The matter of "Christian Ethics" is very important in the debate about the truth or validity of Christianity. Christians will often refer to the "high ethical standards" of Jesus in an effort to buttress their contention that they have the True Religion. Even nominal Christians and many non-Christians have considered Jesus to be one of history's great "moral teachers." But are such claims true, and do they stand up under scrutiny? I intend to explore that issue and hope to shed some light on a matter not often discussed.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/chri...esus_ethics.htm

Much has been said by Christians and Christians theologians about the supposed originality and beauty of the ethical teachings of Jesus. The quotation below, by the Christian historian, Philip Schaff (1819-1893), is a typical example:
It is universally admitted...that Christ taught the purest and sublimest of ethics, one which throws the moral precepts and maxims of the wisest men of antiquity far into the shade. [1]

There is only one problem with the statement above: it is simply not true!

Where his ethical teachings are attractive, they were not original.

Where his teachings were original, they are repugnant.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/ethics.html

Interesting....what say you?

I think some of those quotes are taken out of context but it doesn't matter if its original or bad or good. Take the good things, apply it, ignore whatever you don't find fitting.

8:1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. Then a woman in the back of the crowd picked up a large stone and held it over her head. "C'mon, Ma," said Jesus, "Don't mess this up; I'm working here, okay?" Then the Virgin Mary dropped the stone, and went home. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

#1-note the portion in red, that was removed by the Council of Nicaea.
#2-note that he was writing on the ground. What was that, a magic circle to protect the woman? Was he casting a spell to protect her? I think so.
#3-maybe Jesus, who was supposedly without sin, wanted to cast the first stone.

He told the accusers the one of you with out sin should cast the first stone. He wasn't an accuser. Also by this time mary would no longer be a virgin.

Belle , great thread .....
ethics in those scenarios can be assigned anywhere, not just in the religious outcome. Belle you raise the concept of "morality" -and in this context we are using morality to determine morality. This is more like common good. because there is no absolute or universal morality/ethics, yet people/christianity can and do operate falsely under the assumption that there is.

Now as for ethics its not an exclusive relgious product as I ahve outlined above..... but that ethics (along with everything else within our worldviews) is a product of learning and synthesizing. Some of the confusion in christianity seems to come from ethnocentricity - a person living in a cultural moray, and only having lived in that scenario, sees religion as separate and is overlooking the vast history of humanity where religion was the predominant force within societies (such statements as " it was through religion that ethics came to be" or jesus was the great moral teacher' illustrates this point .......)


IMO we have developed a fondness for "social contract" - if we were to consider that the oldest social contracts are religious ( or consider that the basis of judaism is a social contract).

I look forward to the replys this thread...

You didn't like my little attempt at humor? Or you didn't get it?

The love which Bro Jesus was teaching is An universal Think, which builds worlds, The light Of everything is the love, The unconditional love is the power.

His teachings were not his and his alone, He Learned them from Father and Father's Father and the father before that , Take this to infinity up, and down all the way as certain sons of God have vtaken on the reswponsibility to create worlds for all spirit too experience it's self. Thats ever (Infinatly) Expanding.

The ten commandments have been used to build Many worlds and are given at the beginning , or in the infancy of this world., Kinda like a recipe for building worlds, Which Father and Mother (God) have a whole library, Of books which write themselves.

Love Omnaka

these teachings have little to do with unconditional love, if that is what you are wanting to discuss.... , they really have more to do with conditional rules. but many assume they are rooted in UL and never really look very close and I think that is what Belle's thread is seeking to do here..



the 10 commandments is a case in point they are 'rules' .. this is a far cry from teaching unconditonal love......

books do not write themselves people write them and they write them with a vested interest in keeping a tradtions alive and growing ......again its not the esseence of unconditonal love.........IMO...


we can see from these teachings they have not brought us together as a unity in unconditional love... the effect is the message ...

jesus is a christain symbol used to covert with the promise of salvation the very crux of the symbol is one of a trade off..... it is conditional....

"and some fell on stony ground"


fullywired

The forgivenes Taught in many Of Fathers Teachings , Shared By Brother Jesus is kkey to unconditional love.

