Short Change Churches

[awediot]

Many churches and denominations and religions, I can respectfully disagree with. Many versions of my own Christianity seem to politicize themselves too much, whitewash crucial elements or exaggerate others. However, when a belief system, any belief system, claims to be the purveyor of absolute, timeless truths, to retain credibility, it should stand its ground, whether or not society grows out of those truths or not. I disagree with certain aspects, but I respect the unshakable certainty itself.

A church, in not only being it's community, also safeguards its sacred doctrines from the fickle winds of civilizations' ebb and flow. Popularity, scientific insight and voter influence ought not be enough to alter central dogma as if God didn't anticipate or know about such newly realized fact... The few extra or less days discovered in zygote development shouldn't suddenly overturn reproductive moral law, nor should a gay gene automatically dissolve all admonishments against it any more than a bigot gene should. Standing for God is one thing, proclaiming He has changed, or unwittingly changing His mind for Him, is something else entirely.

This is not to say that a Church should never change. But it should do so under divine revelation, not human realization. It is not an open ended effort to perfect a mere human institution. "America. Love it or Leave it." doesn't hold up when a government is designed to change and adapt. A Church, THE Church depends on being the vanishing point giving all else a perspective to grow from. It is, right or wrong, the bedrock society adjusts around and you build your life from. It is not meant to shift to whims. It is there to disagree with you, to convict you, confront, comfort and to change you... Indeed, Love it or Leave it for another.

[NathanATX]

Originally Posted by awediot

This is not to say that a Church should never change. But it should do so under divine revelation, not human realization.

How should mere humans go about realizing divine revelation? Are you saying that we're not doing that? (the more progressive among us)

[awediot]

I would say that true revelation is incredibly rare and cannot be missed. It is the exposure of knowledge that has NEVER been known before. Not realization, or a mere discovery of the expected or new way of looking at things... And there is nothing new or revolutionary about the "progressive" view of Christianity, other than some of its terminology. Most of it is pantheistic in nature and the resulting point of view is ancient. It used to be called either heresy or apostasy and always considered an improvement by progressives. The modern alterations are not revelatory as they have been long anticipated and described.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by awediot

The few extra or less days discovered in zygote development shouldn't suddenly overturn reproductive moral law, nor should a gay gene automatically dissolve all admonishments against it any more than a bigot gene should.

It seems to me that your logic is a little a-kilter here: if there is indeed a gene for 'gayness' this would make 'gayness' an immutable factor in as much as the color of my eyes is grey-green. Mental attitudes which concretize themselves into stances and announce themselves as bigotry are another matter entirely and are subject to change via insight.

This is not to say that a Church should never change. But it should do so under divine revelation, not human realization.

An equally sticky problem here. Who is going to be the deciding body that deems what is and is not divine relevation? (This is assuming one believes in such things. Let's not forget that there was a reason for the Reformation.) This seems to point out the fact that man, for all his follies, cannot escape himself.

I would say that true revelation is incredibly rare and cannot be missed. It is the exposure of knowledge that has NEVER been known before.

An interesting thought that has its correlation in Buddhist thought, that is, that there are Teachings which await their time to be revealed. However the difference here is that Buddhists talk about teachings and not Absolutes as objective top down assertions which must be Obeyed or Else. The Truth is something you come experience on a cushion via spiritual practice and meditation- not discursive thought.

[dewdrop_world]

I would say that true revelation is incredibly rare and cannot be missed. It is the exposure of knowledge that has NEVER been known before. Not realization, or a mere discovery of the expected or new way of looking at things... And there is nothing new or revolutionary about the "progressive" view of Christianity, other than some of its terminology. Most of it is pantheistic in nature and the resulting point of view is ancient. It used to be called either heresy or apostasy and always considered an improvement by progressives. The modern alterations are not revelatory as they have been long anticipated and described.

We like to make up stories about the world so the the world (seems to) make more sense. Sometimes the stories come pretty close to reality, sometimes they don't. They usually leave something out, though. It's an odd relationship -- you can't find the truth if you cling to them too tightly, but you can't live without them either.

I could propose a different narrative: the ancients could not rely on advanced technology to bend the world to human wishes and make the world easier to survive in. To survive, they had no alternative but to live in deep connection with nature and with each other. As such, they had access to some sources of wisdom that have largely been lost in the West (and which are disappearing quickly in developing areas). They may have understood some things in a supra-rational way that we now have difficulty even conceiving of, or which we now reject as primitive.

