BS: Theology question

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 01:44 PM

That's typical of the rigid thinking some people fall into as a result of their religion...or their politics...or their national identity...or their racial identity...or their cultural identity...or any other fixed notion like that. It gets in the way of them simply being human.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 04:31 PM

Alas! They said of Jesus "He eats with publicans and sinners." Whom you dined with was whom you identified with in that and most ancient cultures. It even holds true today in certain places, maybe in most. Whom you ate with was your family and friends as close as family. Funny isn't it that many who go by the name of "Christian" are oh so careful with whom THEY associate. When a certain disciple came to Jesus to tell him that his mother was without the crowd, trying to get in to see him, he threw out his hand and said "This is my mother and brothers and sisters.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 04:42 PM

Two friends from the same synagogue and the same neighborhood are walking down the street when they pass a Catholic Church with a sign in front, "$1000 to anyone who converts!". Hymie figures he has got to see what this is all about, so he goes in. Sol waits for him for over an hour.

When Hymie comes out, Sol asks him what happened./ "Well, I converted to Catholicism," Hymie replies.

"Really!!!?" says Sol. "Did you get $1000 ?"

Hymie looks at him with a scowl. "Don't you people ever think of anything else?"

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 04:57 PM

LH - glad you read the post. ideas evolve, mutate or are appropriated over time, and are 'claimed' by some as being originally their own. it was challenging and confronting for me to read about the earlier versions of Christianity. i am fascinated by the fact that Plato, a humanist, said many of the things that Jesus did, some centuries earlier. he was also a humanist who was vegetarian and believed in reincarnation. nowadays no humanist worth their salt would dare to do that. i find the whole notion of a journey of religious thought compelling - like someone playing hopscotch across time, each jump a slightly different pattern.

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 04:59 PM

Heh! The Catholics should try that routine in Orillia. I bet they could quadruple their present membership in a day or two.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 05:22 PM

Why would a humanist not dare to believe in reincarnation, freda?

How does one define "humanist"?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 05:39 PM

humanists i have known.. in australia at least, humanists seem to reject the validity of anything verging on mystical, religious or that cant be 'proven' in favour of scientific skepticism and the scientific method. Humanists here are big on ethical behaviour for its own sake, as opposed to morality inspired by religious opinion.

A humanist approach here is to seek truth by logic, using evidence and demonstrable outcomes as opposed to seeking it through revelation, mysticism, or faith. Secular humanists generally believe that following humanist principles leads to secularism, on the basis that supernatural beliefs cannot be supported using rational arguments and therefore the supernatural aspects of religiously associated activity should be rejected.

I've just done a quick wiki check and found this definition:

"Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality." - International Humanist and Ethical Union

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 06:06 PM

Yes, I see. But how does that bear on reincarnation? There is, after all, a fair bit of recorded evidence which strongly suggests the possibility of reincarnation (although it also suggests other possibilities...such as shared genetic memory, etc.).

It is neither proven nor disproven, it's a possibility. I don't see how being rational precludes considering various unproven or presently-un-agreed-upon-by-everone possibilities...specially those which are supported by some people's direct experiences and observation (as, for example, the possibility of reincarnation, the possibility of ghosts, or the possibility or alien spacecraft visiting this planet).

How would being a humanist, secular or otherwise, jibe with denying even the consideration of all such possibilities?

And why would a humanist have to be secular? There are many religious or mystical people who also "seek truth by logic, using evidence and demonstrable outcomes" and who "are big on ethical behaviour for its own sake".

I think I am probably a humanist. After all, I seek truth by logic, using evidence (when it's available) and demonstrable outcomes. If I can find little or no available evidence and can arrange no way of testing a theory, then I speculate about it and think in terms of probabilities...using my reason and logic as best I can in the absence of irrefutable data or evidence.

As for ethics, I have always seen ethical behaviour as something that is done for its own sake, and I think that is why most religions encourage the more common forms of ethical behaviour, because the people back then could plainly see that such ethics were good for their own sake, and would benefit the community as a whole! Their ethical sense may not always have been perfect by any means, but it was at least guided by normal logic and observation.

They weren't any stupider than we are. ;-) Their ideas reflected logic too. And observation.

