why so angry?

Originally posted by vistesd
...the supernatural has to be taken as a premise, not a conclusion...

That's a very good way of putting something that's important (although, I too, have problems expressing just what, and why).

Originally posted by knightmeister
(1) Too long a story...


...I've seen you write huge posts . How long can your story be? What was the thing that did it for you?

...I've seen you write huge posts.

All too guilty as charged. 😳 Writing about what I think on a given topic, however, is different from writing biographical stuff. Also, I tend to be unwilling to open my biography to debate on here. If you read what I now think, you’ll probably get an idea.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]...I've seen you write huge posts.

All too guilty as charged. 😳 Writing about what I think on a given topic, however, is different from writing biographical stuff. Also, I tend to be unwilling to open my biography to debate on here. If you read what I now think, you’ll probably get an idea.[/b]

Fair enough , it's not exactly safe here to expose yourself I guess. Could you at least say what the main theological issue was that proved a stumbling block? You sound very spiritual. I'm guessing after 45 years in the church you must have got a whiff of this idea of Jesus being present with us via the Holy Spirit?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Fair enough , it's not exactly safe here to expose yourself I guess. Could you at least say what the main theological issue was that proved a stumbling block? You sound very spiritual. I'm guessing after 45 years in the church you must have got a whiff of this idea of Jesus being present with us via the Holy Spirit?

I came to the conclusion that there is no supernatural being called God. When I use the word, I mean something similar to Brahman—the ultimate one without a second, from which, in which and of which I am; the All without another.

I see Jesus as being the Christ in a similar way as Siddhartha Gautama was the Buddha and the tathagata. That he realized and actualized the (divine, if you wish) logos in an exceptional way, so as to be a exemplar. We are all manifest of that logos, and just as a Buddhist would say that we all have Buddha-nature, I would say that we all have Christ-nature.

I am not a sola scripturist, and the fact that my view may not be strictly scriptural has no bearing. However, I read the scruptures more symbolically than many (most?). And I find the perennial philosophy in most religious expressions, albeit in different terms (and I think the differences are sometimes important, but not crucial); often, of course, it is considered heretical in some religions.

Lucifershammer recently commented that one with my view could be called a Buddhist, but not a Christian. The tag doesn’t matter much to me. Call me a Zen-Christic-Buddhist-Taoist if you wish. In any event, it became difficult to say the creeds when my understanding of them was so different from others in the church.

Originally posted by vistesd
I came to the conclusion that there is no supernatural being called God. When I use the word, I mean something similar to Brahman—the ultimate one without a second, from which, in which and of which I am; the All without another.

I see Jesus as being the Christ in a similar way as Siddhartha Gautama was the Buddha and the tathagata. That ...[text shortened]... cult to say the creeds when my understanding of them was so different from others in the church.

I'm curious , what do you make of Jesus when he says that he will be with us in spirit/presence when we gather in his name? What do you make of him when he says that he will release the presence of God (the Holy Spirit) upon the world by his death? How do you reconcile his statements on himself being the channel through which men are to come to God? Or "follow the narrow path , for broad is the way that leads to destruction"? He's a hard guy to assimilate into other theologies , how do you do it without watering down what he said?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm curious , what do you make of Jesus when he says that he will be with us in spirit/presence when we gather in his name? What do you make of him when he says that he will release the presence of God (the Holy Spirit) upon the world by his death? How do you reconcile his statements on himself being the channel through which men are to come to God? O ...[text shortened]... y to assimilate into other theologies , how do you do it without watering down what he said?

He's a hard guy to assimilate into other theologies , how do you do it without watering down what he said?

I’m sure many think that I am watering it down—that I’ve already watered it down by removing the God of supernatural theism.

The alternative, of course, is that Jesus sometimes spoke from and as that Christic center, rather than from his human personality.

The difference between conventional Christianity and Buddhism (with some exceptions) is that in the former Jesus himself is worshipped as the divine/human “son of God”—it is Jesus’ very person that has become important—whereas, in the latter, the Buddha is not worshipped at all: the focus is on the Buddha-nature itself, not the Buddha himself.

For example, when Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life”, if he meant himself as a person, then I would simply think he was wrong, if I understood what he meant at all—if, however, he was disclosing the logos (and the “I-am” ) in his life, then that is what he was referring to. That would certainly be the take of a Zen Buddhist if similar words were uttered by Gautama.

There is a Zen saying about pointing to the moon—and people insisting on looking at the finger, rather than what it is pointing to... I tend to think that’s what happened with Jesus, and—perhaps!—was already happening in the NT texts.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]He's a hard guy to assimilate into other theologies , how do you do it without watering down what he said?

I’m sure many think that I am watering it down—that I’ve already watered it down by removing the God of supernatural theism.

The alternative, of course, is that Jesus sometimes spoke from and as that Christic center, rather than from his hu ...[text shortened]... d to think that’s what happened with Jesus, and—perhaps!—was already happening in the NT texts.[/b]

But Christian theology is that unless Jesus dies into the world none of us would have a "Christic centre" anyway. In this sense he is pointing to himself , and very directly too. Has it occurred to you that Buddha owes his Buddha - divine- centre to Jesus? That it is Jesus who lived within him? If this is the case then with Jesus is both the finger and the moon. There is no evidence at all in the NT that Jesus was doing anything else but directing people explicitly and self consciously to himself as being not only the truth and the way but also as the judge of all men. Preposterous stuff if you think about it. How dare a mere man make these claims? No wonder he was stoned for blasphemy. You have done an awful lot of watering.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But Christian theology is that unless Jesus dies into the world none of us would have a "Christic centre" anyway. In this sense he is pointing to himself , and very directly too. Has it occurred to you that Buddha owes his Buddha - divine- centre to Jesus? That it is Jesus who lived within him? If this is the case then with Jesus is both the finger a ...[text shortened]... e these claims? No wonder he was stoned for blasphemy. You have done an awful lot of watering.