Christ was no fool, and it seems pretty clear to me that he was in touch with these fundamental sources of wisdom. The early church may have been right there with him. But then it started to organize -- institutions formed, doctrine took shape, and eventually the doctrine began to take the place of spiritual experience, and the church, especially the Roman church, got distracted by the task of maintaining sovereignty. Church doctrine -- those absolutes -- became disembodied from what is supposed to make them real, and the doctrine became less and less real itself, and the more empty the doctrine became, the more defensive.

So, seeking ancient wisdom could be seen as an opportunity for renewal in Christianity.

Now, I'm deliberately making that narrative a bit hamfisted -- I don't believe every word of it myself -- but I don't think your narrative is nearly as self evident as you present it.

My main concern is, what is Christianity going to do at this point? It faces an immense challenge. What is it going to do? Circle the wagons, or take the opportunity for self-reflection, self-criticism and growth?

James

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

I could propose a different narrative: the ancients could not rely on advanced technology to bend the world to human wishes and make the world easier to survive in. To survive, they had no alternative but to live in deep connection with nature and with each other. As such, they had access to some sources of wisdom that have largely been lost in the West (and which are disappearing quickly in developing areas). They may have understood some things in a supra-rational way that we now have difficulty even conceiving of, or which we now reject as primitive.

It's been said: There is knowing and there is Knowing. The words sound the same but mean something alltogether different. It seems to me that this is the kind of distinction that is in danger of being lost in our technologcial go as fast as you can world. I'm sure there are those who will say that the burden of living back then was infinitely more harsh than it is now- we have all these 'conveniences' don't we? But I think the better part of wisdom understands that faster isn't better. It's just faster.

Church doctrine -- those absolutes -- became disembodied from what is supposed to make them real, and the doctrine became less and less real itself, and the more empty the doctrine became, the more defensive.

I've heard it expressed (I cannot remember where exactly) that if you want to know what the Roman army functioned like, you have only to look at the inner functioning of the Roman Catholic Church.

My main concern is, what is Christianity going to do at this point? It faces an immense challenge. What is it going to do? Circle the wagons, or take the opportunity for self-reflection, self-criticism and growth?

As far as the Roman Catholic hiearchy is concerned, I think the circle the wagons dynamic is the current modus operandi. But that will eventually tire itself out one hopes. Personally, I don't see major change on the horizon in my lifetime as far as they are concerned. But I hope they prove me wrong. That would be welcome. My husband, who was fired from three Catholic Parishes for being gay would rejoice.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Daniel

But I hope they prove me wrong. That would be welcome. My husband, who was fired from three Catholic Parishes for being gay would rejoice.

Fired from a job as a church musician?!?!! THREE times!?

[awediot]

Originally Posted by daniel

...if there is indeed a gene for 'gayness' this would make 'gayness' an immutable factor in as much as the color of my eyes is grey-green. Mental attitudes which concretize themselves into stances and announce themselves as bigotry are another matter entirely and are subject to change via insight.

My utter confusion, and dread, that that very confusion and dread, may be only chemical reactions, I must make glaringly clear. If I can buy that my deepest, most driving Loves and preferences are just genetic, then I can buy that a person can have a similarly sour chemistry against an abundance of pigment, a deficit of blue blood or all out allergic reaction to the beans and chilies emanating from our southern neighbors... In other words, to me a gay gene makes just as much sense as a bigot gene, and I fear the day science proves we are all just robots and vessels for our immortal genetics. Both are just states of mind.

Who is going to be the deciding body that deems what is and is not divine relevation?...This seems to point out the fact that man, for all his follies, cannot escape himself.

Rare, in regards to true revelation, meant like a few times every thousand or so years. It tends to come with comets, bleeding statuary and walking dead. It isn't more knowledge we need, its the will and balls of the heart to do what is already obvious (feed, heal, house, nurture...) Revelations blow us out of the water, not trickle down from closed door symposiums or dreamy inspiration... Man cannot escape himself.

...However the difference here is that Buddhists talk about teachings and not Absolutes as objective top down assertions which must be Obeyed or Else.

Are you absolutely certain about that? (word games, but makes a point) We are told to look both ways before crossing the street, or Else. That 'or else' is not always a threat of punishment and often the authoritative top knows better than we. Its not all about control and we can indeed exert our independence and rebel right into an on coming garbage truck.

o-----------------------(&)-----------------------o

Not sure if/where/how we are on the same screen or not, James. You got that 'no absolutes' thing down...