Giving your children Moral lessons in the Infancy of their life is very unconditional loving, The same way you teach your children Right from wrong at an early age, and This is because you love them unconditionally, even after they come of Age, They go on their own, and even if they screw up, you will love them unconditionally.

The promise of salvation is only one interpretations Of Jesus, Message, which is actually Father's and the fathers before this, He vwas just a messenger, Of Father's love.

If you think of Love as conditional, Then To you it will be conditional.

Love Omnaka

see I heard it a bit different -

And Jesus said to those about to kill the adultress " Let those among you without sin cast the first stone."

"Mother , put down that rock."
____________________________
it's all in the delivery !

For somebody supposedly omniscient, his conduct and teachings are rather lacklustre and not the revolutionary teachings they are constantly referred to as. Some are ok, some are good, and some are a bit off. They definitely do not add any credibility for him having insight that would be befitting of the Christian God concept. But aye that is true I'm 'using morality to determine morality'



Yes I would actually say that how a Christian lives their life, day to day, moment to moment, would actually have little directly to do with what Jesus taught. Their ethics would be infinitely wider and more complex through their interactions and experiences. And indeed their judgments on what parts of the Bible they pick as 'relevant' for today are rather astonishingly and obviously based on other types of 'cultural indoctrination.' Although I must admit, half of me is impressed with the ingenuity they display in constructing deeper relevant meaning from rather slim pickings IMO.

belle quotes:
" Although I must admit, half of me is impressed with the ingenuity they display in constructing deeper relevant meaning from rather slim pickings IMO."



Indeed, often the 'models' are not as detailed as that which they are made to represent."


the actions of christians over the course of history paints the best picture of what the religion is. IMO or what the teachings of Jesus were/are... If anything a true beleiver follows the bible to a 'tee' and this speaks to me about the message , for instance I have not seen much evidence of love thy neighbor as thyself meaning (in a fundamentalist expression.) ( 0f course to varying degrees that is..)......... one doesn't honor others diversity and path they choose or seek to to walk and celebrate that ... it seems to mean try and convert your neighbor to your religion in order to be excepted or to save your soul regardless if you beleive this or not..........this creates its own issues of course...contributing to division for one...etc etc.........



I concur that the jesus lore for me is analogous to a street corner Benny Hinn....

it seems that in this frame that 'unconditonal love' is defined as sacrafice. as its highest standard. which now adays translates to absurd., i would simply act in a loving manner and i think that would suffice as a purveyor of how i felt for another i do not see the need to sacrafice myself or anyone for that matter, also it inspires vicitmization more than anything IMO............ ...........So as a moral dictum i see it as flawed and ineffective for modern day use........

yet on the other hand religon does adapt to the demands of the culture rooted its own survival in the last 10 years alone jesus was a given now alot don't even beleive their was a jesus. alot of things are taken on assumption not actaul fact.... and the more we question the more relgion falls apart( no mystery as to why it deters one form asking questions that have no answers or to question in general) ........ man creates and defines his saviors based on need...after all religion . is 'consumer' driven at the end of the day..........IMO

its not us who needs religion its religion who needs us to survive ........so it creates a need, enter the jeus lore......

These truths are universal; no they are not original. Yet these truths come from the original Source. God. But they have been revealed to us through many different religions, cultures, and belief sets. Jesus is but one example of the great truth.

Of course his ethics wern't completely original. His ethics were around thousands of years before him. It isnt that they were original that makes Jesus great but that he practiced them to his very death without ever abandoning them.

Christ is just one of many mystics who were morally and spiritually complete and therefore qualified to preach and show the validity of his preaching via practice. Just like Gandhi wasnt original with his non-violence but put them into practice in a world that considers true ethics airy fairy or merely passive nonsense. Gandhi like Christ before he died called out Rama (God) and didnt lose faith.

Also with the repugnant teachings of Christ, one ought not to take them academically or rationally but symbolically. Christ like Buddha and Krishna and more or less every other saint and mystic speaks often in parables which have a meaning than the appearance the words give it.

Many rationalists (I have nothing against rationalism or rationalists) often want to give a literal meaning to that which isnt to be taken literal but symbolically and that symbolic meaning in turn gives something deeper (and this meaning can differ legitimately from person to person) which can be taken literal because of its personal meaning and resonating.




