135 replies to this topic

[Habitat]

Leonardo, on 10 February 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

Why would Jesus bother healing people of physical ailments if he was unconcerned about "the external"?

You paint a picture of a Buddha-like figure, but is purely your personal take on the whole narrative and ignores many of it's more earthly elements.

The so-called ministry of Christ with whatever miracles or healings it entailed, was all decidedly post his mystical experience, fasting in the wilderness, altogether disconnected to the externalities that would have prevented his breakthrough experience. It is the fruits of this transformation that people revere in him, but in his own words, he was not uniquely placed to achieve it........

“Even the least among you can do all that I have done, and greater things” (John, 14:12).
What is missing in the so-called followers of Christ is the willingness to follow him by example, rather than tag along with the caravan of a personality cult.

[libstaK]

Habitat, on 10 February 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

MOYERS: Jesus did talk of bringing a sword, and I don't believe he meant to use it against your fellow. He meant it in terms of opening the ego –I come to cut you free from the binding ego of your own self.

That is a pretty lame interpretation, IMO. I think it clear enough that the 'sword' was that which could unbind people from temporal affections of every kind, including familial.

ChloeB, on 10 February 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

Why though, what would be the point of unbinding you from temporal affections of every kind?  We talked about this before, Buddha leaving his family.  Why did they all do that?  Trying to be free of attachments, correct?  I would assume that he's talking about is the attachment to the idea of self, ego as the final one or the foundation of what all other attachments are built upon, imo.

I agree with Chloe, esoterically when we battle the Ego we do so with a sword.

The world we treat with tenderness and love, but for ourselves we maintain a ruthless vigil it makes perfect sense to be armed and ready for battle.

In terms of the manifestations of the Ego within us, they are our mother, father, brother, sister, friends and foes - all the emotive attachment that exists within us that we have labelled thus are ego.  This is difficult to accept and harder to comprehend - but Chloe has put it quite well I think.  

The example of Buddha is perfect and the nature of the story of his life is deliberately posed to present exactly what you have said Chloe, I have heard this before and I agreed then and agree now that when you take the cause to it's absolute roots, this is the case - it is not for lack of love that Buddha leaves his family, it is that attachment is not love-it is an unworthy substitute and the only true expression of love available in that circumstance is to find a means to free his family and mankind from attachment - the sacrifice of leaving is a key to the prize. This is why the opportunity to leave is provided and guaranteed success - a mist envelops the entire court and everyone sleeps as Buddha quietly departs, he is not hindered in any way - the ego is put to "sleep" esoterically too.

[Leonardo]

Habitat, on 10 February 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

The so-called ministry of Christ with whatever miracles or healings it entailed, was all decidedly post his mystical experience, fasting in the wilderness, altogether disconnected to the externalities that would have prevented his breakthrough experience. It is the fruits of this transformation that people revere in him, but in his own words, he was not uniquely placed to achieve it........

“Even the least among you can do all that I have done, and greater things” (John, 14:12).
What is missing in the so-called followers of Christ is the willingness to follow him by example, rather than tag along with the caravan of a personality cult.

Do you accept the biblical account that Jesus was born divine, or do you believe Jesus attained some form of divinity through fasting and meditation?

[Alienated Being]

Habitat, on 10 February 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

Not literally, but figuratively. In time, we can "see" things differently.

We can, but unfortunately, the only evidence that we truly have of any form of a God is a merely "holy" book which, might I had, hardly constitutes as being evidence.

Personal accounts of experiencing God on a physical level can easily be chalked up to hallucination. Believe in what you want; it may be real to you, but that doesn't mean that it can be proven to everybody else...

[Habitat]

Is it ego that binds a parent to a child ? If you say yes, then everything that fills your day is based on ego. But in the Gospel of Thomas we see this:

(79) A woman in the crowd said to him, "Blessed are the womb that bore you and the breasts that nourished you!" He said to her "Blessed are those who have heard the father's word  and truly kept it! For days are coming when you will say, 'Blessed is the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have not given milk!'"

My take on that, is that Jesus is using as an example the bond of motherhood, which is surely as strong as any, to indicate the wrench which it is necessary to endure, to follow his example. What he is saying is that such ties are a formidable obstacle that the true disciple might wish she never had to overcome. Hence 'Blessed is the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have not given milk!'"

[Rlyeh]

Doesn't the Gospel of Thomas also say Jesus killed a couple of people?

[Alienated Being]

Habitat, on 10 February 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Is it ego that binds a parent to a child ? If you say yes, then everything that fills your day is based on ego. But in the Gospel of Thomas we see this:

(79) A woman in the crowd said to him, "Blessed are the womb that bore you and the breasts that nourished you!" He said to her "Blessed are those who have heard the father's word  and truly kept it! For days are coming when you will say, 'Blessed is the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have not given milk!'"

My take on that, is that Jesus is using as an example the bond of motherhood, which is surely as strong as any, to indicate the wrench which it is necessary to endure, to follow his example. What he is saying is that such ties are a formidable obstacle that the true disciple might wish she never had to overcome. Hence 'Blessed is the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have not given milk!'"

