm.

You see, we can believe any nonsense we like. While I find my wandering thoughts quite rational (in terms of what they imply, not necessarily their actual sequence, or literal expression) ... others will say, "LGMs!" - and simply shake their head and sigh. I have to laugh with them. Certainly some things sound crazy, and truth is stranger than fiction .... (so we laugh, and get a rise out of the seemingly absurd).

Please, before we start rattling sabers, cages, teeth and wits, do tell me which "wavelengths" I'm seeking to "black out," as either you - or juantoo3 - see it. If you could provide a simple list or enumeration, I would be happy to show that in each case, the belief, thought, or idea in question is surely open to several possible interpretations. Or, where the meaning seems apparent, then just pretend for a moment that I haven't heard of Xianity - give me the benefit of the doubt (that I desire to learn, in this case, where there are different viewpoints), and explain. But for God's sake - or even just mine - please don't just jump on this familiar bandwagon, without being willing to talk turkey.

Let us not hide behind religions, belief systems, philosophies, or even individual ideas. I embrace the opportunity to "make myself very, very small" and enter some particular thread of discussion. But maybe we could focus on a key thought or two (?) ... if we aren't going to return to the actual thread topic.

Respectfully,

andrew

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by taijasi to juantoo3

Stop assuming that everything's being directed at you, personally.

Originally Posted by taijasi to seattlegal

Before you feel the need to rush valiantly to someone's defense, please at least allow juantoo3 the opportunity to address specific points of disagreement or dispute.

So which is it? Personal or general? Particle or wave?

Originally Posted by taijasi

We have played that little game before, and you can't have it both ways.

Indeed! {see above}

Originally Posted by taijasi

Please, before we start rattling sabers, cages, teeth and wits, do tell me which "wavelengths" I'm seeking to "black out," as either you - or juantoo3 - see it. If you could provide a simple list or enumeration, I would be happy to show that in each case, the belief, thought, or idea in question is surely open to several possible interpretations.

{pointing to top of page}

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

So which is it? Personal or general? Particle or wave?

Well that's precisely it ... and your (implied) point is a valid one. We adopt beliefs, and these begin to form a part of our "faith" (where this word signifies understanding, and applies to any & all religions).

I almost posted a follow-up, and so will take this opportunity to go ahead an state, in juantoo3's absence, that - whether it be him, yourself, or another - if the preference is simply to not play ball ... I can and will, understand and respect that. There can either be the agreement to disagree, or it could be said, plain & simply, "I do not feel comfortable discussing this further." That's all that need be said, and I'm happy to drop it. And if that's what juantoo3 was saying, then I would like to know, so as not to press my points with him any further.

But now, here, we see ... the wavelike nature of the discussion comes into play. Did Xianity (I abbreviate solely to save keystrokes) exist prior to juantoo3, seattlegal, taijasi, et al here at CR? Most certainly. Will it probably exist long after we're dead and gone? Oh I dare say. And frankly, is it dependent upon any of us, or even upon all of CR, as a whole, for either its continued existence or its well-being? Well, certainly not, in the former case, but arguably (and I could make a good case for it), much of what happens here probably does amount to more than just a casual ripple - or say, an effect of the most minor nature - when it comes to Xianity, or Buddhism, or Baha'i, or any other of the religions/belief systems we're discussing. It's requires us to stop and think - if even a small pebble tossed into the centre of a lake ten miles wide, will have its inevitable effects upon the farthest shores, all around (to say nothing of the river bottom, or of the ethers of space!) ... then what about the meteorite, which plummets to earth and makes a rather noticeable splash! Certainly its effects will also be sensed, but science tells us - these effects are Greater!

Well that's a very limited metaphor, and I think the splash here is one that the world could not have too much of, for the most part ... in the present day & age. But to return to the answer to your question -> we choose which beliefs and ideas to adopt, even if we find that they have become somewhat rather intimately wound up, woven, or entangled (however we prefer to see it) with our feelings, worldview, and our very identity. But this is why a basic philosophy class (at the college level) is a good idea for anyone otherwise brave enough to discuss religion at a forum such as this. The substitute, can either be trial & error, or learning through observation - or then again the application of the same skills & approach as one might gain in an Intro to Philosophy course, as have been gained in any of countless other venues.