Matthew 19:29
"And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold..."

Another interpretation of this is spiritual detachment which is one of the cornerstones of Buddhist philosophies. It doesnt mean to literally hate your parents but the detach from worldy attachments (all worldy attachment causes pain because it makes think as separate from everything else).


Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters...he cannot be my disciple."

It goes for the same here. Hinduism also speaks of such detachment. It is emphasized repeatedly over and over again in the Gita.

But this is only one interpretation most supported by Christian mystics and Sufis alike. My point is that it is only 'repungent' to those who dont see the deeper meaning because they can only take things in a literal statistical sense.

I went through those two examples with much brevity. I could have done an essay. I wont bother to write about the others but mention that turning the other cheek and giving one's coat is in my view teaching unconditional love and passive resistance. Gandhi was influenced by this interpretation and put it in amazing practice.

What symbolism does not have, as it's basis, a literal truth?

It is equally as relevant to our condition to translate a symbolic gesture/phrase etc into a literal meaning and so understand such symbolism on a level that has practical application.



If a sufi asked you to forsake everyone you love because his/her teachings would "reward you a hundred-fold", would you? How selfish would that be?



Can someone who does not hate learn anything from someone who professes to teach love?

These are rationalist replies, but are they any less relevant than your mystic, symbolic approach? Would they have a greater/lesser/equal application in how you wish to live?

"""""that Christ taught the purest and sublimest of ethics, one which throws the moral precepts and maxims of the wisest men of antiquity far into the shade."""""

He taught what was the basic right, in the purest, simplist, easiest manner ....

which then made the wise men look like the were really "out there"... out of touch or way off base...because they were made to look like they were in the shade...or perhaps darkenss or not enough light.

In other words, dont read into something so much when its a simple concept right in front of you....

This is how I interprete this quote....

I won't comment on the whole of the articles, but I will say that the author has got things a little mixed up. To quote one part:



I have to say that the author has misunderstood this as being the same. What Jesus taught is subtly different to Hillel. Isocrates also taught something similar to this, and he lived centuries before Jesus.

But there is a very subtle difference. Isocrates and this Hillel person say "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you"
Compare this to Jesus, who says "DO to others what you want done to yourself"

It is a very subtle difference in the teaching, but one that I think makes a most important distinction, and certainly makes Jesus unique. Plenty of philosophers have said "don't do bad stuff to people, because you don't want bad stuff done to you". Jesus was the FIRST to put it in the positive - DO TO OTHERS what you want done to yourself.

Some of you might be thinking there isn't a difference, but I completely disagree. I think the difference is massive. The previous teachings (don't do to others) requires no specific action on your part. You can sit in your house 24/7, never have contact with a single soul, and complete the teaching "don't do to others", since you are obviously not encroaching on anyone. Jesus' stance is PROACTIVE - it actively seeks that its adherents go out and do good for other people, not simply avoid doing bad.

It is a subtle, yet very important difference, and contrary to the article's premise, Jesus was the FIRST to state this in the positive.

Unfortunately, it's late, I've just gotten home from work, and i'm going to church early tomorrow. I haven't read further than the quoted section, but since the author's already made a complete dud of himself by claiming something without fully reading it, I won't hold my breath when next I get online.

My point is that there is more than one translation and I am open to that there could be as many as there are people. The literal truth doesnt have to correspond with the literal way the letters are positioned. Poetry does this all the time.



Again you and me are speaking from completely different understandings. You dont fully understand as much as I do theoretically 'mysticism' or the perennial philosophy of these sayings. Here is a sufi poet quote:

"On the hat of poverty three renouncements are inscribed: Quit this world, quit the next world, quit quitting. "

And here is a good quote from a christian mystic that shows one ought to be selfless when it comes to one's actions and how having a preferred outcome isnt truly selfless:

The imperfect destroy true devotion, because they seek sensible sweetness in prayer. ---Saint John of the Cross

The man who says this also says:

. . . . . It is impossible for the will to attain to the sweetness and bliss of the divine union otherwise than in detachment, in refusing to desire every pleasure in the things of heaven and earth.