But Christian theology is that unless Jesus dies into the world none of us would have a "Christic centre" anyway.

You need, perhaps, to read a bit more widely in theology—particularly that of the Eastern Orthodox.

There is no evidence at all in the NT that Jesus was doing anything else but directing people explicitly and self consciously to himself as being not only the truth and the way but also as the judge of all men.

The question is, of course, what “to himself” means there. I think you perhaps are reducing Christology to Jesus-ology (you’ve got lots of company, though). What do you think St. Paul meant by his en emoi Christos? That Jesus was inside him?

I’m not going to spend time arguing scripture with you (I’ve done too much of that one here already); I’m not a sola scripturist, I don’t take the biblical texts as a guarantor of “truth.”

No wonder he was stoned for blasphemy.

He wasn’t.

You have done an awful lot of watering.

That is possible.

Here’s a question, KM—

(1) If the ultimate reality is Brahman (or the Tao, if you prefer), the All-without-another, from which we arise, in which we exist, of which we are, and to which we return;

(2) If our very nature, including our consciousness, is derived from and coherent with that ground of our being; and

(3) If our notions of separateness from the One, and non-transience, are illusory

What might you be watering down?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]But Christian theology is that unless Jesus dies into the world none of us would have a "Christic centre" anyway.

You need, perhaps, to read a bit more widely in theology—particularly that of the Eastern Orthodox.

There is no evidence at all in the NT that Jesus was doing anything else but directing people explicitly and self consciously to ...[text shortened]... hemy.

He wasn’t.

You have done an awful lot of watering.

That is possible.[/b]

No wonder he was stoned for blasphemy.

He wasn’t.

Yes he was or at least they were about to. The part where Jesus said "before Abraham was , I AM!" they started to reach for stones to try and stone him if I remember rightly because everyone knew what the I AM was refering to . At the very least I think at this point he was in danger as a result of what he said. In any case he was crucified for blasphemy. The Jews refered to Jehovah as the great I AM and as such for Jesus to refer to this AND say he was around before Abraham is basically saying "I'm God!" . It's important to remember that Jesus was very well versed in the Torah and must have known exactly how this would sound to them and yet did nothing to water down what he was saying. Curious.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]But Christian theology is that unless Jesus dies into the world none of us would have a "Christic centre" anyway.

You need, perhaps, to read a bit more widely in theology—particularly that of the Eastern Orthodox.

There is no evidence at all in the NT that Jesus was doing anything else but directing people explicitly and self consciously to ...[text shortened]... hemy.

He wasn’t.

You have done an awful lot of watering.

That is possible.[/b]

The question is, of course, what “to himself” means there.VISTED

Yes , that is the question definitely. What's interesting is that while the Buddha seems to point away from himself , Jesus pretty much encourages us to see him as God. He says he forgives sins (even ones not comitted against him) but then goes on to say that if you don't feed your fellow man then you are not feeding him. If you treat your fellow man badly then he takes it personally as if it is a trangression against himself. Madness! On top of all this he is to be the one to judge us all at the end of time. Surely it would be more consistent to dismiss him as an egotist!

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]But Christian theology is that unless Jesus dies into the world none of us would have a "Christic centre" anyway.

You need, perhaps, to read a bit more widely in theology—particularly that of the Eastern Orthodox.

There is no evidence at all in the NT that Jesus was doing anything else but directing people explicitly and self consciously to ...[text shortened]... hemy.

He wasn’t.

You have done an awful lot of watering.

That is possible.[/b]

What do you think St. Paul meant by his en emoi Christos? That Jesus was inside him? VISTED

Obviously he was refering to Christ Jesus in the form of the Holy Spirit. This Christ Jesus is within us all waiting to emerge , but the NT is the story of how it got there. I don't think Paul doubted the divinity of Jesus.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It sounds like you believe that free choices are indeed possible for human beings. If so have you really thought through what this means? The implications of this are huge. What this would mean is that in a universe of caused events determined by natural laws , human beings stand alone and unique in their ability to be free of determined pathways and ...[text shortened]... ould have to be something else going on that was not bound by the natural laws of the universe.

What rubbish. Animals can do the same thing, anything that is cognescent has the ability to do it.

Free will is a misleading term by the way. You are not free to defy gravity, you are not free to stop eating. You are not free to breathe underwater. You are not free to kill me.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Such a thing could be an uncaused supernatural entity.

Then prove that one exists. A photograph would do nicely.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]He's a hard guy to assimilate into other theologies , how do you do it without watering down what he said?

I’m sure many think that I am watering it down—that I’ve already watered it down by removing the God of supernatural theism.

The alternative, of course, is that Jesus sometimes spoke from and as that Christic center, rather than from his hu ...[text shortened]... d to think that’s what happened with Jesus, and—perhaps!—was already happening in the NT texts.[/b]

The difference between conventional Christianity and Buddhism (with some exceptions) is that in the former Jesus himself is worshipped as the divine/human “son of God”—it is Jesus’ very person that has become important—whereas, in the latter, the Buddha is not worshipped at all: the focus is on the Buddha-nature itself, not the Buddha himself. VISTED

and this is the whole point .....in Jesus Christ the person of Jesus and his Christ nature are one. It's only in incomplete and fallen(unenlightened) humanity that the split occurs. Jesus's wholeness is the key , the human and divine welded together in completeness. Jesus is not split like the buddha so there is no need for him to direct us away from himself.