Originally Posted by dew drop world

...the ancients could not rely on advanced technology to bend the world to human wishes and make the world easier to survive in. To survive, they had no alternative but to live in deep connection with nature and with each other. As such, they had access to some sources of wisdom that have largely been lost in the West (and which are disappearing quickly in developing areas). They may have understood some things in a supra-rational way that we now have difficulty even conceiving of, or which we now reject as primitive.

Depending on how ancient you want to go, the idea of advanced technology once included fire, sharp rocks, the wheel, a spoon, herb poultices, farming, curved glass, iron, pencils, et al. We have always seen ourselves as cutting edge and been delighted with how well the latest thing bends and improves the world. This is one area I think is totally relativistic... But, I agree that earthen hut living allows a greater communion with mama nature. Whether that translates into a Truer or better spirit, I really can't say. But alot of the romanticized views of gentle natives ignores some pretty horrendous tribal war, enslavement, self mutilation and lots of overlooked cruelty that, for whatever reason, civilized man has more or less gotten out of his system... I have mixed feelings about your conclusions, as I have always persevorated how cultures that have an older, more grounded ghost in our machine, keep losing out... Does technological might make right? ... like, Hex us already...

You bring to mind a recurring thought though. When I look at today's primitive cultures, it is like looking back in time. Never the less, they have had the same 500, thousand or- years as we (the advanced man) have had to expand. We went toward the brain and science, they, into the heart and mysticism of nature. I have to wonder what we've missed out on.

...seeking ancient wisdom could be seen as an opportunity for renewal in Christianity...what is Christianity going to do at this point?

I absolutely agree. Christians have scared themselves out of so much mystery and magic. Aside from the thumping (drum beat?) and dancing around original thoughts, and the whole being the elect thing, the shear, tepid boringness they consider a life, drifts me away... I've read a few books on Christian mysticism, went to a school for metaphysics for about a year, devoured Carlos Castaneda and could lucid dream basically at will... Some of this definitely pulled me away from God, but not all. Depth and experience are not something most Christians are good at... What will they do now? Become obsolete and take the blame as predicted.

Originally Posted by daniel

I'm sure there are those who will say that the burden of living back then was infinitely more harsh than it is now- we have all these 'conveniences' don't we? But I think the better part of wisdom understands that faster isn't better. It's just faster.

Amen sister..... Amazing how with all these time saving advances, multi-tasking self perpetuates, stress kills, over-time becomes the norm and leisure time continues to plummet... Wasn't reincarnation supposed to teach us something?

Note- Can't even fake a concerned comment about the finer points of the Catholics' capacity to corrupt- coo coo katchoo...

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by zerbie

Fired from a job as a church musician?!?!! THREE times!?

Zerbie- Yes. A trinity of firings. The truth is that 99.9% of organists are gay and work in situations where two thirds of them cannot be open about their sexuality. It is any wonder that there is a high degree of alcoholism and substance abuse within the profession? Stand up for yourself and you get the boot.

Originally Posted by awediot

My utter confusion, and dread, that that very confusion and dread, may be only chemical reactions, I must make glaringly clear. If I can buy that my deepest, most driving Loves and preferences are just genetic, then I can buy that a person can have a similarly sour chemistry against an abundance of pigment, a deficit of blue blood or all out allergic reaction to the beans and chilies emanating from our southern neighbors... In other words, to me a gay gene makes just as much sense as a bigot gene, and I fear the day science proves we are all just robots and vessels for our immortal genetics. Both are just states of mind.

Awediot- At the risk of offending you I think you are confused. If one investigates the matter at close range, one comes to the conclusion that being attracted to someone of the same sex is nothing at all like the discomfort of, or pure hatred evidenced in bigotry. In the latter, to quote a lyric from South Pacific, 'You must be carefully taught.' It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce from observing first-graders play together that even though they are aware their skin color differences, they are more curious than reactive about such things: they'd rather play together than fight about such things. Now. Where and from whom do they get their cues in this regard? Their teachers and parents. And it also doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that the gay kids, the same ones who are being told they should be straight by everything in their environment, in fact, grow up very different. What explains the difference between learned bigotry and same-sex attraction? Genetics.

Yes. You could make the argument that those kids don't know they're gay either. But think logically here for a minute. Most of those kids grow up to be straight. The ones that grow up gay see the same hetero 'examples' the straight ones do but become gay nevertheless. Are they bad learners? The ex-gay people would think so. However, the simple truth is that there is something else going on which is much deeper than the synaptic responses that affect modelling behavior. That's genetics. A much deeper issue than a matter of mind.