If a Sufi asked me to forsake everyone I loved because of their teachings I wouldnt do so because it isnt their teachings that such people ask you to forsake. It is what the teachings will get you if applied properly. You are taking the map to be the territory when this isnt the case, even in mundane situations let alone religious ones.

The 'hundred-fold' Christ talks about from one out of many interpretations is basically oneness with God or enlightenment (same thing to a mystic). It is basically the greatest state of mind (or beyond mind) a person can be in. It is described by mystics and prophets to be absolute bliss and all knowing etc.


Your own Self-Realization
is the greatest service you can
render the world.

---Ramana Maharshi

The reason why this isnt selfish is because when someone becomes well tuned into God or one with God or nirvana, one likewise becomes a channel of grace and can better help others get to this ultimate state of being. No one can help anyone achieve enlightenment except those who are enlightened. All mystics agree with this.

Christ himself says:

Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not fall into a ditch? The disciple is not above his master:but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. --St.Luke 6:39-40

Sri RamaKrishna says:

A man bound hand and foot in the endless chain of cause and effect cannot free another.

The sages of old first got Tao for themselves, then got it for others. Chuang Tzu

It is via detachment from all concepts and actions and attachments in which one gets hold of Tao.


Perfect virture is compassionate detcahment. ---Confucius

Seek refuge in the attitude of detachment. --Bhagavad Gita

In short, if I consider all virtues, I find that none is so completely without defects and so applicable to God as is detachment. ---Meister Eckhart




I would love to meet someone who doesnt hate. If I did then they probably are enlightened. If someone told me they dont then I would be very skeptical and suspect that the person suppresses such feelings in the unconscious mind which means that such feelings are still present. Most people I know including myself hate something, though I strive not to.




Lesser application in my view. However this is based on my view because religion to me is best expressed through paradox and poetry and not statistically. What is considered rational is also subjective. I believe it is more rational to trust my intuition over reason in many cases and that this is more reasonable that just being completely at the mercy of reason. But that is just my take. No one elses. This isnt an objective right or wrong because there isnt one unless subjectively expressed.

So I may say that your replies are less than the mystic approach but that doesnt mean I dont think it isnt valid. You and me are two different types of people.

Let me not hear facts figures and logic, Fain would I hear lore legend and magic. --Donovan

I disagree. I believe there isnt a subtle difference. I believe they are different sides of the same coin.

So you think that actively being kind to others which can be considered as not doing violence unto to others because you are not doing unto others what you wouldnt want them to do isnt proactive?

You can also sit for 24/7 in your house and likewise complete the teaching 'do unto others' by being anti-social towards people in the outside world as you would them to be towards you.

Also you could go out and actively see people and be kind to them under the teaching of 'do not do unto others' because you might not want others to not do the opposite of what you are doing and therefore not act accordingly towards them.

To say there is a massive difference is philosophically unjustified.

Or perhaps I understand very well and you are just annoyed that, in expressing my understanding, I undermine your belief in this philosophy. I understand to a degree the human condition and why people have to believe certain things.



My apologies, brave, but this is quite nonsense.

Through applying these teachings you attain this detachment but, in taking the teachings as your path you are not seeking this detachment?

If it is as you say, and this detachment and forsaking those you love (ridding yourself of attachment) is the result of these teachings then the sufi who is teaching you (or whose teachings you practice) is asking you to forsake all attachment (those you love included).



I would suggest Saint John of the Cross was a very confused man. Please do not insult the intelligence of everyone here by suggesting that this person did not desire this 'sweetness and bliss of the divine union'. An excellent example of "do as I say, don't do as I do" - even if he was blind to what he was doing.

how can we know what is best for another Pa???? especially in regards to what is best for us isn't always what is best for another... we can encourage them to seek their best..


We all have stories of times when we thought something was what is best for another and it actaully made things worse for them...

i have a firend that had alot of money issues and everytime she told me about it i'd write her a check thinking this is what would help her , this is what I'd want ........ until one time she said to stop doing that the reason she was telling me was not to have me deal with her money issues but to have someone to bounce solutions off of to come up with her own solutions.....


.In truth this is the experince that promoted a much broader understanding of what it means to help others or treat them as i would want to be treated and the truth is I'd want to find a way to work, more or make my own money to help myself....



the best way to find out what is best for another is to ask them not assume we know....I can't help but think that this teaching is a way to impose a beielf system.... can anyone tell me religion is what is best for me?? I dont think so.........how could they know????