I don't want to patronize anyone, and babble on about "thin skin," especially since this is something that applies to us all, at least from time to time. S/he who denies having feelings, is but hiding them. And I find it all too easy to become offended, on occasion, but when the very topic under discussion is the role and relationship between religion (in the singular) as compared and contrasted with religions (in the plural), I hardly think that it makes sense to take offense from those who simply believe (and for good reason, which viewpoint can be supported by much evidence, of many different types) - that Unity is preferable to conflict, and must one day triumph over the present still-chaotic, often-violent religious climate in today's world.

Yes, the warring members of what is in essence (integrally, fundamentally, and by nature) One Body ... must cease to fight amongst themselves. Yet, no limited vision or version of God, and of that nature & significance of unbounded LIFE Itself - may be foisted upon another, with some arbitrary (or chosen) figurehead being substituted - for REALITY.

And yes, I will invoke the "R" word here, as a last resort, and in silent recognition - of the CHAOS - which does, still, prevail ... and which is but the outer reflection of a Divine PRINCIPLE ... and thus by being sufficiently vague, I will be content, at this juncture, to say nothing at all - rather than going on about Universal Truth, or one's Highest Ideal(s). But I do think it fitting to invoke a portion of a parable I posted onto another thread, as one small section of it is especially relevant here. Christ speaks thus:

Basic, spiritual Truths did I reveal to man for his right guidance, so that security and peace should be his on earth; ay, more than that, for, because of my love for him, I wished him to have Life and have it more abundantly, as I did say erewhile; meaning thereby that One Life which is Pure Being, Intelligence and Bliss – and is ultimately for all.
But, alas for my Mission, and, alas, for my burning hopes. And, alas, for the nations, who, although professing to love me, have sought not to keep my commandments, and so brought about their own undoing.
Belief in me yet disbelief in my precepts! – a strange and paradoxical belief is that indeed.
And so, my son, because men have misunderstood me and the purport of my Mission, do I seek, in these times of danger and crises and tribulations, to bring back many things to remembrance …

That the fair voice of this Master, and many others, would again fill the air - and as before, dispel doubt, end confusion, and bring to us again the sweet balm of harmonious, fraternal Understanding ... is my sincerest, most solemn wish.

In Love and Light,

Andreas Bar-abbâ

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Well that's precisely it ... and your (implied) point is a valid one. We adopt beliefs, and these begin to form a part of our "faith" (where this word signifies understanding, and applies to any & all religions).
<...>
But now, here, we see ... the wavelike nature of the discussion comes into play.

The wavelike nature, {the wavelength, specifically,} and not the particle, is what determines the color of the light, and the different colors have been specifically applied to religions {plural} in this thread. White light, {religion, singular}, by it's nature, consists of a combination of different wavelengths. Now, if the religion {singular}, or white light as it has been called, wishes to nullify one or more of the wavelengths that are part of it, how long can it remain white? How long before it becomes black, or the absence of any wavelength, due to the destruction and cancellation of the many different wavelengths that make up that white light? How is it that all of the different wavelengths can co-exist to produce this white light? Gee, might it be due to the Golden Rule that is found within so many of the different religions {plural}? By destroying those wavelengths, the white light destroys itself, and by invalidating the essential nature of of the various wavelengths, the white light invalidates itself. Isn't this the core message of the Golden Rule?

Originally Posted by taijasi

I don't want to patronize anyone, and babble on about "thin skin," especially since this is something that applies to us all, at least from time to time. S/he who denies having feelings, is but hiding them. And I find it all too easy to become offended, on occasion, but when the very topic under discussion is the role and relationship between religion (in the singular) as compared and contrasted with religions (in the plural), I hardly think that it makes sense to take offense from those who simply believe (and for good reason, which viewpoint can be supported by much evidence, of many different types) - that Unity is preferable to conflict, and must one day triumph over the present still-chaotic, often-violent religious climate in today's world.

