It just drives me nuts that these fundamentalist Christians want to view Muslims as believing in a "different God." This is patently absurd. And it spreads bigotry.
I understand that Buddhists are not theists. I understand that Hindus have a variety of "gods," yet underlying Hinduism is Vedanta, which asserts the One that cannot be named. As I see it then, Hinduism, allows for different manifestations of God, but believes in an underlying oneness.
I respect you if you're atheist. I respect you if you're agnostic. But I simply can't respect efforts to marginalize or brand as somehow demonic people whose faith calls "God" by another name (for example Allah.... or Yahweh).
This dreadful election season is spreading so many lies and seeding so many false and dangerous ideas. And I just had to confront this one!
PERMALINK
Rec'd!
I thought I had heard everything, until I heard "that one."
Then I watched "Head of State" with Chris Rock last nite -- where he becomes the first black president -- and the opposition candidate peppers his speeches with "God Bless America! ... and no one else!" I nearly snorted my iced tea through my nose at that one.
Amazing! Really!
I thought I had heard everything, until I heard "that one."
Then I watched "Head of State" with Chris Rock last nite -- where he becomes the first black president -- and the opposition candidate peppers his speeches with "God Bless America! ... and no one else!" I nearly snorted my iced tea through my nose at that one.
Amazing! Really!
Islam is Christianity+1. The usual "bible," plus Mohammed.
That's what freaks them out: Christ is a Jew, but Mohammed isn't, and they can't stand Jews, so having to deal in addition with someone not sufficiently white causes their heads to implode.
Reminds me of the news report in the "Buffalo Express" when Mark Twain was its owner/editor about a skull that was found in a swamp. Of it he said:
"It was of the usual kind: there was nothing in it."
That's what freaks them out: Christ is a Jew, but Mohammed isn't, and they can't stand Jews, so having to deal in addition with someone not sufficiently white causes their heads to implode.
Reminds me of the news report in the "Buffalo Express" when Mark Twain was its owner/editor about a skull that was found in a swamp. Of it he said:
"It was of the usual kind: there was nothing in it."
Islam is Christianity+1. The usual "bible," plus Mohammed.
That's what freaks them out: Christ is a Jew, but Mohammed isn't, and they can't stand Jews, so having to deal in addition with someone not sufficiently white causes their heads to implode.
Reminds me of the news report in the "Buffalo Express" when Mark Twain was its owner/editor about a skull that was found in a swamp. Of it he said:
"It was of the usual kind: there was nothing in it."
That's what freaks them out: Christ is a Jew, but Mohammed isn't, and they can't stand Jews, so having to deal in addition with someone not sufficiently white causes their heads to implode.
Reminds me of the news report in the "Buffalo Express" when Mark Twain was its owner/editor about a skull that was found in a swamp. Of it he said:
"It was of the usual kind: there was nothing in it."
TheraP,
Seeing that different beliefs use the idea of the One doesn't mean they are using the idea the same way.
It is amongst the avowedly monotheist that the notion of the jealous god provides the grounds for so much rancor between different believers.
There is much paradox and counterpoint in the language proclaiming certainty about true faith.
Pascal fought for a certain interpretation of Christianity his whole adult life. Upon his death, there was discovered a list of sentences that was always carried close to his heart. One of those sentences said: "My God is your God."
Such a statement can be heard as an acceptance of larger world than oneself or the grounds to judge that world.
Seeing that different beliefs use the idea of the One doesn't mean they are using the idea the same way.
It is amongst the avowedly monotheist that the notion of the jealous god provides the grounds for so much rancor between different believers.
There is much paradox and counterpoint in the language proclaiming certainty about true faith.
Pascal fought for a certain interpretation of Christianity his whole adult life. Upon his death, there was discovered a list of sentences that was always carried close to his heart. One of those sentences said: "My God is your God."
Such a statement can be heard as an acceptance of larger world than oneself or the grounds to judge that world.
What are your thoughts on this article from the NYTimes yesterday:
Any religion or faith can be twisted into something hateful by zealots and charlatans - political dogmas not excluded.
Hindu Threat to Christians: Convert or Flee "The family of Solomon Digal was summoned by neighbors to what serves as a public square in front of the village tea shop.
"They were ordered to get on their knees and bow before the portrait of a Hindu preacher. They were told to turn over their Bibles, hymnals and the two brightly colored calendar images of Christ that hung on their wall. Then, Mr. Digal, 45, a Christian since childhood, was forced to watch his Hindu neighbors set the items on fire.
"‘Embrace Hinduism, and your house will not be demolished,’ ” Mr. Digal recalled being told on that Wednesday afternoon in September. “ ‘Otherwise, you will be killed, or you will be thrown out of the village.’”
Any religion or faith can be twisted into something hateful by zealots and charlatans - political dogmas not excluded.
I belive she answered your question in the article:
"I respect you if you're atheist. I respect you if you're agnostic. But I simply can't respect efforts to marginalize or brand as somehow demonic people whose faith calls "God" by another name (for example Allah.... or Yahweh). "
"I respect you if you're atheist. I respect you if you're agnostic. But I simply can't respect efforts to marginalize or brand as somehow demonic people whose faith calls "God" by another name (for example Allah.... or Yahweh). "
It makes me very sad that people feel threatened if others have different religious beliefs or even strongly held irreligious beliefs.
I hope that answers your question.
I love our Constitutional separation of church and state. I honor all who sincerely practice a faith or sincerely hold no faith at all. But I am deeply, deeply troubled by people who demonize a faith that is different from their own, or demonize someone for holding any faith at all, or demonize someone for choosing no faith. Violence or the threat of violence is never something holy. Never.
I hope that answers your question.
I love our Constitutional separation of church and state. I honor all who sincerely practice a faith or sincerely hold no faith at all. But I am deeply, deeply troubled by people who demonize a faith that is different from their own, or demonize someone for holding any faith at all, or demonize someone for choosing no faith. Violence or the threat of violence is never something holy. Never.
The God of Muhammad is the God of Abraham and of Moses. Christians and Jews have more in common with Muslims than many of the hardcore wingnuts will ever admit because these divisions keep winning them elections.
What I'm wondering is how long it will take for a real Muslim to actually have a chance at being elected president. It's taken black people what, 150 years almost, to have an honest chance in a mainstream candidate?
Cranky old white men have had their go. Time for some new perspectives in government.
What I'm wondering is how long it will take for a real Muslim to actually have a chance at being elected president. It's taken black people what, 150 years almost, to have an honest chance in a mainstream candidate?
Cranky old white men have had their go. Time for some new perspectives in government.
What really kills me is that the division between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is solely that of the Messiah. All three believe in God's covenant with Abraham. The division between Judaism and Islam comes from who the rightful heir to that covenant is.
Islam follows the tribal lineage of Ishmael, Abraham's first and according to Judaism, illegitimate, son from his concubine Hagar. Judaism follows the tribal lineage of Isaac, Abraham's second son and first from his wife Sarah.
Judaism teaches the Messiah has yet to come. Islam teaches Mohammad was the Messiah or Great Prophet. Christianity teaches Jesus was the Messiah or Great Prophet.
I agree with TheraP that any claims to ownership over the one true God between these three religions is absurd. However, what strikes me as even more absurd is the bloodshed and hatred based upon a two and half millennia old sibling rivalry.
Islam follows the tribal lineage of Ishmael, Abraham's first and according to Judaism, illegitimate, son from his concubine Hagar. Judaism follows the tribal lineage of Isaac, Abraham's second son and first from his wife Sarah.
Judaism teaches the Messiah has yet to come. Islam teaches Mohammad was the Messiah or Great Prophet. Christianity teaches Jesus was the Messiah or Great Prophet.
I agree with TheraP that any claims to ownership over the one true God between these three religions is absurd. However, what strikes me as even more absurd is the bloodshed and hatred based upon a two and half millennia old sibling rivalry.
You nailed it!
Excellent post! I would disagree only on one point:
If I'm not mistaken, tradition at the time allowed that when a wife was barren, she could offer her husband one of her servants to bear a child in her stead. That should mean that Ishmael would have been considered a legitimate heir, yes?
In any event, there is in Judaic tradition a curious theme of favoring younger sons, perhaps because of this Ishmael/Isaac thing: Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob, Jacob's 11th son Joseph, Aaron and Moses -- there are probably more, that's just what comes to mind for me.
Islam follows the tribal lineage of Ishmael, Abraham's first and according to Judaism, illegitimate, son from his concubine Hagar.
If I'm not mistaken, tradition at the time allowed that when a wife was barren, she could offer her husband one of her servants to bear a child in her stead. That should mean that Ishmael would have been considered a legitimate heir, yes?
In any event, there is in Judaic tradition a curious theme of favoring younger sons, perhaps because of this Ishmael/Isaac thing: Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob, Jacob's 11th son Joseph, Aaron and Moses -- there are probably more, that's just what comes to mind for me.
Humans are tribal animals. Read THE NAKED APE.