Reading Harry Potter introduced me to the fact that wizards truly, undeniably exist.

[Habitat]

Leonardo, on 10 February 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

Do you accept the biblical account that Jesus was born divine, or do you believe Jesus attained some form of divinity through fasting and meditation?

I certainly do not believe he was born any more or less divine than you or me. We can only speculate on the peculiar constellation of circumstances, some of which were no doubt temperamental, but also experiential, that led him to become what he was. That idea would have got me killed in the medieval age, but I can't see any realistic alternative to it. In my view, it is all the more compelling a story for it, though I am sure millions of professed Christians would turn away from their religion in a heartbeat if they could be convinced he was simply "one of us".The human penchant for following strong, preferably supernaturally strong leaders, is all too plain from any thorough examination of history.

Edited by Habitat, 10 February 2012 - 11:06 AM.

[Habitat]

Rlyeh, on 10 February 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Doesn't the Gospel of Thomas also say Jesus killed a couple of people?

No.

[Leonardo]

Habitat, on 10 February 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

I certainly do not believe he was born any more or less divine than you or me. We can only speculate on the peculiar constellation of circumstances, some of which were no doubt temperamental, but also experiential, that led him to become what he was. That idea would have got me killed in the medieval age, but I can't see any realistic alternative to it. In my view, it is all the more compelling a story for it, though I am sure millions of professed Christians would turn away from their religion in a heartbeat if they could be convinced he was simply "one of us".The human penchant for following strong, preferably supernaturally strong leaders, is all too plain from any thorough examination of history.

So, you are metamorphising Jesus into a Buddha-figure. Why, when the story of Buddha already exists?

Why not let Jesus be Jesus, and Buddha be Buddha? There is no need for both mythoi to either be similar or converge.

[Habitat]

Alienated Being, on 10 February 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Reading Harry Potter introduced me to the fact that wizards truly, undeniably exist.

J K Rowling probably never suspects her work is taken as non-fiction by some.

[Alienated Being]

Habitat, on 10 February 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

J K Rowling probably never suspects her work is taken as non-fiction by some.

If I am investing belief in the Bible, then I might as well invest some belief in Harry Potter, as well. The logic of both books is rather equivocal. It would be rather silly to argue that the bible is more credible than Harry Potter.

Edited by Alienated Being, 10 February 2012 - 11:17 AM.

[Habitat]

Leonardo, on 10 February 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

So, you are metamorphising Jesus into a Buddha-figure. Why, when the story of Buddha already exists?

Why not let Jesus be Jesus, and Buddha be Buddha? There is no need for both mythoi to either be similar or converge.

They, and many others scattered through the ages,  are of the same ilk. The so-called Perennial Philosophers have a great deal more in common than comparative religion would allow, the cultural contexts differ, but the solitary journey within always precedes their emergence into history.

[Habitat]

Alienated Being, on 10 February 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

If I am investing belief in the Bible, then I might as well invest some belief in Harry Potter, as well. The logic of both books is rather equivocal. It would be rather silly to argue that the bible is more credible than Harry Potter.

We know those Harry Potter books are fiction. Millions sense, mostly at a sub-conscious level, that there is deep truth in the teachings of the great religions, even with the overlay of centuries of 'bureaucratic' religion doing more to obscure than clarify.

[Karlis]

ChloeB, on 09 February 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

Exodus 33:

11And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

20And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

21And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

22And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

23And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Could someone explain this to me?  It seems like God has multiple personalities here or something.  The Lord speaks to Moses face to face, as a man to a friend, and then later says thou shalt not see my face and live, and then God says but you can see my "back parts", huh?  Do you see this as a contradiction and if not, why?

Chloe, Scriptures state that the God-being mentioned here, showed himself in the form of a human being numerous times to Moses, Abraham, and to quite a few other people at different times. Also, it is evident that this God-being seems to have the ability to appear in many different "forms" to people. In this instance

Exo 33:11  ... Jehovah would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.

Earlier, an event is briefly described where Moses and other elders of Israel saw God (in an unspecified form), on the top of the mountain:

Exo 24:9  And Moses went up, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel.
Exo 24:10  And they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as the essence of the heavens for clearness.
Exo 24:11  And upon the nobles of the sons of Israel He did not lay his hands. Also they saw God, and ate and drank.

There also is the instance where all the people of Israel (at the foot of the mountain) saw "God's glory" on the top of the mountain, in the form of  "a devouring fire".

Exo 24:15  And Moses went up into the mountain, and a cloud covered the mountain. Exo 24:17  And the sight of the glory of Jehovah was like devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the eyes of the sons of Israel.

  
Chloe, in the instance which you bring up here, Moses asks God to show himself to Moses in all of God's glory ...

Exo 33:18  And he said, I beseech You, let me see Your glory.

... But God tells Moses that that is impossible:  

Exo 33:20  And He said, You cannot see My face. For there no man can see Me and live.

  
However, God proposes something else to Moses, as a sort of compromise:

... Exo 33:23  ... you shall see My back parts. But My face shall not be seen.

How does the above explanation sound?