I think you will find, ultimately, that there are as many ways to be a humanist as there are to be a Jew.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 06:18 PM

The first and second sentences sum up "humanism" pretty well. The third one is tacked-on polemic, which would would exclude a great many significant historical figures who are generally described as humanists. For example Thomas More, or Thomas Merton.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 06:21 PM

i agree, LH, and that's why I find Plato so intriguing. these old philosophers don't fit into dogmatic boxes. mind you, he also kept slaves, so his humanism was not evenly spread.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 06:42 PM

Ah, yes, but in those days everyone around his part of the world kept slaves. It was taken for granted. Thus I am not surprised that Plato kept slaves, despite his advanced capacities to comprehend moral and ethical issues.

Every society has blind spots like that. We presently have similar blind spots, in my opinion, and quite a few of them too. Such as...

- Look at how much money we are spending yearly on wars and preparing for future wars. Can we not put that behind us?

- Would Plato have thought the A-bomb or the H-bomb were great things to come up with? How about biological warfare and waterboarding?

- Is it really smart to invent an artificial thing called "money" and then make every decision in society dependent upon it and assume that anything that increases the flow of money to those at the top is automatically "good"?

- Is an ever-expanding economy a smart idea on a planet of limited resources?

- Is it smart to put millions people out of work by replacing them with automatic machines or shipping their jobs overseas to vastly poorer people?

- Is it smart to allow vast destruction of natural forests in order to grow more cows to make more hamburgers?

- Is it smart to take young men who have committed their first crime and put them in crowded penitentiaries in the company of hardened career criminals? Will this help turn then away from a future life of crime?

- Is it moral to bomb civilians in wartime and destroy civilian infrastructure on a massive basis?

- Is it moral to launch a pre-emptive war on someone who hasn't attacked you yet and who wouldn't even be able to if he wanted to?

Are any of these things smart? Are any of them moral?

Plato would probably be shocked and horrified at what has become of the world since his time.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 07:08 PM

everyone around his part of the world kept slaves

Aside from the slaves of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 08:15 PM

True, but the slaves themselves had a definite pecking order established as to who got to order who around within their own ranks. With luck, a slave could become a free man in time. If so, he could soon hope to afford to have slaves of his own. ;-)

Like I say, it was a moral blind spot in their society.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 08:23 PM

I goolgled "slaves owning slaves." There were no entries I could find in the first 200 I found...so one for McGrath.

However, I did find some pages regarding free Southern Blacks owning slaves, and also that the Cherokee, Choctaw and Creek Indian tribes owned about 10,000 Black slaves at the time the Civil War began. What a universl shame is slavery!

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: John O'L
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 08:23 PM

"...i am fascinated by the fact that Plato, a humanist, said many of the things that Jesus did, some centuries earlier. he was also a humanist who was vegetarian and believed in reincarnation..."

It it possible that they were both Buddhists? I mean resurrection isn't that far away is it? Could it have been a simple misunderstanding, or perhaps an intentional misrepresentation?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 08:27 PM

Slavery then and now is quite a thread drift and really is a subject for another thread. Through history slavery has dominated as has polygamous marriages. Not really a question for theology but theological sources do have some things to say about slavery.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 08:28 PM

I didn't say that slaves could own slaves. I said that they had a pecking order within their ranks. What I mean is that in a given household there might be 6 slaves, for example, or 16 slaves, and there would be an order of seniority and authority among those 6 or 16 slaves as to who got to boss who around. Someone would be top slave on the totem pole. This has always tended to happen in societies which had slavery.

And I said that a former slave, now a freed man, could own slaves if he rose high enough and had the money to buy them. It probably didn't happen much, but I bet it happened on a few occasions.

I'm talking about ancient Greece and Rome here, okay? I think it was much the same in Egypt, Babylon, and other large societies of that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: john f weldon
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 08:30 PM

The resemblance between Plato and Jesus is well understood. The early Christian Fathers were Platonists, pure and simple. Jesus was an invention; a myth intended to bring Platonism to the common man.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 08:35 PM

No, no, Plato was a myth invented ahead of time to legitimize the later mission of Jesus, john. ;-) It was a very long range and clever plan foisted on humanity by those dreadful people behind organized religion. In truth, Plato never existed, and all the documents that suggest he did were cunningly forged by people of that time to mislead humanity. Socrates never existed either. I'm surprised you hadn't figured that out already all by yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: SINSULL
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 09:14 PM