I may be wrong here but I don't think Christ wanted people to forsake family members. Except in extreme conditions. I can't think of any.

I think "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you" is a very negative outlook. It is passive. It requires nothing more than to live your life your way, only ever thinking of "not hurting" someone else in whatever fashion.

ON the other hand, "do to others what you want done to you" is a positive outlook. It is active. It requires you to provide for other people what you would want others to provide for you (and no, this isnot the same as a masochist hurting someone because that's what they'd want people to do to them). To be active in providing others their needs is tough, and I think very few Christians abide by "do to others as you would have them do for you". Far more often, they will go for "don't do to others", and think it is the same thing.

They are different, not two sides of the same coin, but two separate coins found on opposite sides of the planet. So similar, yet so different.

Let me use an example - I have 20 bags of groceries and I am trying to carry them to my car, all on my own. NOw, if it were me, I'd really like someone to help. No one is likely to, but it would be nice for someone to offer. If they did offer, they would be proactive, they "did for others what others want done for me". However, that same person could walk by me, ignore me totally and fulfill the requirement of "don't do to others what you don't want done to you", because they have not encroached on my life in any significant way whatsoever.

yes, I know it's a dodgy analogy, but it makes the point.

I'm sure other people are going to see no difference, but I see a huge one, and regardless of what else, since it is the article we are discussing - Jesus was the FIRST to put this law/guideline in the positive (do to others). All before him simply said "don't do to others). The difference is clear to me.

Not at all. I have always known that you dont get into mysticism and have no faith in God so I wouldnt expect you to understand completely. I believe because intuition couped with reason tells me what I believe is right, mainly intuition. I am not annoyed. I am only replying to a post you did to me to show you another of many translations.




Inlcuding attachment to the sufi teacher and his teachings.

That is the paradox leo. You detach from all in order to be one with all which is a deeper level of love than the feeling of separateness and personal attachment. I dont know this from direct experience. However I have faith in those who have experienced (and faith they did experience) it.




I will insult the intelligence of everyone on here (I doubt that most people will be insulted though) by saying that saint john didnt desire the 'sweetness and bliss of the divine union' because he knew from experience that personal desire is what gets in the way of this union and therefore hinders you from it. Paradox, Paradox. Mystics wish to get away from emotional prayer (though they would all admit that it helps in the beginning) 'sweetness of prayer' to get to that which transcends emotion.

If you think it is nonsense then you do. You are not the first nor the last to consider mystics to be strange and nonsensical.

I'll reply to this one later. I have to go now. Your argument is still flawed.

I do not think it is flawed, but considering our wildly different views, I wouldn't be surprised. There's a lot I see in your views that are flawed, I'm sure you see the same in me All the best,

I get it.

1. Don't do to others what you don't want done to you: With this one in effect you will never receive anything. This one basically just tells you not to do bad things to people.

2. Do to others what you want done to you-Tells you not to do bad things to people and also to do goods things for people.

If you are starving to death the first one doesn't obligate me to feed you. The second one however does because if I where you I would want to be fed.


However I think BNW is going to find a way to make both of those the same. Like in my example using #1 you could be there starving and be thinking "I don't want you to not feed me" or something..idk its too late and my brain is only working at 20% capacity and BNW is better skilled in such philosophy and word play.

That was my thinking behind his view. I wouldn't want someone to walk past me and therefore they should not do it. But it becomes a little convoluted, wouldn't you say, to argue this view, and thus I think he is moving beyond the intentions of the author.

Is a very negative outlook? So me being non-violent towards others and loving towards them because I dont want to do the opposite which is violent and cruel is negative? I think it is an active thing. Whether it says 'do unto others' or 'do not do unto others' this universal golden rule reaches the same conclusions.

You assume that thinking not 'not hurting' anyone means being indifferent to love and injustice. This isnt the case. Even if you have the golden rule worded 'do unto others' that too can be applied to being 'passive' because you are being towards others as they are being towards you.

I could be walking down the street not wanting anyone to give me love and therefore not give it because I am doing unto others as I would have them do to me.