Originally Posted by Daniel

..However the difference here is that Buddhists talk about teachings and not Absolutes as objective top down assertions which must be Obeyed or Else.

Originally Posted by awediot

Are you absolutely certain about that? (word games, but makes a point) We are told to look both ways before crossing the street, or Else. That 'or else' is not always a threat of punishment and often the authoritative top knows better than we. Its not all about control and we can indeed exert our independence and rebel right into an on coming garbage truck.

Yes you are right about this. It's not about 'top down' control. It's about self-control. What I was saying without saying it is that Buddhist don't have a concept of an independent external diety, that is, God. If you take God out of the picture then 'top down', as it were, ceases to exist.

[Zerbie]

What I've gotten outta this thread so far:

I believe Awe is contending that genetics, and/or brain chemistry, IS mind. How could the mind be independent of those things, after all? Awe, IS that even close to what you are thinking?

Not to say I don't clearly see the learned behavioral examples you've given us Daniel. What we seem to be debating here is a philosophic-neurologic-biologic-culturo-politico-spiritual issue and it's doubtful we'll find an agreeable "answer" any time soon, if ever. Which drops us right back to the question of relevancy. IS the how question really relevant, or is the relevant question what we do with what we have now? (not to undermine the fascinating fun of the debate you've got going, just engaging in my favority activity of derailing the entire point, a trait of mine with which Liberal Crozier and Emproph are intimately familiar. )

Re: Church organists. Ya gotta be kidding me. I don't think I've ever met a church organist who I thought was straight - you mean all those guys are closeted and/or have been fired like your husband was? Just when I think there is no more homophobia out there than can still surprise me. I can't BELIEVE all these people serving the church are still going through this garbage, though why that surprises me given the scapegoating of priests, I just don't know. I just can't imagine putting up with that.

Last thing: I don't know if Emproph is reading this thread, but if you are, I think this was another hint for you to go out and rent South Pacific, if ya haven't yet. . .

[awediot]

Sorry Zerb, swing and a miss. I can't fathom that ALL WE ARE is a chemical reaction...

Originally Posted by daniel

What I was saying without saying it is that Buddhist don't have a concept of an independent external Deity, that is, God. If you take God out of the picture then 'top down', as it were, ceases to exist.

Yes Daniel, I know... Just wanted you to say it.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

What we seem to be debating here is a philosophic-neurologic-biologic-culture-politico-spiritual issue...

...and the cherry on top.

But wait, the top has ceased to exist... it Is exist... It Is, IS,... IS... IT... IS ...IT ...IS ...I ...AM ...

and it's doubtful we'll find an agreeable "answer" any time soon, if ever.

Nope. Never. And Both... we just did.


It is the deep, beautiful, self-deifying and blinding ways to remove God from the picture that concern me. All the cryptic and basic questions of why, nature/nurture/chemical/environment/cultural...made this or that, go no where and will prove to reveal nothing if the True answer is God just wanted it that way. The sense that one can ponder at all, may itself be an illusion, and that is the last absolute thought the Buddha believed, then was gone...

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by awediot

Yes Daniel, I know... Just wanted you to say it.

Thanks unfortunate because your statement here gives me the unwelcome feeling that I'm being played with.

It is the deep, beautiful, self-deifying and blinding ways to remove God from the picture that concern me. All the cryptic and basic questions of why, nature/nurture/chemical/environment/cultural...made this or that, go no where and will prove to reveal nothing if the True answer is God just wanted it that way. The sense that one can ponder at all, may itself be an illusion, and that is the last absolute thought the Buddha believed, then was gone...

Here are the actual last words of the Buddha for your contemplation.

THE LAST TEACHING OF THE BUDDHA

Beneath the sala trees at Kusinagara, in his last words to his disciples, the Buddha said: Make of yourself a light. Rely upon yourself: do not depend upon anyone else. Make my teachings your light. Rely upon them: do not depend upon any other teaching.

Consider your body: Think of its impurity. Knowing that both its pain and its delight are alike causes of suffering, how can you indulge in its desires? Consider your 'self'; think of its transiency; how can you fall into delusion about it and cherish pride and selfishness, knowing that they must all end in inevitable suffering? Consider all substances; can you find among them any enduring 'self'? Are they not all aggregates that sooner or later will break apart and be scattered? Do not be confused by the universality of suffering, but follow my teaching, even after my death, and you will be rid of pain. Do this and you will indeed be my disciples.