Religions provide us with a tribe to give us belonging. The Gods are different in that the deities worshiped ask different things from their followers.
No different than even the community at TPM which has it's own versions of the tribe. Attack one, you attack all. We are wired that way by evolution.
Religions provide us with a tribe to give us belonging. The Gods are different in that the deities worshiped ask different things from their followers.
No different than even the community at TPM which has it's own versions of the tribe. Attack one, you attack all. We are wired that way by evolution.
I think we'd all agree that whatever the word "God" means, all religions address the same God.
If two groups use the word "God" in mutually incompatible ways, then how can they be talking about the same God? It makes more sense to say that some (perhaps all) religions talk about "God" but are in fact describing non-existent entities.
To say they are all merely alternate ways of referring to the Flying Spaghetti Monster is sheer blasphemy.
If two groups use the word "God" in mutually incompatible ways, then how can they be talking about the same God? It makes more sense to say that some (perhaps all) religions talk about "God" but are in fact describing non-existent entities.
To say they are all merely alternate ways of referring to the Flying Spaghetti Monster is sheer blasphemy.
Remember the story of the 10 blind men and the elephant? Yes, it is possible to have mutually incompatible ideas of the same thing.
And we would all do well to remember that without doubt there can be no learning. This is one reason why the Evangelicals remain so obstinately stupid.
And we would all do well to remember that without doubt there can be no learning. This is one reason why the Evangelicals remain so obstinately stupid.
Indeed, the story of the blind men and the elephant is itself a religious parable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant
I love that story. Whenever I hear it trotted out, this is what I think.
First guy: "Hey, I got the trunk. Whadda you got?"
Second guy: "The trunk? You can't have the trunk. I have the trunk."
First guy: "Uh oh."
First guy: "Hey, I got the trunk. Whadda you got?"
Second guy: "The trunk? You can't have the trunk. I have the trunk."
First guy: "Uh oh."
Thera, it is ironic that we have different takes on the same parable.
You think that this parable shows that we are talking about the same god and we are all just talking about different aspects of it, convinced the other is wrong.
I read the parable and think: they were all wrong because of their parochial vantage point.
You said: "Yes, it is possible to have mutually incompatible ideas of the same thing." I don't think anybody disagrees, but it is also no proof that any of them have it right. You are starting with the axiom that there is one god and then making the evidence fit, and where it doesn't fit, sweeping the differences under the rug of this parable.
You think that this parable shows that we are talking about the same god and we are all just talking about different aspects of it, convinced the other is wrong.
I read the parable and think: they were all wrong because of their parochial vantage point.
You said: "Yes, it is possible to have mutually incompatible ideas of the same thing." I don't think anybody disagrees, but it is also no proof that any of them have it right. You are starting with the axiom that there is one god and then making the evidence fit, and where it doesn't fit, sweeping the differences under the rug of this parable.
If you go back to the title of the post, I said "no more than one god." But I never said less.
I have no pipeline to the truth. What concerns me is when people are demonized for their beliefs. When they put people down for believing or for not believing or for whatever truths they hold to.
I myself, yes, believe in God. But I'm pushing that belief on anybody. I'm "proving" anything - because frankly I don't think it can be proven and it's not an "intellectual exercise."
Thanks for taking time to respond here.
I have no pipeline to the truth. What concerns me is when people are demonized for their beliefs. When they put people down for believing or for not believing or for whatever truths they hold to.
I myself, yes, believe in God. But I'm pushing that belief on anybody. I'm "proving" anything - because frankly I don't think it can be proven and it's not an "intellectual exercise."
Thanks for taking time to respond here.
CORRECTION: That should read "I am NOT pushing" my beliefs on anyone.
My only concern in this post was to address the wrongs that are being inflicted on some groups in this election.
I know there are many who have no faith. And yet lead lives of goodness and decency and care for their fellow person. Fine by me.
My only concern in this post was to address the wrongs that are being inflicted on some groups in this election.
I know there are many who have no faith. And yet lead lives of goodness and decency and care for their fellow person. Fine by me.
Tribal loyalty, imagined or otherwise, is undoubtedly a huge element of human interaction on all levels. But that tribalism can be broken - or at least suppressed. Look at modern cities. Jews and Arabs live together in relative tolerance in New York. Protestants and Catholics spent a millennium slaughtering each other in Europe, but I grew up in a tiny Midwestern town with streets lined with churches of all denominations.
Is it nationalism that takes the place of the smaller tribal instincts? Is it because we identify ourselves as Americans before we do race or religion or ethnicity? I don't know. All I know is I've seen it work and one evolutionary trait we all too often overlook as human beings is our ability to learn and better the world around us.
I for one think that in the end this evolutionary trait will win over any evolutionary trait for petty tribalism.
Is it nationalism that takes the place of the smaller tribal instincts? Is it because we identify ourselves as Americans before we do race or religion or ethnicity? I don't know. All I know is I've seen it work and one evolutionary trait we all too often overlook as human beings is our ability to learn and better the world around us.
I for one think that in the end this evolutionary trait will win over any evolutionary trait for petty tribalism.
Protestants and Catholics spent a millennium slaughtering each other in Europe
Well, not quite -- Protestantism hasn't been around that long; Europeans found other reasons to slaughter one another before it came on the scene. But your point is well taken.
I wouldn't say that the smaller tribalisms have completely disappeared, but I think you're right in suggesting that there is a hierarchy of tribal identifications, and which one we act on at any given time depends on the level of the perceived threat from the "outside."
I was raised Unitarian, who as you may know believe in, at most, one God.
I don't see why a single god is any more plausible than multiple gods. Let me say up front that if you're a believer, that's fine by me. I just don't see why monotheism should be preferred. As far as I'm concerned, polytheism has more explanatory power and is a lot more fun.
But I would posit that the Divine runs through all of them. One Divine. (many appearances)
Which reminds me of a joke: "I am DeVine and you are De Branches."
Which reminds me of a joke: "I am DeVine and you are De Branches."
If by "divine" you mean "supernatural," it's true that all gods would be divine. But so what? That's like positing that all humans are human. It doesn't get you anywhere because it's tautological. That fact alone won't lead you to a single god anymore than our shared humanity means that we are only one human.
Ah.... but that's different. We humans are separate. But how do you know the Divine is separate? Think on that a bit.
How do you know that it is one?
There is no advantage here.
What I am suggesting is that "divine" is a property just like every other property in the world. Everything that is yellow has the property of being yellow, but that doesn't mean all things that are yellow are a single thing.
How do you understand the term "divine"?
There is no advantage here.
What I am suggesting is that "divine" is a property just like every other property in the world. Everything that is yellow has the property of being yellow, but that doesn't mean all things that are yellow are a single thing.
How do you understand the term "divine"?
Divine, by definition, cannot be a "property in the world." Divine, by definition is transcendent.
By "the world" I mean all things that exist. So, if God or Gods exist, they are by definition part of the world in my understanding.
That might seem like cheating, but you have done the same thing. You have chosen a definition of "divine" that ensures your view wins out. I hope you see that this is circular. You're defining divine in a way that it is different from all other properties, and you escape explaining the difference by saying that it is different by definition.
In any case, if things that are divine are not in the world, then you open up a lot of different problems. Not the least of which is that if God is divine, then he is not in the world, and therefore has no interaction with humanity.
That might seem like cheating, but you have done the same thing. You have chosen a definition of "divine" that ensures your view wins out. I hope you see that this is circular. You're defining divine in a way that it is different from all other properties, and you escape explaining the difference by saying that it is different by definition.
In any case, if things that are divine are not in the world, then you open up a lot of different problems. Not the least of which is that if God is divine, then he is not in the world, and therefore has no interaction with humanity.
Small correction: I don't think my definition of "the world" leads to any circularity in the way your definition of "divine" does.
I'm not positing "existence" of God. Nor can I deny Holy Mystery. But neither can I explain it either. We're talking something way beyond our ken. I'm not really into speculating, so I'm not terribly interested in theology. But I think we at times are "touched" by the Holy, whatever that means. We're talking "Sacred." Whereof we cannot speak. I think we need to leave it at that. I can't "argue" it. I feel "grasped" and "held" in a way I cannot explain. I believe you are too - even if you have no sense of that whatsoever. Peace. Shalom. Salam.
There's a story (probably apocryphal) about one of the past Popes visiting a foreign country. The Pope's party comes upon some people praying to their small-g gods in the form of craven images. Some papal lackey says, "Padre, do you see those poor heathens worshipping their false idols?" The Pope turns to the lackey and says, "Don't you think God knows who they're praying to?"
In Buddhism, we say we don't believe in God not because we don't believe in God, but because the notion of a Divine Creator completely removed from His creation is absurd. If God created Man in His own Image, then Man is God. Is a wave the ocean, or is it apart from the ocean? Is ice water or is it ice? Can it be possible that God, being Everything, decided to create something that is apart from Everything? If so, then God is truly insane.