I have been addressing that very topic,{of religions and religion} all along. My question still stands: Why go against the Golden Rule by trying to invalidate a specific wavelength, when all it will do is to turn the white light dark? Surely, what could be more violent than putting a beautiful banquet into the blender "for the sake of the one," and for creating "order out of chaos"? It destroys the banquet. Unity does not mean uniformity, and it is not what goes into your mouth that defiles you, but it is what comes out of your mouth that defiles you. Food for thought.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

/Moderator Hat ON/

Please be mindful of the other sentient beings when making your points on this thread. There are some posts which seem to be very close to breaching the CoC.. so, let's all just breath a bit and relax.. we can discuss things in a constructive manner, it just requires patience.

/Moderator Hat OFF/

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste and Salaam Akbar,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by akbar

Does each religion have a separate God?

well, simply no. Buddha Dharma, for instance, does not have a concept of a Creator Deity as part of the practice.

Why they insist on special name or names for their God? Does God approve any language necessary to be prayed? Does not He know other languages? Does he approve only special manners to be prayed as different armies observe different orders for show off? Does religion not believe that the God is one, the God of universe and mankind?

based on the most oft used defintions of God, it seems strange to consider that said being could only use one language to communicate... yet, clearly, we are all aware of some beings which hold that very view.

it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me but, then again, neither does the whole idea of a Creator Deity to begin with!!! so, perhaps, it is only logical that it wouldn't make sense to me

All religions join such competition so separate additions, conditions, and other manners are included for keeping separate entities. Claims of superiorities are necessary to satisfy respective followers, so each religion claims having best additions, conditions.

to some extent, i think that this is a concession to human nature. humans seem to have a desire to feel confident in their veiws and beliefs... as such, many humans wouldn't be inclined towards religious practice if it was not couched in such a manner as to instill a single pointed sort of confidence in the accuracy and truthfulness of the teachings.

I do believe in life after death and that human soul will never perish. I also believe in the God’s rewards and punishments but I do not claim to have achieved perfection in faith.

this seems to be a fairly common feature of theistic traditions, at least those that have deities which sit in judgement upon human actions.

metta,

~v

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Now, if the religion {singular}, or white light as it has been called, wishes to nullify one or more of the wavelengths that are part of it, how long can it remain white? How long before it becomes black, or the absence of any wavelength, due to the destruction and cancellation of the many different wavelengths that make up that white light? ... By destroying those wavelengths, the white light destroys itself, and by invalidating the essential nature of of the various wavelengths, the white light invalidates itself. Isn't this the core message of the Golden Rule?

All of this is a point well made, and quite diplomatically so, I think. I do not disagree in the slightest. And especially after Vaj's post as mod - with hatchet, axe, and saw (pruning is necessary, sometimes) - I would rather not stir up trouble that ... does not exist (or has ceased to).

That said, my offer remains. Show me where I am seeking to nullify specific wavelengths of said white light, show me precisely how so, and if that can be shown to be the case - I will gladly admit it, and more importantly, apologize & seek to make amends. But what you have shared regarding the Golden Rule seems to drive the point home that much further ... that the commonalities are worth focusing on, not the differences. Certainly, I wouldn't want someone insisting to me, that my religion (worldview, philosophy, beliefs, etc.) were or are incompatible with the "White Light" notion - which is both the Source of all particular wavelengths of colored light ... as well as their resolution, or Synthesis.

Originally Posted by Seattlegal

Unity does not mean uniformity, and it is not what goes into your mouth that defiles you, but it is what comes out of your mouth that defiles you. Food for thought.

An excellent point! The first five words echo my sentiments exactly!!! AMEN!

cheers,

andrew

[lunamoth]

<moderator post>

I second Vaj's advice.

OK, you'll notice that some posts have been removed now to redirect this thread back on track.

Thread re-opened.


lunamoth

[Pathless]

Backing up a bit...

Originally Posted by ili

And doesn't it say in the Bible that each of us carry the seed of God in us, if that is true doesn't it follow that easch of us has the ability to be God-like?

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Having read the KJV through, and several other versions as reference, I do not recall this anywhere. Would you mind quoting chapter and verse?

For me, Luke 17:21 comes to mind, where Jesus states that "the Kingdom of God is within you." That, along with his teachings of unconditional Love, is the essence of Jesus' message, to my mind.

Luke 17

20: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.