To thine own self be true, Captain.
It has gotten you this far in life.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 11:55 PM

A person of means in the Roman Empire would buy a slave as pedagogue for his male heir. The Slave had complete control over the child (within parental limits) and until the pedagogue presented the child as sufficiently educated the child had no sonship. There were slaves and then there were slaves. Slaves of the wealthy and ruling class had it over freemen in many ways. They were the direct representation of their masters and could conduct business and other affairs on behalf of the master. Slavery then did not really compare to the slavery conducted in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: MarkS
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 12:01 AM

Hey - I can explain all this perfectly, clearly, and in a way that everybody is contented and satisfied.

All you have to do is send a love donation to:

MarkS
14 A West.........

er, er, wait a minute....

"OK Dear, Right Away!"

Hey Catters, I'll finish this later.

Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 01:26 AM

Oh, good. I'd been trying to figure out who to give that fishnet stocking lamp to.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:11 AM

A major award!

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:16 AM

heh heh heh..

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 09:04 AM

One though to keep in mind in that slave systems differed - the American system of chattel slavery was pretty unique in a lot of respects. About the nastiest version that has ever existed of something that in principle is pretty nasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 06:31 PM

All of the books are a collection of interpretations of the history of their respective faiths, and of the message of their "prophets".

So basically:- One God! Three different main biographies, each slanted according to the particular agendas of the interpreters.

So although the message differs, the author is one and the same.

Works for me!!
Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: bobad
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 07:02 PM

God FAQ

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 11:51 PM

Don()T you make three statements from your own agenda, from your own time and culture and 21st century understanding and you do not substantiate any of them. You assume facts not in evidence and base your CONCLUSIONS on your assumptions!

That's a neat way to make pesky problems go away in your own thinking but it doesn't do much for the topic under consideration. There could be some merit in the most general sense in the first statement but said statement assumes that history and it's interpretation was all they had on their minds and I assure you it was not. What we call history was a virtual unknown to these folks, especially the earliest writings. It was more about law and maintaining unity and identity. It was also about justice and morality. The scope was societal.

If you check out the phrase "hastily drawn conclusion" your second statement would be there.

Three: there were many, many authors and if you believe in divine inspiration, many authors but one spirit. There are no equivalences acknowledged between the Koran and the Torah, the Koran and the New Testament and the Jews do not recognize the New Testament, albeit the Christians do recognize the stature of Scripture of the Torah, which they, of course, call the Old Testament. And Christians do not recognize the Koran as inspired, which is pretty much what this debate has been about.

Other than that, I welcome your viewpoint!

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 11:55 PM

Bodad, so they gave 400 monkeys 400 indestructible typewriters and God knows how much time and this is what came out? No works of Shakespeare? Nothing by T.S.Eliot? Dumas? Man, they needs some new monkeys.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 08:01 AM

If there is no supreme being, how can you call it/her/him anything at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 12:32 PM

Well, Jim, people decided there is one (a God)...then they give it a name. That's how it works. It's like when Walt Disney came up with a talking duck...and he named it "Donald". You have to come up with the character first, then the name. As soon as you have a character, it needs a name so you can talk to other people about it and they know what you're referring to.

In fact, everything needs a name...otherwise we have no way of talking about it. What would we call "global warming" or "anchovies" if the words didn't exist yet?

Now as to whether there IS a supreme being or not...I don't exactly see that you or I are in a position to prove that one way or another. ;-)

But even if such a being was mythical (like Donald Duck), it would still require a name, a word that specifically designates it. Otherwise we couldn't discuss it very readily, could we?

You might just as well ask how we can call Santa Claus anything at all! ;-) It makes no difference whether or not God really exists as to whether we can call God by the name "God".

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 06:06 PM

The point is, all three sister monotheistic religions are agreed that there is one God and only one God - this means that the multfarious words they use in this context mean "the one and only God as worshipped by Abraham". By definition therefore, the same God, however the various people using the words may differ about other things.

By analogy, if "the Universe" means everything that exists, no matter how cosmologists may differ, they are talking about the same everything. (Words like "multiverse" are just a way of indicating the belief that the universe is actually a great deal bigger than previously thought, a word game really. Rather similar to the way that the word "world" has been used in a restricted sense as well as the comprehensive one in which it means the same as "universe".)