If you want to know the No-God of Buddhism, look inward and cut through every self-imposed delusion. Rip out the roots. Give up the field.
If you want an opening to understanding the God of Hinduism (Brahman), read the section in the Bhagavad Gita where Krshna reveals himself to Arjuna. Reading these passages (or the Lotus Sutra, or The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana, or the Diamond Sutra, or The Heart Sutra, or any number of others) with a diligent and open mind IS practice.
"One foolish passing thought makes one an ordinary man, while a wise second thought makes one a Buddha." - Hui-neng, Sixth Patriarch of Buddhism.
"If our Father's realm was the sky, birds would belong there before you. If it was the sea, the fish would precede you. But our Father's realm is within you. You will know God when you know yourself." - Jesus of Nazareth, First Patriarch of Christianity.
In Buddhism, we say we don't believe in God not because we don't believe in God, but because the notion of a Divine Creator completely removed from His creation is absurd. If God created Man in His own Image, then Man is God. Is a wave the ocean, or is it apart from the ocean? Is ice water or is it ice? Can it be possible that God, being Everything, decided to create something that is apart from Everything? If so, then God is truly insane.
If you want to know the No-God of Buddhism, look inward and cut through every self-imposed delusion. Rip out the roots. Give up the field.
If you want an opening to understanding the God of Hinduism (Brahman), read the section in the Bhagavad Gita where Krshna reveals himself to Arjuna. Reading these passages (or the Lotus Sutra, or The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana, or the Diamond Sutra, or The Heart Sutra, or any number of others) with a diligent and open mind IS practice.
"One foolish passing thought makes one an ordinary man, while a wise second thought makes one a Buddha." - Hui-neng, Sixth Patriarch of Buddhism.
"If our Father's realm was the sky, birds would belong there before you. If it was the sea, the fish would precede you. But our Father's realm is within you. You will know God when you know yourself." - Jesus of Nazareth, First Patriarch of Christianity.
Good comments!
At the core, the Cloud of Unknowing and koan practice are very very similar. Very few are called to this.
Not so many gods, Nor one god either. Just throwing one's life energy into pursuing the wellspring to its utter source.
Ad diem tendo.....
At the core, the Cloud of Unknowing and koan practice are very very similar. Very few are called to this.
Not so many gods, Nor one god either. Just throwing one's life energy into pursuing the wellspring to its utter source.
Ad diem tendo.....
Amen. I totally agree.
Lux, I've never been sure about recommending (or even mentioning) The Cloud. I've never told a soul about it because of the exhortation at the beginning:
"In the name of the Fader and of the Sone and of the Holy Goost. I charge thee and I beseche thee, with as moche power and vertewe as the bonde of charité is sufficient to suffre, whatsoever thou be that this book schalt have in pos-session, outher bi propirté outher by keping, by bering as messenger or elles bi bor-owing, that in as moche as in thee is by wille and avisement, neither thou rede it, ne write it, ne speke it, ne yit suffre it be red, wretyn, or spokyn, of any or to any, bot yif it be of soche one or to soche one that hath (bi thi supposing) in a trewe wille and by an hole entent, purposed him to be a parfite folower of Criste, not only in actyve leving, bot in the sovereinnest pointe of contemplatif leving the whiche is possible by grace for to be comen to in this present liif of a parfite soule yit abiding in this deedly body; and therto that doth that in him is, and bi thi supposing, hath do longe tyme before, for to able him to contemplative levyng by the vertuous menes of active levyng. For elles it acordeth nothing to him. And, over this, I charge thee and I beseche thee, bi the autorité of charité, that yif any soche schal rede it, write it, or speke it, or elles here it be red or spokin, that thou charge hem, as I do thee, for to take hem tyme to rede it, speke it, write it, or here it, al over."
Do you think the warning was because the author was worried about being excommunicated (or worse) or do you think it's for the same reason that Buddhists are forbidden from evangelizing?
"In the name of the Fader and of the Sone and of the Holy Goost. I charge thee and I beseche thee, with as moche power and vertewe as the bonde of charité is sufficient to suffre, whatsoever thou be that this book schalt have in pos-session, outher bi propirté outher by keping, by bering as messenger or elles bi bor-owing, that in as moche as in thee is by wille and avisement, neither thou rede it, ne write it, ne speke it, ne yit suffre it be red, wretyn, or spokyn, of any or to any, bot yif it be of soche one or to soche one that hath (bi thi supposing) in a trewe wille and by an hole entent, purposed him to be a parfite folower of Criste, not only in actyve leving, bot in the sovereinnest pointe of contemplatif leving the whiche is possible by grace for to be comen to in this present liif of a parfite soule yit abiding in this deedly body; and therto that doth that in him is, and bi thi supposing, hath do longe tyme before, for to able him to contemplative levyng by the vertuous menes of active levyng. For elles it acordeth nothing to him. And, over this, I charge thee and I beseche thee, bi the autorité of charité, that yif any soche schal rede it, write it, or speke it, or elles here it be red or spokin, that thou charge hem, as I do thee, for to take hem tyme to rede it, speke it, write it, or here it, al over."
Do you think the warning was because the author was worried about being excommunicated (or worse) or do you think it's for the same reason that Buddhists are forbidden from evangelizing?
Those who are meant to profit from hearing will hear, those who are not, will not; or at least that's my gut feeling.
I think the original prohibition was that the practice of the Cloud, like any intensive spiritual practice leads the practicioner into the realms of makyo and "wrong path" decisions. Years ago while sitting, I found myself surrounded by light, apparitionally infinite in extent. A very pleasant state actually, but I was well-trained in caution and let it expire on its own time. Someone, could easily try to perpetuate that state intentionally with bad (or ultimately sterile) results. Thus its best not to go it alone, unless already cautioned about what distractions may arise....
No one ever has given me an explanation of why Buddhists don't proselytize..but that prohibition or custom, feels right. Kind of a don't interfere forcibly with someone else's path. Better to show by example.
In any case, I hope I haven't goofed up by giving my opinion of the deep equivalence between contemplative practices...
I think the original prohibition was that the practice of the Cloud, like any intensive spiritual practice leads the practicioner into the realms of makyo and "wrong path" decisions. Years ago while sitting, I found myself surrounded by light, apparitionally infinite in extent. A very pleasant state actually, but I was well-trained in caution and let it expire on its own time. Someone, could easily try to perpetuate that state intentionally with bad (or ultimately sterile) results. Thus its best not to go it alone, unless already cautioned about what distractions may arise....
No one ever has given me an explanation of why Buddhists don't proselytize..but that prohibition or custom, feels right. Kind of a don't interfere forcibly with someone else's path. Better to show by example.
In any case, I hope I haven't goofed up by giving my opinion of the deep equivalence between contemplative practices...
Hey Lux, I think you're right on all points. If we're meant to find it, we find it. If we're not, we don't. So no problem. :)
I know what you mean about the dangers of practicing without guidance. Anyone who spends any time sitting knows the feeling of pushing past those sometimes bizarre or "miraculous" experiences that percolate up from the mud while you're meditating (and sometimes when you're not). My standard one was doors and walls falling down. I'd hear these thunderous crashes that were so real it was hard not to jump up to see what had happened. If you're not forewarned or guided to ignore these things, you could end up short a few marbles and in a really stupid trap of your own design (Enyadatta's missing head comes to mind). I know a few mystics and shamans who were more than happy to give up the search for gold because they'd fooled themselves into thinking they found silver. Just sit. Just sit. Just sit. Just sit.
As to the prohibition against evangelizing, I can't think of a way to say it that doesn't break the rule.
I know what you mean about the dangers of practicing without guidance. Anyone who spends any time sitting knows the feeling of pushing past those sometimes bizarre or "miraculous" experiences that percolate up from the mud while you're meditating (and sometimes when you're not). My standard one was doors and walls falling down. I'd hear these thunderous crashes that were so real it was hard not to jump up to see what had happened. If you're not forewarned or guided to ignore these things, you could end up short a few marbles and in a really stupid trap of your own design (Enyadatta's missing head comes to mind). I know a few mystics and shamans who were more than happy to give up the search for gold because they'd fooled themselves into thinking they found silver. Just sit. Just sit. Just sit. Just sit.
As to the prohibition against evangelizing, I can't think of a way to say it that doesn't break the rule.
No matter what you name it, I think we are "drawn" from within - and thus there is no need for us to presume that we'd know how or in which direction someone needs to be "drawn."
You see the same calm in a zen monk that you see in some Christian contemplatives. Nothing like sitting.
But many would flee.
You see the same calm in a zen monk that you see in some Christian contemplatives. Nothing like sitting.
But many would flee.
One of the great feelings I get is when I can learn something from (not about) another religion and apply it to my own faith.
For those interested in those kind of cross-faith insights, I heartily recommend Stephen Mitchell's "The Gospel According to Jesus," which borrows from Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu texts to explain and illustrate the teachings of Jesus.