My disciples, the teachings that I have given you are never to be forgotten or abandoned. They are always to be treasured, they are to be thought about, they are to be practiced. If you follow these teachings you will always be happy.

The point of the teachings is to control your own mind. Keep your mind from greed, and you will keep your behavior right, your mind pure and your words faithful. By always thinking about the transience of your life, you will be able to resist green and anger, and will be able to avoid all evils.

If you find your mind tempted and so entangled in greed, you must suppress and control the temptation; be the master of your own mind.

A man's mind may make him a Buddha, or it may make him a beast. Misled by error, one becomes a demon; enlightened, one becomes a Buddha. Therefore, control your mind and do not let it deviate from the right path.

You should respect each other, follow my teachings, and refrain from disputes; you should not, like water and oil, repel each other, but should, like milk and water, mingle together.

Study together, learn together, practice my teachings together. Do not waste your mind and time in idleness and quarreling. Enjoy the blossoms of Enlightenment in their season and harvest the fruit of the right path.

The teachings which I have given you, I gained by following the path myself. You should follow these teachings and conform to their spirit on every occasion.

If you neglect them, it means that you have never really met me. It means that you are far from me, even if you are actually with me; but if you accept and practice my teachings, then you are very near to me, even though you are far away.

My disciples, my end is approaching, our parting is near, but do not lament. Life is ever changing; none can escape the dissolution of the body. This I am now to show by my own death, my body falling apart like a dilapidated cart.

Do not vainly lament, but realize that nothing is permanent and learn from it the emptiness of human life. Do not cherish the unworthy desire that the changeable might become unchanging.

The demon of worldly desires is always seeking chances to deceiver the mind. If a viper lives in your room and you wish to have a peaceful sleep, you must first chase it out.

You must break the bonds of worldly passions and drive them away as you would a viper. You must positively protect your own mind.

My disciples, my last moment has come, but do not forget that death is only the end of the physical body. The body was born from parents and was nourished by food; just as inevitable are sickness and death.

But the true Buddha is not a human body: -- it is Enlightenment. A human body must die, but the Wisdom of Enlightenment will exist forever in the truth of the Dharma, and in the practice of the Dharma. He who sees merely my body does not truly see me. Only he who accepts my teaching truly sees me.

After my death, the Dharma shall be your teacher. Follow the Dharma and you will be true to me.

During the last forty-five years of my life, I have withheld nothing from my teachings. There is no secret teaching, no hidden meaning; everything has been taught openly and clearly. My dear disciples, this is the end.

In a moment, I shall be passing into Nirvana. This is my instruction.

[Zerbie]

So, did I getcher meaning exactly backwards?

[awediot]

Originally Posted by daniel

Thanks unfortunate because your statement ("Yes Daniel, I know... Just wanted you to say it".) here gives me the unwelcome feeling that I'm being played with.

Originally Posted by daniel

What I was saying without saying it...

Who's playing? I respect you and your search to much to play with it... I'm playing with the Buddha itself.

Point being, if "Buddhist don't have a concept of an independent external deity", then, their concept is more of a dependent, internal deity. Though "deity" is better described as a power or force residing in and guiding all things, the dharma, rather than a Supreme, creator Being... Therefore the "I am God" declaration, is perhaps premature, a tad vane and put within a western context, but essentially, inevitable and accurate... Is this a fair summation?
If not, please correct me. If it is, please understand how it is believed by about half the planet to be responsible for the fall of mankind... Are we or are we not "God?"

Much of what you posted as Buddha's last teachings are lovely, common sense gentleness. Just as much of Christ's were. A couple of them are blasphemous to Him, just as His were to Buddha, if Buddha can be insulted...

The rest I'll address in light of your response.

"Make of yourself a light. Rely upon yourself: do not depend upon anyone else. Make my teachings your light. Rely upon them: do not depend upon any other teaching." Buddha.

5 I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, (Isaiah 45:5-10)
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you. (Deuternonmy 4:2)


Zerb, when I said, "I fear the day science proves we are all just robots and vessels for our immortal genetics." I hoped to convey that I believed humanity, spirit and Soul was transcendent of chemistry. I feel we all have a brain, not that we are a brain. Finding out I like cobalt blue or the dark, mysterious type, only because my DNA has wired me that way, will be a chilling, dehumanizing day for all of us.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by awediot

... Are we or are we not "God?"