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 08:51 PM

"Don()T you make three statements from your own agenda, from your own time and culture and 21st century understanding and you do not substantiate any of them. You assume facts not in evidence and base your CONCLUSIONS on your assumptions!"

Slag, you accuse me of assuming facts not in evidence. The very reason we are having this discussion is because there ARE no facts in evidence.

There are only , in the context of the "major" religions, three books which have passed through the hands of generations of MEN with their own individual agendas and prejudices.

It is inconceivable that what we see today has come through those ages unchanged, and it is certain that customs and mores have over that time seen many and quite radical changes.

Why is it hard to believe that MEN have altered the messages in those books to reflect this. I would find it harder to believe that they have NOT (consider the view of Richard III which was foisted upon students of history by the Tudors, to justify their usurping of his throne).

The message to which I referred is the word of God as originally expressed, and the author to whom I referred is God.

Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in ONE God, each group has a book purporting to relay HIS message, but none of those books contains much, if any verifiable evidence of authenticity, and since the messages from God contained therein differ widely in the three religions, it would seem that they owe more to the interpreters than to the author.

If you can adduce factual evidence that supports your assessment of my comments as jumping to hasty conclusions, I would be most interested.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 09:44 AM

The difference with the Koran is that it's much more recent than the others, and there doesn't seem to have been any significant change in the actual text since the time of Mohamed. (In one sense there's an analogy with the even more recent Book of Mormon, insofar as it does have a definite and recorded provenance. Though that's not an analogy to be stretched too far.)

Of course there has been a great deal of variance between the way interpretors at different times and places have explained that text and commented on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Paul Burke
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 10:59 AM

Don't forget that there's no "The" Bible. There are several versions, that include different books and have (particularly sensitive) passages translated differently. Compare the Douay with the King James versions, for example, and that's not mentioning Wycliff, Geneva or the Jewish versions without the NT. The details selected are highly ideological in nature, and must reflect the struggles in the early Church that led to the rejection of many early scriptures, like the Gospel of St. Thomas.

Do Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the same God was the original question. Do Christians all worship the same God is another question. Even discounting the Arians, Monophysites, Monothelites, Nestorians and so forth, who differed about the fundamental relationship between God and Jesus, I doubt if Torquemada and St. Francis of Assisi could have agreed on the attributes of the God they worshipped had they been able to meet.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 07:06 PM

You make an excellent point Paul. I wondered just what some so-called Christians worship. As per text variation in the Torah and the New Testament, variation do exist. they are documented and the sources are identified. Much labor, archeology and scholarship has gone into this endeavor. No one is trying to hide anything. The amazing thing to me is how little variation there is. Whether a particular edition of a Bible includes the Apocrypha or commentaries or the Critical Apparatus listing all the known variants, demonstrates the openness and honesty of the scholarship involved. That certain sects emphasize one over another tells us something about the particular SECT, not the Scripture. Newer translations usually include the interpreter's comments on difficult passages along with a discussion as to why a particular decision was made to interpret one way and not another. One of my favorite translations is the Jerusalem Bible which is a French Catholic translation from the original languages. This in turn was translated FROM THE FRENCH into English. J.R.R. Tolkien was one of the translators! It is a very interesting translation and it gives great insight into Catholicism as well as the Scripture. I do read the Greek text and, with a few exceptions, feel that the KJV is one of the best English translations going.

Don () T, sorry if I ticked you off! I was trying to be a little humorous by being so picayune. I'm not ROTFLM*O but I am LOL out loud! Since the question here, in this thread, is one of THEOLOGY and not existential or philosophical debate, I approached it as a theological question. Nor is the question one of "number" though I have no doubt that those of Islamic persuasion would disagree, as would most Jews with the Christians on this point. The idea of "Trinity" and Godhead is difficult to harmonize with pure monotheism. I am told that the superscription over the door way to the Dome of the Rock states "God is one" and "God has no Son".