For those interested in those kind of cross-faith insights, I heartily recommend Stephen Mitchell's "The Gospel According to Jesus," which borrows from Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu texts to explain and illustrate the teachings of Jesus.
"You grok," Smith repeated firmly. "I am explain. I did not have the word. You grok. Anne groks. I grok. The grasses under my feet grok in happy beauty. But I needed the word. The word is God."
"Go ahead."
Mike pointed triumphantly at Jubal. "Thou art God!"
"Go ahead."
Mike pointed triumphantly at Jubal. "Thou art God!"
When you say "the Divine runs through all of them" you adopt a definition of "the Divine" that makes your point of view correct. But it's a definition of "the Divine" that is explicitly denied by many of the groups you're talking about. So if you're right, they're wrong. And if any one of them is right, then you're wrong.
It's as if you think you have some sort of privileged view of The Truth lets you see where they're mistaken (the parts where they deny what you are asserting) as well as the fragments of their belief systems that they've somehow managed to get right (where they capture something about this "Divine" that they have in common with all the other monotheistic religions).
But many of them also think they have some sort of privileged view of The Truth. Evangelicals, for example, would (condescendingly) say that they can see where you are mistaken and also where you have some small glimpse of what is true, etc. You could both be wrong, but you can't both be right.
Look at it this way. Religion X has a view of God that says that adherents of religion Y are so deeply wrong that they will be tortured for eternity for rejecting the True God. Religion Y has a view of God that says that adherents of religion X are so deeply wrong that they will be tortured for eternity for rejecting the True God.
Suppose religion X is correct. Adherents of religion Y are all going to be tortured for eternity for not believing in the True God. For that matter, adherents of religions A, B, C, ... U, V, W, and Z are also damned for rejecting the True God. Does it make any sense at all to say that adherents of the non-X religions were all really worshiping "the same God" as the adherents of religion X?
It's as if you think you have some sort of privileged view of The Truth lets you see where they're mistaken (the parts where they deny what you are asserting) as well as the fragments of their belief systems that they've somehow managed to get right (where they capture something about this "Divine" that they have in common with all the other monotheistic religions).
But many of them also think they have some sort of privileged view of The Truth. Evangelicals, for example, would (condescendingly) say that they can see where you are mistaken and also where you have some small glimpse of what is true, etc. You could both be wrong, but you can't both be right.
Look at it this way. Religion X has a view of God that says that adherents of religion Y are so deeply wrong that they will be tortured for eternity for rejecting the True God. Religion Y has a view of God that says that adherents of religion X are so deeply wrong that they will be tortured for eternity for rejecting the True God.
Suppose religion X is correct. Adherents of religion Y are all going to be tortured for eternity for not believing in the True God. For that matter, adherents of religions A, B, C, ... U, V, W, and Z are also damned for rejecting the True God. Does it make any sense at all to say that adherents of the non-X religions were all really worshiping "the same God" as the adherents of religion X?
This is a strictly logical approach to the issue, but I don't think it really solves the problem. Here's the deal:
Jews trace their religion to Abraham and worship the God that asked him to sacrifice his son.
Christians trace their religion to Abraham and worship the God that asked him to sacrifice his son.
Muslims trace their religion to Abraham and worship the God that asked him to sacrifice his son.
There are traditions and beliefs on which all three religions are based. They all say that they worship the God of Abraham, but Christians believe that Jews have a connection to that god and Muslims believe both Christians and Jews have a connection to that god. And the reason is simple: They see themselves as respecting successive waves of god's message.
It's quite possible that there is only one God. Let's assume it is a fact for a second. Then the Jewish prophets gave god's first message, Jesus gave god's second, and Mohammed gave god's third. (Baha'i like to think that they know God's most recent message.)
The fact that they don't agree on the message doesn't imply that there is more than one god. It just means that they heard different parts of the story.
Jews trace their religion to Abraham and worship the God that asked him to sacrifice his son.
Christians trace their religion to Abraham and worship the God that asked him to sacrifice his son.
Muslims trace their religion to Abraham and worship the God that asked him to sacrifice his son.
There are traditions and beliefs on which all three religions are based. They all say that they worship the God of Abraham, but Christians believe that Jews have a connection to that god and Muslims believe both Christians and Jews have a connection to that god. And the reason is simple: They see themselves as respecting successive waves of god's message.
It's quite possible that there is only one God. Let's assume it is a fact for a second. Then the Jewish prophets gave god's first message, Jesus gave god's second, and Mohammed gave god's third. (Baha'i like to think that they know God's most recent message.)
The fact that they don't agree on the message doesn't imply that there is more than one god. It just means that they heard different parts of the story.
That's one belief system, but it's a belief system that others explicitly reject. At least some evangelicals would say instead that the "subsequent revelations" are actually lies from the devil, intended to lead people away from the true god.
The fact that they don't agree may mean that they've heard different parts of the story. Or it may mean that some have embraced true claims and others have embraced false claims. In fact, to assert that the subsequent claims are true is necessarily to assert that some (such as evangelicals) are embracing false beliefs. Which is fine to assert, but it's not an assertion from a privileged view of The Truth. Just one person's opinion.
The fact that they don't agree may mean that they've heard different parts of the story. Or it may mean that some have embraced true claims and others have embraced false claims. In fact, to assert that the subsequent claims are true is necessarily to assert that some (such as evangelicals) are embracing false beliefs. Which is fine to assert, but it's not an assertion from a privileged view of The Truth. Just one person's opinion.
I think that's right, Bob, but that does not suggest that there is more than one god. It's quite possible that people can all worship the same god, but some of them do it incorrectly.
Christians believe that Jews have a connection to that god and Muslims believe both Christians and Jews have a connection to that god. And the reason is simple: They see themselves as respecting successive waves of god's message.The Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Jihads all paint a different picture. You can even find Catholics going after Protestants, Shiites going after Sunnis, and various sects of Jews going after each other.
Even the notion that the US is a Judeo-Christian entity is relatively new.
If you really want to find out what the dogma teaches, ask a dogmatically pious person of some religion if a non-believer will get into Heaven (e.g. the same Heaven the believer believes he is going to). The answers may surprise you.
I think you'll learn more from mystics than from dogma.
I personally gain little from either. But in any case, it's dogma that runs religion, not mysticism.
The world's religions that have thrived have done so because they are best at organizing their communities in a long term way. In many respects, until the modern nation-state, religion was a key organizing principle of society - providing justification for social structure, giving authority to law. There is very little mysticism in that.
The world's religions that have thrived have done so because they are best at organizing their communities in a long term way. In many respects, until the modern nation-state, religion was a key organizing principle of society - providing justification for social structure, giving authority to law. There is very little mysticism in that.
Any institution has a tendency to keep going. It starts out for one reason and pretty soon "keeping going" becomes one of its primary features.
That's why I throw in my lot with the mystics. With the heretics.... who don't fit as well into the institutional structures. It's more free-flow.
That's why I throw in my lot with the mystics. With the heretics.... who don't fit as well into the institutional structures. It's more free-flow.
"I am The Lord thy God, Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
Simply remarkable that so ancient a concept still has so much traffic amongst the educated elite of the Christian Church. Monotheism is thoroughly embedded in the Christian faith, so fundamental to its nature, and yet there remains a need to cling to polytheism.
Our faith has grown and changed for millenia now, yet Ra and Osiris still lurk just beyond the horizon. This man, a man of education and deep faith, shows in this brief clip just how worried he is that other gods may visit him in his sleep tonight, and just how worried he is they they may be angry.
Remarkable.
Simply remarkable that so ancient a concept still has so much traffic amongst the educated elite of the Christian Church. Monotheism is thoroughly embedded in the Christian faith, so fundamental to its nature, and yet there remains a need to cling to polytheism.
Our faith has grown and changed for millenia now, yet Ra and Osiris still lurk just beyond the horizon. This man, a man of education and deep faith, shows in this brief clip just how worried he is that other gods may visit him in his sleep tonight, and just how worried he is they they may be angry.
Remarkable.
If you want to be a REAL Amurican then you have to be a Christian (and not one of those luny Episcopalians either!)
I heard a joke today.
The reason people become Episcopalians is because it is said, where ever four(4)are gathered together, there' a fifth.
The reason people become Episcopalians is because it is said, where ever four(4)are gathered together, there' a fifth.
From the "Book Insight on the Scriptures"
Origin of Gods and Goddesses. The striking similarity readily observable when comparing the gods and goddesses of ancient peoples can hardly be attributed to chance. Concerning this, J. Garnier writes: “Not merely Egyptians, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans, but also the Hindus, the Buddhists of China and of Thibet, the Goths, Anglo-Saxons, Druids, Mexicans and Peruvians, the Aborigines of Australia, and even the savages of the South Sea Islands, must have all derived their religious ideas from a common source and a common centre. Everywhere we find the most startling coincidences in rites, ceremonies, customs, traditions, and in the names and relations of their respective gods and goddesses.”—The Worship of the Dead, London, 1904, p. 3.