"Make of yourself a light. Rely upon yourself: do not depend upon anyone else. Make my teachings your light. Rely upon them: do not depend upon any other teaching." Buddha.

5 I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, (Isaiah 45:5-10)
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you. (Deuternonmy 4:2)


Zerb, when I said, "I fear the day science proves we are all just robots and vessels for our immortal genetics." I hoped to convey that I believed humanity, spirit and Soul was transcendent of chemistry. I feel we all have a brain, not that we are a brain. Finding out I like cobalt blue or the dark, mysterious type, only because my DNA has wired me that way, will be a chilling, dehumanizing day for all of us.

Awe: Gotcha.

Re: the 2 sets of quotes: sounds like the same voice speaking.

Re: your question in bold: in order to answer this question, first we would have to know what are we? And also what is God? Be with those questions for a while first. Until they are answered, the question in bold type can't make sense.

[awediot]

"Re: the 2 sets of quotes: sounds like the same voice speaking."

'Sounds like', but one profusely and deeply warns of impersonators...(not sure about the other)

(I know, familiar, but:

Then the Lord said to me, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds.---My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations---"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.---Her prophets whitewash these deeds for them by false visions and lying divinations. They say, 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says'--when the Lord has not spoken.---For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible.----But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.----Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. )

...and arrive at opposing conclusions: We make God. / God made us.

"Re: your question in bold: in order to answer this question, first we would have to know what are we? And also what is God? Be with those questions for a while first. Until they are answered, the question in bold type can't make sense."

C'mon Zerb, you're better than this cyclical cop out... "First we have to know what we are, know what God is?" That IS the question. There is no "first" about it... It is up to us to answer...I have been with this step one question for some thirty five years. Humanity, for a few thousand... The question in bold type makes sense to a four year old... You know exactly what it means.

How about: Is there a Creator, A Supreme Being, or Not?

(I'm sure Daniel is typing away )

[Dash]

Oh, we know what scripture says.
We've been beaten over the head with it again and again.

(His corner is getting smaller and smaller...
His position less tenable with every verse he slings.
Scripture has great value, except in the way it is used by him...
...and them.)

We know what scripture says.
A thousand verses will prove mankind wrong.
Five verses would separate us all from whatever god there may be.

Don't pick up a sword if you don't want to cut someone.

[awediot]

Uh, ...sure.



...ya wanna answer the question?

[Zerbie]

Awe:
Oh.

It took me 10 minutes of typing and erasing responses to you, Awe, before I caught WHY you called that a cyclical cop-out. Okay, yes - because it re-asks the question again. Yes? IS that why you called it a cop-out? (don't wanna attribute meanings to you that you don't intend. . .I've been doing that a TON with you lately). I didn't give you enough credit to begin with when I typed the earlier post.

Yes, you're right that IS the entire question. Who the Bleep are we and who the Bleep is God and the answers all roll into one another.

Well, do you have an Answer? I haven't. No, I certainly haven't. But perhaps typing at each other will help us to understand something that we don't yet. Or have you got further insights here that you are still holding back? If ya do, c'mon, spill! Share what you've discovered. This four-year-old wants to understand.

I know there is *being* far beyond Zerbie and Awediot (and Daniel, and Dash, and. . .), but beyond the Existence of That, I understand very little. The nature of It? I would need broader senses with which to apprehend It. If I weren't averse to smoke, I'd say pass me a doobie.

Now, why do you make a distinction between the 2 quotes we talked about? They both say to follow their teaching and not another one. If they are different teachings, we need to understand that and decide IF we are to follow either, and if so, which. Or are they the same teaching? That requires looking closely at the nature of them both (if indeed there is a "both") here. It can very well be that the same Voice *has* uttered both of those quotes.

Dash - I didn't "get" your post.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by awediot

Point being, if "Buddhist don't have a concept of an independent external deity", then, their concept is more of a dependent, internal deity. Though "deity" is better described as a power or force residing in and guiding all things, the dharma, rather than a Supreme, creator Being... Therefore the "I am God" declaration, is perhaps premature, a tad vane and put within a western context, but essentially, inevitable and accurate... Is this a fair summation?

Awe- To answer your quandry as best I can, which may be less than can be understood in this limited space: It's not a matter of external vs internal. To view the matter in these terms is dualistic, something which the Buddha's teachings also addressed. I humbly suggest the following: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...02130313&itm=1