The best way I can put it is that Jesus died for our salvation. He was part of God's plan to snuff out sin. Jesus was given authority over the Earth and its people as their savior and judge by God. He is God's "right hand man."

If this is the case then buddha was his left hand, lao tzu is his right foot and Ramana Maharshi his his left foot.

I understand your point because I've studied the philisophies of these men and and have much respect for them. But from the Christian point of view and through the teachings of Christ himself salvation comes from Christ only because he died for all man's sins, past present and future and you cant be with God until sin has been washed from you. God knows that man is far from perfect and good. That is why I believe Christ was put in this Earth, to give mankind a way to be forgiven for it's sinnful acts.

But aside from Christian belief, one example I have in "only the beholder knows" comes from the Buddist's steps of enlightenment. When the Buddists reach the final stage of enlightenment they learn the enigma of life and reach full spiritual connection with the universe. But when they reach this final stage they do not tell what they have seen. Not even to others who have reached this stage in their paths to enlightenment. You never know, they could see God or something else. So it goes back to the theory we will only know what happens in the end when it is either presented to us or we have experineced it ourselves at the end.

One key point to the original basis of Buddism is that their is no diety in the faith. Buddha never considered himself a messiah or a god but a philosopher who had an understanding on how to live your life which he extracted from the Hindu religion of India where he was born. He spread his message to the East when he was basicly "kicked out" of India when he presented this new belief system. And even then Buddism didn't really start to fully influence China until Boddirhama came to China and through his followers formed the Shoalin monestaries and from them Buddism was spread throughout Asia. Not intill Buddism reached Korea and Japan did Buddha change from Philosopher to a god.

Yeah but I see no difference whatsoever to attaining nirvana and finding the "kingdom of god within". I believe there is a possibility that Jesus learnt some of the hindu and buddhist values and taught them in a context that the israelites would understand.

Even though I am a Christian I have full faith in the following quote by what I believe to be a very enlightened christian: All religions are approaches to a single truth.--Sri Aurobindo

I agree, that is why I leave the judging of people to Christ and not to me. Because really no one knows what the real truth is intill the end. And he will be the judge of all things in the end in my beliefs.

One of my quotes is, To judge is to take the power of Christ and make it your own. In my opinion blasphemy is the worst sin imaginable and the most despised by God. And to take the power of God and make it yours is like making yourself as powerful if not more powerful than God, which in its purestform is blasphemy.

I just cannot accept the idea of jesus being the only means to god. I much like the quaker idea that you dont even have to know anything about the outside life of christ all you have to do is find the inner light of the holy ghost which is the grace of god anyways.

^Also the context (heh, there's that word again ) in which Jesus said to judge a tree by its fruit was that Jesus was speaking to individual people and not about religions. In other words, judge each individual according to their actions (the fruit they bear).

A link I have posted in the past......"WONDERFUL EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO GOD'S DIVINE GLORY"

Thats a lot of Christian fruit!

My point I have been trying to get across in this post is that you cant judge a whole religion just because of what others of the religion have done. You appear to be a non-believer athiast type, so I will repeat an example I gave to another athiast with the same hateful view on my religion.

If a single or even a whole group of athiasts decided to murder a whole community of religious believers doing every single atrocity that you state the Christians did, would you except the harassment you recieved from other people for being an athiast yourself? Now remeber though that if you do not believe in what this group did you (from examples stated) are not really following the "true" beliefs of an athiast and are an ignorant and dillusional athiast.

Another would be if the same type of group followed you as their leader and you preached to them non-violence and faith in your word and then they turned around and committed atrocities in your name, would you condone their actions just because they did them in your name? Then lets say that everyone looked at you as a vile and evil person because this group of followers selfrightously condoned these actions because they did it in your name. Then lets say that no matter how hard you tried to correct these views on your teachings people still considered you and your teachings vile and evil.

How would you honestly react to this?

This is a piece of writing you could learn from: The holy light of faith is so pure that, compared with it, particular lights are but impurities; and even ideas of the saints, of the Blessed Virgin, and the sight of Jesus Christ in his humanity are impediments in the way of the sight of God in His purity.

---J.J. Olier

Remember that water that is too pure has no fish in it.

Why do you think that God created the salvation from sin. We are impure in the eyes of God. Back in the OT you had to live your whole life pure to reach Heaven and very few did. With the sacrifice of Christ we were given a way out from the life of sin. Since the time when Adam and Eve were tempted in the garden sin has been in the lives of men. God in his ever present love and grace basicly knew that he had to do more than just kill off everyone and start over like he did with the flood because it would be repeated constantly. So he sent down his only son to demolish the stranglehold sin had over mankind. This new law of God or as better stated, New Testament through Jesus Christ is this plan from God. It is true in both yours and my statements when I say that no one shall reached the Father the Allmight God unless through Jesus Christ who is the judge of man. Simply put we are to unpure in our sin to be accepted into the Kingdom of God. Jesus states that he is our salvation from our sinfull ways. Christian to athiast, all must go before Christ at judgement day and be judged. And through that judgement you will either be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven (reach God) or cast away (Hell ect.).

That is a very theological textual view. You should adopt the essence of christianity and let your intuition make the rest of your decisions. God is in each of all of us so none of us can ever be forsaken because then it would be like God comdemning itself.

True, but to adopt the essence of Christianity you must accept Christ as your savior since a Christian is a follower of Christ. To not believe in Christ as your savior and still believe in the Hebrew God and his law would kinda make you more Jewish.