The evidence of Scripture points to the land of Shinar as the post-Flood birthplace of false religious concepts. Undoubtedly under the direction of Nimrod,
Origin of Gods and Goddesses. The striking similarity readily observable when comparing the gods and goddesses of ancient peoples can hardly be attributed to chance. Concerning this, J. Garnier writes: “Not merely Egyptians, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans, but also the Hindus, the Buddhists of China and of Thibet, the Goths, Anglo-Saxons, Druids, Mexicans and Peruvians, the Aborigines of Australia, and even the savages of the South Sea Islands, must have all derived their religious ideas from a common source and a common centre. Everywhere we find the most startling coincidences in rites, ceremonies, customs, traditions, and in the names and relations of their respective gods and goddesses.”—The Worship of the Dead, London, 1904, p. 3.
The evidence of Scripture points to the land of Shinar as the post-Flood birthplace of false religious concepts. Undoubtedly under the direction of Nimrod,
This whole thread is exactly why I'm a fanatical agnostic.
I view agnosticism as the most intellectually honest position. However, if anyone has ever been "stalked" by God, well... there's no going back.
Einstein, asked if he believed in God, apparently said: "I don't believe, I know."
Einstein, asked if he believed in God, apparently said: "I don't believe, I know."
I think you will find that what Einstein meant is that he doesn't need a God to help him explain the universe. He (Einstein) knew it was knowable and the only mystery was that you could know it.
If you read Pais' bio of Einstein, you will find his references to God are metaphorical in nature.
If you read Pais' bio of Einstein, you will find his references to God are metaphorical in nature.
Thera,
You said, "I view agnosticism as the most intellectually honest position."
Can you define what you mean by agnosticism? As far as I can tell, it is an atheist who is uncomfortable with the label "atheist."
Atheism does not mean one is certain there is no God. There are people who call themselves atheists that are certain there is no God, but they are in the tiny minority. Most self-identified atheists think the position espoused by "strong atheists" is untenable.
Atheism, as defined by the atheist 'community' as I know it, is that there is no reason to believe in a god until doing so explains things better than not believing in a god.
You said, "I view agnosticism as the most intellectually honest position."
Can you define what you mean by agnosticism? As far as I can tell, it is an atheist who is uncomfortable with the label "atheist."
Atheism does not mean one is certain there is no God. There are people who call themselves atheists that are certain there is no God, but they are in the tiny minority. Most self-identified atheists think the position espoused by "strong atheists" is untenable.
Atheism, as defined by the atheist 'community' as I know it, is that there is no reason to believe in a god until doing so explains things better than not believing in a god.
Agnostic means you do not know. You believe you cannot take a position. "gnosis" means "knowing." So Agnostic means "not knowing."
Atheists "believe" there is no god. It's type of belief. But agnostics say, gee I simply don't know/can't know. And so, in my view, since you can't really demonstrably prove to someone else the existence or not, I therefore see agnosticism as more intellectually rigorous. I hope that makes sense. (even though I'm personally a "believer")
So you've got 2 belief options and one "not knowing" option. (at the very least)
Atheists "believe" there is no god. It's type of belief. But agnostics say, gee I simply don't know/can't know. And so, in my view, since you can't really demonstrably prove to someone else the existence or not, I therefore see agnosticism as more intellectually rigorous. I hope that makes sense. (even though I'm personally a "believer")
So you've got 2 belief options and one "not knowing" option. (at the very least)
Hmmm... well you did go out on a limb here TheraP, well done. I do think that there are systems of belief that engage various 'aspects of god' etc. and have many names for god. And I suppose that an athiest is aligned to the extent that are not believing in that "God" or the concept of "God"
For me one of the best explanations of "God" was from one of my spiritual teachers... God is pure consciousness coming to know itself... ie via life. But it is highly threatening to many people in this country that I believe this and that I do not associate myself with a religion or book.
Again sometimes when people are holding on to old belief systems (ie Carolyn Myss)they will keep trying to wrap or warp their reality to fit that belief system even when it doesn't make sense...
So this pastor who is clearly was projecting and expressing his desire for security and basically saying 'God if you let Obama win, then I will think you suck!'
My earliest understanding of God was in big giant letters over the entrance to the Sunday School that I grew up in that said 'GOD IS LOVE'. I was never taught to hate or divide.
For me one of the best explanations of "God" was from one of my spiritual teachers... God is pure consciousness coming to know itself... ie via life. But it is highly threatening to many people in this country that I believe this and that I do not associate myself with a religion or book.
Again sometimes when people are holding on to old belief systems (ie Carolyn Myss)they will keep trying to wrap or warp their reality to fit that belief system even when it doesn't make sense...
So this pastor who is clearly was projecting and expressing his desire for security and basically saying 'God if you let Obama win, then I will think you suck!'
My earliest understanding of God was in big giant letters over the entrance to the Sunday School that I grew up in that said 'GOD IS LOVE'. I was never taught to hate or divide.
One of the best analogies I've ever heard goes like this:
Picture an oxcart wheel. In the center, one finds the divine, eternal power, etc. On the outer rim entirely spread out are the peoples of the world. Each spoke from a culture or religion is the equivalent of that cultures experiences and oral history with the power in the center.
In other words, from the beginning of time man has attempted to explain his experience with the divine. Different peoples from different tribes and regions created their own stories and explanations for these experiences. Thus, we find ourselves with many different religions and sects, yet one can find common threads throughout of peace, love, humility, self knowledge, etc.
Picture an oxcart wheel. In the center, one finds the divine, eternal power, etc. On the outer rim entirely spread out are the peoples of the world. Each spoke from a culture or religion is the equivalent of that cultures experiences and oral history with the power in the center.
In other words, from the beginning of time man has attempted to explain his experience with the divine. Different peoples from different tribes and regions created their own stories and explanations for these experiences. Thus, we find ourselves with many different religions and sects, yet one can find common threads throughout of peace, love, humility, self knowledge, etc.
That's interesting. All by myself, in high school, I came up with the image of a sphere. All the people of the world standing on the edges of the sphere, each one pointing toward the middle, each one seeing something slightly different - from their perspective.
Without "God," the world would be a better place. One day we may get there. Until then I will retain the only reasonable view of agnosticism.
I also would miss the fun of arguing with Atheists, which is itself a religion -- but without the buildings and funny clothes.
But, if I just had to chose a religion, I would chose pantheism. It seems to me the closest to the truth and Einstein was a pantheist. Even the brilliant genius Einstein let his religion blind him to science in the end.
I guess I should quit before I make a coherent point.
I also would miss the fun of arguing with Atheists, which is itself a religion -- but without the buildings and funny clothes.
But, if I just had to chose a religion, I would chose pantheism. It seems to me the closest to the truth and Einstein was a pantheist. Even the brilliant genius Einstein let his religion blind him to science in the end.
I guess I should quit before I make a coherent point.
Reminds me of the old joke about an atheist in a coffin: All dressed up with nowhere to go.
Great post, Therap.
Here's something not too far off topic that might interest you.
From CNN's Campbell Brown.
Commentary: So what if Obama were a Muslim or an Arab?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/campbell.brown.obama/
Here's something not too far off topic that might interest you.
From CNN's Campbell Brown.
Commentary: So what if Obama were a Muslim or an Arab?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/campbell.brown.obama/
Thanks. Good commentary on her part. And here's a quote from a letter to the editor published in today's NY Times:
"Backpedaling from his barrage of negativism, John McCain bristled when a less than scholarly woman proudly told the Republican candidate that she doesn’t trust Barack Obama because he is an Arab. To assuage her concern, Mr. McCain told her, “No, ma’am, he’s a decent family man, citizen, who I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.”
"Won’t that be music to the ears of all the Arab-American voters. John McCain thinks the two are mutually exclusive."
"Backpedaling from his barrage of negativism, John McCain bristled when a less than scholarly woman proudly told the Republican candidate that she doesn’t trust Barack Obama because he is an Arab. To assuage her concern, Mr. McCain told her, “No, ma’am, he’s a decent family man, citizen, who I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.”
"Won’t that be music to the ears of all the Arab-American voters. John McCain thinks the two are mutually exclusive."
Looks like Karma broke the Rec Lists. And thus this blog meets dust sooner than expected.
I guess I'm one of those pantheists. In all honesty, I do not think we are all praying to the same "God". There is the Gnostic concept of the "Demi-Urge". The deity that declares itself as the one true, the only god is not the the 'real' God, but a lesser emanation, the imp that created this flawed world that we're stuck on. The fundamentalists that urge hate and exclusion and who ignore the Christian/Buddhist/Wiccan/Pantheist messages of the essential oneness and unity of existence are worshiping this Demi-Urge, this lesser God.
It all reminds me of Tom Lehrer's remark; "There are people in this world who do not love their fellow man and I HATE people like that."
It all reminds me of Tom Lehrer's remark; "There are people in this world who do not love their fellow man and I HATE people like that."