That these three main monotheistic religions have differences which are significant is demonstrated by the fact that there are three DIFFERENT main monotheistic religions, each claiming to be monotheistic. If that sounds like a tautology, too bad! It is the given, the self evident, "evident" being the key word. It is THE fact in evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 May 08 - 03:17 AM

Is Christianity really monotheistic though? Outsiders would say it has four main gods (Creator, Victim, Spirit, and Destroyer) and a Goddess (Virgin), and some variants also have a host of minor demigods. Part of the problem of the early Church was telling Greek rhetoricians about it before they'd worked out what they really meant themselves (if anything).

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 May 08 - 03:36 PM

Outsiders might say all sort of things about all kinds of esoteric subjects, and sometimes outsiders can see things insiders can't.

But unless they are the kind of outsiders who have put serious effort into learning and understanding the complexities of the subject, their opinions are not that significant.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: PoppaGator
Date: 01 May 08 - 04:04 PM

Since this was posed as a "theology question," not a "church-history" or "comparative religions" question, I think the proper answer is that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, all the various competing sects within each tradition, and virtually all other contemporary religions worship the same God, insofar as they all agree that only one God exists.

That might be the only thing they all agree upon, of course, and each faction believes that it has the best concept of exactly Who that God IS, and how we humans are supposed to relate to Him..

Monotheism has been pretty well established among believers of all stripes for a very long time. "God" is essentially a name for "the Truth," the nature and ruling principle of the entire universe, seen and unseen, well beyond human understanding. And everyone can agree that there's only one ultimate truth, unknowable as that might be and however much we might disagree about it's nature.

Even Hindus, who honor and practice a very ancient "polytheistic" tradition, will describe their multiple deities or demigods as expressons of the various aspects or personalities of One God, much like the Trinity posited by Christians, or the many saints of Catholicism, the multiple demigods of voodoo and santeria, etc.

Once upon a time, when one "people" or tribe went to war against another, they actually believed that their own "god" would be facing off in opposition to the enemy's "god." That concept is long gone. The idea of one God common to all men and all creation goes back at least as far as Abraham. If one group of his worshippers thought of themselves as a "chosen people," they were claiming to be the only ones who knew and faithfully tried to follow the creator of all ~ they were quite explicitly NOT following the notion that "we have a god who is not your god."

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 08 - 05:31 PM

Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 May 08 - 06:00 PM

I think the Egyptians came up with the idea of one God a little earlier than the Abrahamic religions - Nefertiti and her King the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep IV. some say it was Nefertiti who initiated the new religion. She also had the position as a priest, and she was a devoted worshipper of the god Aten. Amenhotep IV took the name Akhenaten when he and Nefertiti put the sun god Aten at the center of religious worship. Under their reign the traditional gods of Egypt were more or less abandoned at least by the royal family in favor of a single god, the sun disk named Aten.

another early religion was the cult of the ancient Indo-Iranian Sun-god Mithra. The origin of the cult of Mithra dates from the time that the Hindus and Persians still formed one people, for the god Mithra occurs in both the Hindu Vedas and in the Persian Avesta. Followers had an interesting concept of one god in which the first principle or highest God was "Infinite Time".

That is a view certainly beyond an form of idolatry, and comes closer to the buddhist/hindu view of a conscious universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 08 - 06:24 PM

There is no guarantee whatsoever that hving a name for something means the thing so named was actually extant at al.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Darowyn
Date: 01 May 08 - 06:51 PM

The way that the Akhnaten story was told to me, during school RE lessons, was that Akhnaten was pretty much a contemporary of Moses, and long after Abraham. The RE teacher was suggesting that the monotheist theology was Judaism influencing Egyptian thought rather than the converse.
Being a heathen, I never tried to confirm or deny the possibility.
Does anyone know the approximate dates?
Cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 08 - 10:58 PM

I think monotheism has been around for a very, very long time. The Hindu religion, although it appears to outsiders to be a pantheon of many gods and goddesses is actually a religion which recognizes One transcendent Divine above all the gods and goddesses. The gods and goddesses merely represent the different aspects of the One Divine. They are symbolic of those aspects, like facets of one diamond. They serve a rather similar purpose to the many saints and Angelic figures in the Christian faith.

Hinduism is very ancient, I think moreso than the teachings of Moses and Abraham.

In any case, people have always tended to assume there is an ultimate Truth...and that to know it would be to have complete knowledge and wisdom.