I could equally be passive in society because I am still doing unto others as I would have them do unto me. Therefore how is there a massive difference that isnt negative?

The wording has a negative but the message is equally the same.





Not to provide for others but merely do unto them as you would have them do unto you.




Very dodgy which doesnt drive the point in. If I had 20 bags of groceries and I am trying to carry them to my car all on my own and wanted someone to help, then a person who offers may come from the point of view, 'I would not like someone to ignore me in a time of need therefore I wont do this unto my fellow brother here and give a hand'.

How is this two opposite sides of the planet?

Also a person could ignore the other person with the bags because if a person doesnt like help because of pride or some other reason, then he too can ignore the person in need because he would have such behaviour done unto himself.





The difference to me still isnt clear. Just the same thing worded differently.

Brave, this statement is essentially a double-negative and not grammatically nor philosophically the same as saying "don't do unto others what you would not want done unto yourself".

Doing implies an action, something that could be described as positive (not in deed or intent) i.e. helping someone is an action, whereas ignoring someone is an inaction and negative.

Paradox, brave, is the last bastion for those who cannot (or will not) see Reason.

You might as well say "Because I say so", it has as much meaning and carries as much weight.

Ignoring someone is an action of ignoring and therefore a positive. I have actively ignored people before. I dont see how ignoring someone isnt an action of some kind.

Whereas I think paradox explains profound truths i.e the more you know the more you realize that you dont know.

People who cant see the reason of paradox in my view are stuck and want to live in a world of absolutes.

Not doing something is ironically an action in a way...your choosing to not do anything, that choice is the action.

That is not a paradox, it is an understanding.

A paradox, written in context of what you describe as paradox would be "the more you know, the less you know".

Which obviously is not true, but would be a paradox nonetheless.

Well I believe it is a paradox.



Well this is a matter of personal philosophical belief and opinion. I believe it is blatantly true whearas you dont. In the face of infinity all our knowledge amounts to more or less nothing.

I agree one can make an affirmative choice to not do something, or one can walk by someone in need without realising they are so. Ever been thoughtless? It is not an action, but an inaction. One has to realise there is something to be done to choose not to do it.

That is a negative action and would be covered in the context of "don't do unto others what you would not want done unto yourself", thoughtless behaviour would not. So this saying does not promote thinking about doing good things, whereas "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" does promote such thought behaviour.

Thoughtless as in deep sleep without thoughts? Or being selfish thoughtless?

How is a negative action not action?

Brave, I am not trying to suggest some trick answer, even if you are attempting to do so. Being thoughtless is not necessarily being selfish, it is being unobservant.

What do you mean? Explain please.

You know very well what I mean and are simply trying to jump on some error in grammar or syntax to force further argument of your point. I made what I said very clear.

No you didnt. I really dont know. What do you mean about inaction being unobservant.

Hmm well anybody’s life can be viewed as perfect if all their questionable behaviour is viewed symbolically. Maybe that is how I will explain any of my questionable behaviour hmmmm

Do you think it is a coincidence that anything which is repugnant is symbolic?

I suppose if we start with the perspective that the central figure is perfect – we can never view his behaviour or teachings as anything less – we will constantly look for symbolism - as our own morality changes as existence and life is always in flux. If we wish to grow morally Jesus will IMO be more and more viewed symbolically. Perhaps Jesus was one of the best his times could offer. That is OK - just not worth making someone a deity for.

I agree in certain places one can learn interpret a variety of messages in a story. I can find even certain children's literature enlightening. Was the intensity/symbolism always meant by the author? Maybe/maybe not. Or was it more about me, and things triggered an understanding in myself? Does it matter?

Sorry I don't know much about mysticism. So are you saying that it is a superior way of knowing things or learning behaviour? How does it differentiate itself from having wisdom in practical terms?

I totaly agree, and feel you are grounded in pure truth here. I really dont understand how anyone could see it differently. Oh well.

and yet some would say they really don't understand how you could not see it differently. faith and belief are personal truths , not the truth but opinion.

good point Belle,
this approach fails because it gives an authority of perception to the 'object' ( symbol) rather than the perceiver. e.g inferring that symbols, thoughts, interpretations,definitions etc are decided not by the reciever, but by the transmitter.