Actually the gnostics, and they did not agree on much... so there are many types, saw the demi-urge as a bad god and then they believed in another good god. Dualism. Big mistake!
When I heard that minister at the McCain rally speaking I thought, if God has a sense of humor, he/she must be laughing. I laugh to keep from crying at some of the silliness going on.
As Obama says... it's silly season !
As Obama says... it's silly season !
Since "God" is whatever your mind has dreamed up, (even if your church attaches a particular set of beliefs/rules to keep everyone separate from the OTHERS), I don't see how it's true that everyone who worships, worships the same god.
How do you even know if what you see as red is the same "red" that I see?
The god of the old testament isn't even the same dude as the god of the new testament!
More and more, god has become not much more than an excuse to treat other people badly.
How do you even know if what you see as red is the same "red" that I see?
The god of the old testament isn't even the same dude as the god of the new testament!
More and more, god has become not much more than an excuse to treat other people badly.
There's actually a great book, written like a biography of God, as if God was maturing throughout the bible. The history of how the old testament got cobbled together is fascinating. Same with the new, though that happened faster.
I think we'd all agree that whatever the word "God" means, all religions address the same God.I'm not sure that this is true. Furthermore, I think that there's a good reason for why it's not.
If you are a believer, let's say Christian as the gentleman in question, you have limited choice in dealing with a different belief. You can deny it. You affirm it in difference. You can also affirm it in similarity.
For any believer, denying the belief of another is the most dangerous. If you can hold in your head the thought that the belief of another is simply invalid, you aren't very far intellectually from entertaining the same thought about your own.
As for affirming it, it is not uncommon to see more progressive theists of all stripes recognizing the fundamental similarities between their beliefs and the beliefs of different sects (or even other religions). Attend a Unitarian Universalist church if you'd like to see how this looks.
However, there is a drawback in this case to affirming the similarities of the belief of another. Doing so would preclude someone from standing in front of a podium and delivering a fundamentalist diatribe intended to coalesce true believers around a Manichean mantra: It's us versus them.
So, we acknowledge their belief, but we affirm it in difference. Now, hurry and pick a side.
This, of course, is the most rational reason for rejecting all religion.
One of my favorite stories along this line is one where a unitarian-type organization wanted to use John Lennon's IMAGINE as a song for a campaign. They also wanted additional permission to change a line to make it say:
"Imagine one religion..."
They saw that that was utopia of which Lennon spoke. Lennon recalls in an interview that they had totally missed the point. In Lennon's view, the utopia would require:
One of my favorite stories along this line is one where a unitarian-type organization wanted to use John Lennon's IMAGINE as a song for a campaign. They also wanted additional permission to change a line to make it say:
"Imagine one religion..."
They saw that that was utopia of which Lennon spoke. Lennon recalls in an interview that they had totally missed the point. In Lennon's view, the utopia would require:
Imagine no religion...I wonder if we can...
Years ago when teaching in a small high school, the sweetest, high achieving young women from the far east attended with her two brothers. Once, while walking with her in the hall, she told me she was betrothed to a man in Canada and had no choice as to whom she was to marry. I replied, "..., you are in America now."
Later, I learned that if she were to defy her father in this arrangement, she would simply disappear: killed! Her brothers were out of control, held to no consequences of their choices. They were havoc in the classroom!
That God has no resemblance to my God! Woman were created as helpmates, to nuture the children; not to be treated as cattle.
Later, I learned that if she were to defy her father in this arrangement, she would simply disappear: killed! Her brothers were out of control, held to no consequences of their choices. They were havoc in the classroom!
That God has no resemblance to my God! Woman were created as helpmates, to nuture the children; not to be treated as cattle.
Was that the action of God, or the actions of men using God's name to excuse poor behavior?
No more than one god, no god, many gods - no way we can know for sure. Does it matter? Only if you insist that it does. Love, compassion, empathy - do not require belief or disbelief in a god or gods.
I suppose it matters to God. But everything else you say is very true. We can't prove things to others. But sometimes, and I can say this from my own experience, God proves them to us. Not that you'd believe that. Not that you need to. I agree completely with your last sentence. And it sounds like you're not a person who discriminates against people of faith or no faith. Which is good.
I do believe and have much purpose in life because of faith in God, our Eternal Heavenly Father; Jesus Christ, his son, our mediator through whom we ask of Our Father; and the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead who will inspire, educate, comfort, and protect when worthily and genuinely seeking answers and companionship of God. Without our Heavenly Father and Christ, we would quickly lose those wonderful traits of love, empahthy, and compassion!
James 1:5-6 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. . .
We do not know much about Obama. I know he supports abortion and is willing to kill his own grandchildren! I worry he will also lead us to assisted deaths/suicides of those who would also be a burden. Both are not of God! How can you trust someone who openly defies God, and most likely could not be in the Secret Service or the FBI with his questionable background?
Personally, I endorse McCain because he has displayed an upright position on issues, despite his own frailty and weaknesses, and has loved beyond self for unnumbered, unknown others with great sacrifice. He adopted; not out of his need, but out of love, empathy, and caring for others.
Our liberal society has strayed so far from what is of God that too often we hear, “If there is a God” as you can read above. I testify that there is, and he loves us and wants us to repent and come back to him in the hereafter. My family and I have experienced healings, answers to prayers, and countless blessing from living the best we can using the scriptures. And I pray that the leaders of our government rely upon God’s strength, as well as, their own strengths!
1John 2:15-16 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Luke16:15. . .Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;. . .. . .that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
James 1:5-6 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. . .
We do not know much about Obama. I know he supports abortion and is willing to kill his own grandchildren! I worry he will also lead us to assisted deaths/suicides of those who would also be a burden. Both are not of God! How can you trust someone who openly defies God, and most likely could not be in the Secret Service or the FBI with his questionable background?
Personally, I endorse McCain because he has displayed an upright position on issues, despite his own frailty and weaknesses, and has loved beyond self for unnumbered, unknown others with great sacrifice. He adopted; not out of his need, but out of love, empathy, and caring for others.
Our liberal society has strayed so far from what is of God that too often we hear, “If there is a God” as you can read above. I testify that there is, and he loves us and wants us to repent and come back to him in the hereafter. My family and I have experienced healings, answers to prayers, and countless blessing from living the best we can using the scriptures. And I pray that the leaders of our government rely upon God’s strength, as well as, their own strengths!
1John 2:15-16 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Luke16:15. . .Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;. . .. . .that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
I do believe and have much purpose in life because of faith in God, our Eternal Heavenly Father; Jesus Christ, his son, our mediator through whom we ask of Our Father; and the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead who will inspire, educate, comfort, and protect when worthily and genuinely seeking answers and companionship of God. Without our Heavenly Father and Christ, we would quickly lose those wonderful traits of love, empahthy, and compassion!
James 1:5-6 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. . .
Our liberal society has strayed so far from what is of God that too often we hear, “If there is a God” as you can read above. I testify that there is, and he loves us and wants us to repent and come back to him in the hereafter. My family and I have experienced healings, answers to prayers, and countless blessing from living the best we can using the scriptures. And I pray that the leaders of our government rely upon God’s strength, as well as, their own strengths!
We do not know much about Obama. I know he supports abortion and is willing to kill his own grandchildren! I worry he will also lead us to assisted deaths/suicides of those who would also be a burden. Both are not of God! How can you trust someone who openly defies God, and most likely could not be in the Secret Service or the FBI with his questionable background?
Personally, I endorse McCain because he has displayed an upright position on issues, despite his own frailty and weaknesses, and has loved beyond self for unnumbered, unknown others with great sacrifice. He adopted; not out of his need, but out of love, empathy, and caring for others.
1John 2:15-16 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Luke16:15. . .Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;. . .. . .that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
James 1:5-6 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. . .
Our liberal society has strayed so far from what is of God that too often we hear, “If there is a God” as you can read above. I testify that there is, and he loves us and wants us to repent and come back to him in the hereafter. My family and I have experienced healings, answers to prayers, and countless blessing from living the best we can using the scriptures. And I pray that the leaders of our government rely upon God’s strength, as well as, their own strengths!
We do not know much about Obama. I know he supports abortion and is willing to kill his own grandchildren! I worry he will also lead us to assisted deaths/suicides of those who would also be a burden. Both are not of God! How can you trust someone who openly defies God, and most likely could not be in the Secret Service or the FBI with his questionable background?
Personally, I endorse McCain because he has displayed an upright position on issues, despite his own frailty and weaknesses, and has loved beyond self for unnumbered, unknown others with great sacrifice. He adopted; not out of his need, but out of love, empathy, and caring for others.
1John 2:15-16 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Luke16:15. . .Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;. . .. . .that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
I'm glad this discussion reappeared.
I remember when Bush said something along these lines a few years back. There was a big kerfluffle among evangelicals to condemn his statements, and restating their belief that JC was the one and only God. So I understand where you're coming from, and I both agree and disagree with you. Which I think is only possible in a discussion like this. ;)
I still think that a thesis like this though, still is heavily influenced and existing within a monotheistic framework.