To posit one transcendent God is simply to personify that Truth and clothe it in somewhat human terms that ordinary people can relate to. I believe that's part of what Slag was saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 01 May 08 - 11:24 PM

As usual, LH, yea and nay. I resonate to a lot of the insights in Hinduism. Great wisdom and knowledge lie here and also in Buddhism and Zen which sprang from Hinduism. Theologically the Judeo/Christian view is that God is wholly "other" than His creation, i.e. He created ex nihilo, from no thing. Hindu tradition holds that God created from Himself, therefore God is in everything and everything is in God. THAT is pantheism. It's amazing what the debate boils down to at times. But these little distinctions make a big difference in the day to day and the development of cultures.

Even the religion of our time, Science, is seeking the ONE. It's called TOE, The Theory of Everything! Ain't it funny and doncha see the connection?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 08 - 12:49 PM

I'm not so sure that's right, Slag, because as I understand it the Vedic (Hindu) tradition asserts that this entire reality is maya....illusion...and that the only thing that IS real is the Godhead which is, from our point of view, indescribable, limitless, indefinable, and eternal.

So I don't think that they would exactly say that the Divine made everything, since everything we see is in their terms an illusion. Our own individuality itself is among those illusions, according to both Hinduism and Buddhism, as I understand it. It's an illusion that results from the belief that one is separate.

To achieve enlightenment is to realize oneness with all...no separation...at which point the illusion that is this world passes away. Or...as an enlightened being, you can choose to "play" within the illusion, but aware while you are doing so that it is an illusion.

The whole purpose of seeking enlightenment in both Hinduism and Buddhism seems to be to free oneself from the illusion of this word and one's apparently separate existence in it.

Kind of interesting, because most Christian sects also seem to want, ultimately, to escape this world and its obvious limitations...only they want to escape it and retain their individuality.

One exception to that is the Jehovah's Witnesses, however. They do think that a select group of only 144,000 of the most faithful will get to live in heaven with God for eternity, yes...but they also think that all the other "good" people (many millions or even billions of them) will get to live forever on this physical world in a paradise free of poverty, suffering, and want...that the planet, in effect, will return to an Edenic state (only we would still have our modern lifestyles and conveniences) and that people will get to live forever and never grow old or get sick and everything will be just wonderful...sort of like a 7-day-a-week endlessly running episode of "Leave it to Beaver" or something like that. ;-) No more racial divisions, no more national divisions, no more political struggles, no more war or crime or drug addiction or anything nasty whatsoever.

And the "bad" people? Well, the Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in Hell or punishment of bad people. They just believe those people will die, be in their graves, and cease to exist in any conscious way from that point on.

I don't think many people are aware that the JV's do not believe in the traditional Christian hell, hellfire, and all that. They don't. They translate from the Hebrew that Hell, "Sheol", simply means "the grave". Nothing more, nothing less.

Interesting, eh?

I find it fascinating the different beliefs that people can come up with.

Who's right about all this? Heh! ;-) Darned if I know. I tend to favour the Asiatic viewpoint somewhat (repeated reincarnations into a world of illusion until you finally realize one day that it IS an illusion and then you don't do that anymore), but I am going to wait and see...because only firsthand experience truly convinces me. Yeah, I know there are a million people out there who want to convince me that they already KNOW for sure what's coming...but I don't think they do. I think they are just repeating something some other people told them.

That's what a parrot does, and the parrot probably believes every word he says.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 02 May 08 - 11:20 PM

The two main traditions of Hinduism are those of dualism and non-dualism. The non-dualists have the saying "All is Atman, all is Brahman" as well as "All is maya", or illusion. The last is the revelation of the Bodhisattva and is the life altering or rather life negating effect of experiencing the ineffable. Extinction of being is the goal. The dualist tradition hold that the created being in a perfect state of bliss will behold their Creator and bask in the light of enlightenment eternally.

This is reflected in the Buddhist traditions of Hinayana and Mahayana. The Zen master had a saying, to wit, "If the Buddha himself should meet you upon the road to enlightenment and seek to delay you in any way, slay him."

I have a lot of trouble with the JW theology and consider them a cult outside of the foundational tenants of Christianity and yet their translation of the Bible is very good with a high degree of scholarship.