I suppose I agree with you in the cosmic sense, and I see what you mean about the common thread of divinity, but even the meaning of that is disputed. If we take it to mean supernatural, or transcendent in power or attribute, it still leads us no closer to the answer.
On another note. Anyone ever seen Fraggle Rock? Do you remember the big garbage heap?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraggle_Rock#Marjory.2C_the_Trash_Heap
When I was a little girl, I thought "God" looked like that, only made of clouds. ;)
I remember when Bush said something along these lines a few years back. There was a big kerfluffle among evangelicals to condemn his statements, and restating their belief that JC was the one and only God. So I understand where you're coming from, and I both agree and disagree with you. Which I think is only possible in a discussion like this. ;)
I still think that a thesis like this though, still is heavily influenced and existing within a monotheistic framework.
I suppose I agree with you in the cosmic sense, and I see what you mean about the common thread of divinity, but even the meaning of that is disputed. If we take it to mean supernatural, or transcendent in power or attribute, it still leads us no closer to the answer.
On another note. Anyone ever seen Fraggle Rock? Do you remember the big garbage heap?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraggle_Rock#Marjory.2C_the_Trash_Heap
When I was a little girl, I thought "God" looked like that, only made of clouds. ;)
You will notice that the way I phrased the header, it was "no more than one God." I never said no less, did I?
I believe I was careful to include people of no faith or any faith or agnostics.
But you contest monotheism is you want. I'm not sure how the idea of multiple gods is beneficial to spirituality. But go ahead if you like that! I'm not gonna come after you....
I believe I was careful to include people of no faith or any faith or agnostics.
But you contest monotheism is you want. I'm not sure how the idea of multiple gods is beneficial to spirituality. But go ahead if you like that! I'm not gonna come after you....
No, you definitely included agnosticism and atheism, I was referring more to the many forms of polytheism. This comment seems surprising to me:
How is it detrimental? The world has quite a long history of polytheistic religions. Christianization changed a lot of that, pushing many of those beliefs to the outer edges, mythologizing them, or demonizing them, but many still exist today. Tribal religions, traditional religions in many nonindustrialized areas, any of the many religions we tend to group together as paganism. The religions still practiced by American Indian tribes today. Many religions whose beliefs are founded in animism and legend and intensely spiritual. I believe there are many religions still commonly practiced in Japan that are polytheistic in nature. I don't see how those beliefs in multiple Gods or spirits or deities or whatever we wish to call them would not be beneficial to spirituality. Why does spirituality have to be confined to only one (or less) God?
I'm not sure how the idea of multiple gods is beneficial to spirituality.
How is it detrimental? The world has quite a long history of polytheistic religions. Christianization changed a lot of that, pushing many of those beliefs to the outer edges, mythologizing them, or demonizing them, but many still exist today. Tribal religions, traditional religions in many nonindustrialized areas, any of the many religions we tend to group together as paganism. The religions still practiced by American Indian tribes today. Many religions whose beliefs are founded in animism and legend and intensely spiritual. I believe there are many religions still commonly practiced in Japan that are polytheistic in nature. I don't see how those beliefs in multiple Gods or spirits or deities or whatever we wish to call them would not be beneficial to spirituality. Why does spirituality have to be confined to only one (or less) God?
Much of western civilization -- if not most of it -- was inspired from the Greeks, who were polytheists.
By beneficial I was looking for some better understanding of something .... I was not implying that it was detrimental.
Thera P --
"...whatever the word "God" means, all religions address the same God."
That is a pretty broad assertion. I see your point that the three Abrahamic religions derive from the same source and thus it is ridiculous for one to claim the other one's father is a lout.
I don't see how it necessarily applies to other religions, especially polytheistic ones.
How do you feel about the religious practice of forced female circumcision? Is that something that is wrong for someone outside their circle to criticize? Should it be glossed over under the feelgood concept that we are all children of the same god and let's all just get along?
How about what the now-sainted figures did five hundred years ago to indigenous people in the name of "doing god's will?" Shouldn't we hold those people accountable as individuals for their ethical failures while following church doctrine?
"...whatever the word "God" means, all religions address the same God."
That is a pretty broad assertion. I see your point that the three Abrahamic religions derive from the same source and thus it is ridiculous for one to claim the other one's father is a lout.
I don't see how it necessarily applies to other religions, especially polytheistic ones.
How do you feel about the religious practice of forced female circumcision? Is that something that is wrong for someone outside their circle to criticize? Should it be glossed over under the feelgood concept that we are all children of the same god and let's all just get along?
How about what the now-sainted figures did five hundred years ago to indigenous people in the name of "doing god's will?" Shouldn't we hold those people accountable as individuals for their ethical failures while following church doctrine?
How do I feel about female circumcision... whether people view it as religious or not? I think it's terrible personally. I view it as abuse. I view it as a way to dominate women and deprive them of sexual feeling in order to try and guarantee their fidelity. This gets us into a whole other area. It distresses me greatly.
Hope that answers your question/
Hope that answers your question/
I think it is perfectly appropriate for the law to outlaw certain practices that some religions might advocate. Look at the Mormons. We don't allow plural marriages. Or the sexual abuse of minors. So I think the law in the US can outlaw certain practices. But that's done by careful legal means.
I'm not sure that the polytheists would agree that there is only one god, or that all religions address the same one, but not being a polytheist myself, I'm not really able to argue the point.
What is certain, though, is that all of the "People of the Book" -- Jews, Christians, Muslims -- worship the same god, even if by different names. The fundamentalists who think otherwise are simply ignorant. Well, maybe not simply ignorant; dangerously ignorant might be more accurate.
What is certain, though, is that all of the "People of the Book" -- Jews, Christians, Muslims -- worship the same god, even if by different names. The fundamentalists who think otherwise are simply ignorant. Well, maybe not simply ignorant; dangerously ignorant might be more accurate.
This dreadful election season is spreading so many lies and seeding so many false and dangerous ideas. And I just had to confront this one!If you replace "this" with "these" and "election season" with "religions" in the above quote, well... you would pretty much understand the current state of the world.
Two years ago when an oncologist told me I had cancer and it might be advanced, to digest the news I took a trip to the Columbia Gorge and did a hike to a nice mountain with a meadow top and spectacular views (Dog Mountain for those familiar with the Gorge). I remember walking along looking at the most amazingly beautiful sky with sun rays streaming down between clouds and thinking that at this time soon I might not be seeing such things again. Then a great feeling arose in my heart.
It was not a feeling of dread, or sadness, nor happy anticipation of some afterlife either. Just an overflowing flood of gratitude to....what was it?
Not God, not Nature, not parents, not myself, just to an something quiet and immense that includes all those names.
It was not a feeling of dread, or sadness, nor happy anticipation of some afterlife either. Just an overflowing flood of gratitude to....what was it?
Not God, not Nature, not parents, not myself, just to an something quiet and immense that includes all those names.
What a beautiful story. Thank you for sharing that, Lux Umbra Dei. Moments like that happen, I think, because we are "open" to them. That was a beautiful way for you to respond to your diagnosis.
I hope you're doing ok now with the cancer. But I also think when we confront our mortality it changes us. I find myself doing that as I age.
Take care of yourself. I trust you do actually.
I hope you're doing ok now with the cancer. But I also think when we confront our mortality it changes us. I find myself doing that as I age.
Take care of yourself. I trust you do actually.
Yes, what a wonderful story! I have felt the same many times as I have lived the gospel. You must have been drawing upon God's strength!
Try reading Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
I do believe and have much purpose in life because of faith in God, our Eternal Heavenly Father; Jesus Christ, his son, our mediator through whom we ask of Our Father; and the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead who will inspire, educate, comfort, and protect when worthily and genuinely seeking answers and companionship of God.
James 1:5-6 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. . .
I hope you are doing well and be assured of Heavenly Father loves you and answers prayers.
Try reading Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
I do believe and have much purpose in life because of faith in God, our Eternal Heavenly Father; Jesus Christ, his son, our mediator through whom we ask of Our Father; and the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead who will inspire, educate, comfort, and protect when worthily and genuinely seeking answers and companionship of God.
James 1:5-6 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. . .
I hope you are doing well and be assured of Heavenly Father loves you and answers prayers.
Lux, you know this already, but just in case: our point of contact with the world is fixed only by our ego-based preferences and opinions. With enough personal power we can live in any world we choose, but we can't pick and choose the elements of these worlds. It's all or nothing. It's like a ball of string--one cut and all is cut. The world without cancer is a completely different world, where absolutely nothing is familiar. Through all of this, there is only one thing to know: the opposite of love is fear, but what is all-encompassing can have no opposite.
Bodhidarma also said, "The karma of the three realms comes from the mind alone. If your mind isn't within the three realms, it's beyond them."
Bodhidarma also said, "The karma of the three realms comes from the mind alone. If your mind isn't within the three realms, it's beyond them."
Thank you Hreb. I know less than you give me credit for...
But since you are this way, I don't fear to say:
A paper sack sails through the clouds singing. The rain is thoroughly wet!
Lux
But since you are this way, I don't fear to say:
A paper sack sails through the clouds singing. The rain is thoroughly wet!
Lux
No, no, no. People definitely do NOT believe in the same God. But the most important difference between their god-concepts is not what religion they belong to, but how evolved are their conceptions and how seriously they have grappled with the demands of reason.
As Ken Wilber expressed in his BeliefNet column, "Which Level of God Do You Believe In?":
As Ken Wilber expressed in his BeliefNet column, "Which Level of God Do You Believe In?":
Levels of religion? Levels of spirituality? Levels of belief? Yes, indeed, and this topic, which is highly controversial, nonetheless has perhaps the most explanatory power of all of the ingredients in an integral view. It refers specifically to the fact that human beings undergo psychological development. At each level or stage of development, they will see the world in a different way. Hence, each level of development has, as it were, a different religious belief or worldview. This does not make God or Spirit the result of human development; it does, however, make the ways in which humans conceive of God or Spirit the result of development. And this is where it gets really interesting.
I totally agree that one's conception of God, the Divine, my preferred terms really are the Holy One or Holy Mystery - but yes, absolutely our understanding of that matures and develops. It's a fascinating area. Indeed, I think the people who are most threatened by the beliefs of others (being different from their own) are people whose religious/spiritual views have not matured. People, who, for example, believe in a vengeful God who must be constantly placated. Or a God they can "control" through prayer.
Honestly, why would God not reveal different aspects to different people or through different religious traditions?
I totally agree with what you quoted. Our conceptions change - or may be different from one person to another. And all we really have to go on is our own experience. And sacred writings, based on the experiences of those who went before us.
I met the Dalai Lama - very briefly. But I learned more about Christianity from him than from anyone. And he didn't say word. But whereas I was trying to summon up from within myself all the veneration I could for meeting a Holy Man, my experience was that he had a greater capacity to venerate the Holy in me than I was able to venerate him... someone most everyone would see as a Holy Man. That is the character, I think, of a true Holy Person. The ability to venerate the Sacred in others.
I think as we mature spiritually we grow wider and wider in our view of what the Holy entails.
Honestly, why would God not reveal different aspects to different people or through different religious traditions?
I totally agree with what you quoted. Our conceptions change - or may be different from one person to another. And all we really have to go on is our own experience. And sacred writings, based on the experiences of those who went before us.
I met the Dalai Lama - very briefly. But I learned more about Christianity from him than from anyone. And he didn't say word. But whereas I was trying to summon up from within myself all the veneration I could for meeting a Holy Man, my experience was that he had a greater capacity to venerate the Holy in me than I was able to venerate him... someone most everyone would see as a Holy Man. That is the character, I think, of a true Holy Person. The ability to venerate the Sacred in others.
I think as we mature spiritually we grow wider and wider in our view of what the Holy entails.
I had the honor to sit up on the stage with HH once years ago: the only problem was that he was teaching a two-day topic and I was required to sit cross-legged up there the whole time. Legs hurt somewhat... the tibetan monks opposite us were moving about quite unconcernedly, but we western invitees were trying to show good form....!
The stage guardian was an elderly (ok, my age) tibetan woman who scrutinized everyone, robes or no, who came up the stairs. Luckily I had an invite so passed muster...certainly wasn't on any spiritual endowments of mine!
The stage guardian was an elderly (ok, my age) tibetan woman who scrutinized everyone, robes or no, who came up the stairs. Luckily I had an invite so passed muster...certainly wasn't on any spiritual endowments of mine!
this was the event...
http://www.sentinel.org/node/5617
I should note that HH got to sit in a high chair the whole time while we lesser lights sat crosslegged on the platform itself for the duration of the two part discourse one to two rows of tibetan monks facing two rows of western "religious". Ordination hath its privileges....
What TheraP said about her encounter rings true, that was my experience as well in person. I count the whole experience as a life high point though!
Even though my legs thought otherwise....
http://www.sentinel.org/node/5617
I should note that HH got to sit in a high chair the whole time while we lesser lights sat crosslegged on the platform itself for the duration of the two part discourse one to two rows of tibetan monks facing two rows of western "religious". Ordination hath its privileges....
What TheraP said about her encounter rings true, that was my experience as well in person. I count the whole experience as a life high point though!
Even though my legs thought otherwise....
"I think as we mature spiritually we grow wider and wider in our view of what the Holy entails."
--TheraP
Bodhidharma said once, "Vast emptiness, nothing holy"
But it can be something as small as a pine needle, a feather from a departing hummingbird, a bubble in the rushing water in the street curbside after a spring rain.
--TheraP
Bodhidharma said once, "Vast emptiness, nothing holy"
But it can be something as small as a pine needle, a feather from a departing hummingbird, a bubble in the rushing water in the street curbside after a spring rain.
A dewdrop.
You know it's blasphemy, right?
The whole entire thrust of the Abrahamic faiths - all 3 of them: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is that there is One God.
It's completely anti-any accepted Christian theology to even accept the idea that there is more than one Supreme Being - obviously since Christianity has tied itself in theological knots over where the Son fits with Father and then they had to invent the Holy Spirit - but they are all ONE.
And you're basically right about Hinduism, as I see it, as a non-Hindu. ;)
The whole entire thrust of the Abrahamic faiths - all 3 of them: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is that there is One God.
It's completely anti-any accepted Christian theology to even accept the idea that there is more than one Supreme Being - obviously since Christianity has tied itself in theological knots over where the Son fits with Father and then they had to invent the Holy Spirit - but they are all ONE.
And you're basically right about Hinduism, as I see it, as a non-Hindu. ;)
I'm pretty sure I'm a heretic! But I'm ok with it. And I think God is too.
As for Hinduism, I actually sent the post to a Hindu and her exact words were: "Wonderful! You hit the nail on the head!
I'm actually fascinated by the idea of the Trinity. But don't ask me to explain what it means. What fascinates me about that is the idea of "relationship" being at the heart of Reality. At the heart of everything that is. So I personally find that comforting somehow. And it fits with the way I see things as a psychologist. That we are inextricably related.
Lovely to see your comment here.
As for Hinduism, I actually sent the post to a Hindu and her exact words were: "Wonderful! You hit the nail on the head!
I'm actually fascinated by the idea of the Trinity. But don't ask me to explain what it means. What fascinates me about that is the idea of "relationship" being at the heart of Reality. At the heart of everything that is. So I personally find that comforting somehow. And it fits with the way I see things as a psychologist. That we are inextricably related.
Lovely to see your comment here.
"relationship being at the heart of Reality"
Um, I think that there is one of them ultimate truths, Thera. ;)
"The leaves are bringing the wind into being as they move" -
(part of a poem I wrote once)
Um, I think that there is one of them ultimate truths, Thera. ;)
"The leaves are bringing the wind into being as they move" -
(part of a poem I wrote once)
would love to hear the rest of that poem..
Me too. Maybe we could have a little poetry thread sometime.
I'll have to find it - I think all that stuff is out in one of the burro sheds, with 300 or so black widows...
I wonder if those black widows think of gods.
I do believe and have much purpose in life because of faith in God, our Eternal Heavenly Father; Jesus Christ, his son, our mediator through whom we ask of Our Father; and the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead who will inspire, educate, comfort, and protect when worthily and genuinely seeking answers and companionship of God.
James 1:5-6 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. . .
James 1:5-6 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. . .
One place where the three faiths diverge is on the issue of the Holy Trinity and on the relationship of God to man. Islam rejects the Trinity as heresy: "So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you!" Christians believe that rejection of the Holy Spirit is the only truly unpardonable sin. And Islam teaches that God created man and then caste him out to serve as a slave (the word Muslim literally means "one who submits [to God]". The implication is that God and man are somehow at odds--that God is great and man is His lowly and separated servant. The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that man was created in God's own image and that man therefore shares in all that is God's Creation. Islam's literalist approach robs its adherents of the intercession of the Holy Spirit, and of the realization that even the Creator of the all things can't create something apart from Himself.
Less than one . . .
The origin of this thread is the "us against them" mentality evident from a recent invocation at a Palin rally. If we're going to talk about theology, I want to point out that the mentality itself is un-Christian.
In Matthew 5:44-45, Jesus points out that our Father "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and send rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
In other words, God loves *all* his children, and expects us to do the same.
You can be a Christian and feel superior to Muslims if you want, but you have to cut out a lot of the words of Jesus in the New Testament to reach that conclusion.
In Matthew 5:44-45, Jesus points out that our Father "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and send rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
In other words, God loves *all* his children, and expects us to do the same.
You can be a Christian and feel superior to Muslims if you want, but you have to cut out a lot of the words of Jesus in the New Testament to reach that conclusion.
Amen!
113 Comments