Sheol while often translated "Hell" in the KJV is probably best translated "The grave" and yet Hebrew scripture does not teach that the grave is a cessation of all being. One demonstration is the story of King Saul and the Witch of Endor and the spirit of Samuel. Also King David says "Thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol..." There are many such instances throughout the OT where spiritual life continues beyond the grave. Check Job 19:23-26.

In the end, you have to decide. I would never take that from you or anyone. I just believe that when deciding things eternal one should have as much pertinent information as possible. Beyond that, "you pays your money and you makes your choices!"

Beyond the somewhat vague, nebulous ideas of the afterlife in the OT, the sharper images of the NT demonstrate the Hellenistic influence. Nonetheless, divine justice is a component of Judeo/Christian theology and if there is to be justice there must be consequences for errant behavior and reward for obedient or faithful behavior. This is getting pretty far afield with only a tangential tie-in with the original question but I find it very interesting, but I'll stop here as a consideration to other posters and those who aren't interested in theological esoterica.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 May 08 - 04:53 PM

Maybe we should start our own thread, Slag, as you and I are interested in theological esoterica. ;-)

If find your description of the two traditions of Hinduism fascinating. I was more aware of the non-dualistic tradition.

Those who believe in non-dualism (as I tend to) of course think that all perceived duality arises out of some form of illusion. ("us and them" thinking) Whenever there is a perception of duality, fear arises. And, of course, desire arises as well. Those are the essential human problems, fear and desire. Where there is no perception of duality, only of unity, there is unquestioning love.

Can indiduality itself survive an end to all forms of duality? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 03 May 08 - 06:13 PM

Philosophically, perhaps logically, ONE cannot exist for who could then make the observation, "ONE"? If "illusion" is all, then who or what makes that observation? I can't remember the Hindi term but it corresponds, somewhat, to "epiphany"; maybe that is why that experience is best described as ineffable! Many parallels there are between Christianity and Hinduism. Many Christians are afraid to acknowledge that fact but I would attribute that to either ignorance (most likely) or lack of faith, or both! If I remember right Vivekananda was one of the early pioneers who introduce the Western world to the dualistic form of Hinduism. I'm really shooting form the hip here as it has been a LOT of years since I read his main opus. I have it somewhere in my stacks! Using Google would be cheating. Another light on the non-dualistic side of the equation would be Paramahansa Yogananda of the Eternal Light Fellowship (Again, I'm guessing) located in Mt Washington, Los Angeles. I met him some years before he died, He was a very interesting and intelligent fellow and was well acquainted with the religions of the world. I may have to check those out and refresh my memory. You've got me intrigued now!

As for individuality? Hmmm? There was, presumably, an eternity of nothingness before your consciousness and upon your arrival you did not have self-awareness. If you were really blessed you may recall the moment when you first differentiated yourself from others and your environment. At any rate, you became an aware being and an individual. That means many things in a world full of individuals. You spend a lifetime learning how you are different and how you are the same. You discover that your thoughts are not your own, for your language is not your own. You discover history and culture. You learn where the walls are. If you are really sharp you see what a really rare thing an original thought is! You reflect and ponder your mortality for shortly after coming to self awareness you learn of the reality and universality of death. And, in this world at least, you know that self awareness can go away and that death puts a final end to that individual that was you.

In the passage I cited above, Job says "Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock forever. For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another..." (Job 19, 23:27a). The continuance, the persistence of awareness and individuality resides in most everybody, the hope of or the sure knowledge of. IT is the stuff of religion.

A friend of mine from college days wrote a sonnet which I have always kept. I lost track of John Pair many years ago and on more than one occasion have tried to discover his where abouts. The copy I have appeared in the UC Bakersfield College press "Orpheus" 1976. Assume all rights his own:

BLACK WINE
by John Pair

Along the closing shadowed day-track drifts
The bearer of black wine. His flack of dreams
Beneath a sable silent cloak, he seems
To carry lightly the burden of dark gifts.
His steps are slow, unseeing eyes he lifts
To blankly mirror a sunset's fading gleams.
A phantom announced by the night hawk's sudden screams
Taps the stones with his staff as twilight sifts
Over his shoes with dust. We sit and drink
The blind man's wine in summer's bright cafes
And in silent sun-struck windows of old hotels.
In moon-dim salons of the laughing dead we sink
Into ourselves and grasp for all the ways
To cheat this living wine the phantom sells.