But then to think as all of us and everything as a literal piece of God would take away the fact that all of us are separate beings with souls and our own minds and free will which is the greatest gift God as given us. And from your point of view it would be impossible to doubt God and his greatness if we are all God because we would be doubting ourselves and would create chaos in the balance of life. But to put that into an example I would have to go to the story of Lucifer and his fall from grace.

That is a matter of opinion my friend and no opinion is right no matter how theoretically correct it is for the very reason that it is an opinion. Though I do admire your faith and wish you all the best.

The soul is in itself a most lovely and perfect image of God.--- St. John of the cross

In those repsects in which the soul is unlike God, it is also unlike itself. --St. Bernard

Me, I prefer christian mysticism myself. This next quote sums up my christian values and beliefs in a nutshell: God is all in all; God is mind; God's spirit being all, nothing is matter. ---Mary Baker Eddy, Christian scientist

This is what I say...who cares.

If God is real I say let him make his silly rules. I'd rather live the life I want to live then to change my ways to fit his standards. I don't see how is opinions of what is right and wrong are any better then mine. For some reason people think that the creator automatically is allowed to rule it's creations but I don't see the reason for that justification. Is it because he is more powerful? More intelligent? By those reasonings we should have the justification to decide the fate of plants, animals, and little baby bacterias.

No one entity is any better then another...dogs are no better then trees, men are no better then dogs, and gods are no better then men.

I'd rather live my own life and go to hell then live another entities life and go to heaven...it just wouldn't feel right to do it any other way.

We are human, one of our dominate traits is defiance...hell babies learn the word No before the word Yes.

Exactly! Who should care? All thoughts and beliefs should be respected. If we didn't have this free will we would probably all have marionette strings attached to us or be pawns on a chessboard with thumbs on our heads. And who would in their right mind want to live like that? This is why I have the theory I wrote in my last post.

Ya but what I'm also saying is that we don't have to except that "truth".

Unless you mean we'll find out all universe's mysteries like how the Earth was created and not "truth" as in how we should have lived our lives and how we should live are afterlives.

I mean all of what you just stated. The true truth, the whole truth. As in everything that could be questioned by anyone that has ever had a question about anything. From beliefs to theories and the ect. Everything.

Well lets hope for that...but I would rather learn on my own then have it given to me.

But how are you to learn if it is never presented or taught to you?

The old fashioned way...do it myself.

From your point of doing it yourself, I think that no one would know anything about anything. I meant presented to us as in what we get from our senses. We see things hear things and touch things ect. If nothing was presented to us we'd have nothing to learn. And if we are not taught we wouldn't be able to aknowlige anthing anyway because we wouldn't know anything. For example. "The sky is blue." In my theory without being taught we would not know that the sky is blue or that the sky is the sky or that blue is blue and ect. And without preciving anything we wouldnt even know there is a sky or even color for that matter.

Yes, our senses as in my senses...as in myself. We are not taught how to use our senses.

If we have to be taught everything then who taught the teachers? Somewhere down the line someone had to think for themselves.

Did someone teach Edison how to invent the light bulb? No. He just figured it out on his own.

Yes we are not taught how we use our senses they naturaly do what they do. But take them away and we precive nothing. Take away our sight and we dont see take away our hearing and we dont hear. Take away out sense of touch and we cant feel anything. Basicly if we dont have these we are basicly senseless and are in a big dark world of nothingness.

My point is that I dont think anyone unless they are super super inteligent is going to figure out everything that has went through study or trial and error over the history of man in a one-hundred minus life span. If you were just born and through out your life had no one teach you anything or had no perception of the world around you, you couldn't have the intelegence and wisdom that you have now so anything we are discussing now would be superficial because we wouldn't have the influences of anything that is influencing your life's ambitions and goals to date.

And yes Edison did invent the lightbulb on his own. But if he didnt have the resources or the studies of past men he wouldnt have been able to figure out how to construct or make his invention work. If he could without these things why wasnt the caveman making lightbulbs and driving cars? And without perception why would lightbulbs matter?

Okay I agree...when I said do it on my own I didn't mean from scratch...I ment I would rather figure out the mysteries of the universe on my own rather then someone telling me...its more of preference because I wouldn't mind someone telling me.

If God wants to give the knowledge of everything when I die I'll just tell him to give me more time.

Did someone teach Edison how to invent the light bulb? No. He just figured it out on his own.

Paranoid android what is your opinion about William Law's piece of writing and Sebastion Castellio??

Well considering you suggested it, I'd submit that it was not Thomas Edison who invented the lightbulb (at least, not the first). He did go largely by his own research, but at least six months before Edison invented the lighbulb, an Englishman by the name of Joseph Swan invented the lightbulb, and I think it a travesty of history that it is Edison who is credited with this discovery.......

Hmm, not sure why you specifically want my input in this, but truth be told, i've missed the exact post with this detail. I've skimmed through the thread, but I guess I missed it. if you could repost the specific articles, I'd be happy to comment on them

Regards, PA

Thanks, Brave. I'll be happy to discuss my thoughts.

Concerning Sebastion Castellio, I generally agree with his sentiments. We do sometimes get bogged down in semantics, and that leads to pointless bickering and arguing. As we get side-tracked by the argument it can come to the point that we stop seeing the similarities and only see the differences. We can sometimes forget what Jesus said about Loving God and loving our neighbour. This then impacts our lives so that we no longer live under those two Golden Rules. When this happens, Christianity can break down and we see the division, the violence, the hatred and the discrimination that has (and unfortunately still does) happen in our world.

That said, there's nothing wrong with a bit of old fashioned disagreement. I'm not saying (and I don't think Castellio is saying, either) that arguing cannot be helpful. People won't always agree, and when we disagree we will argue our points. But I think the problem comes when these disagreements lead to division and anger and violence. Even here on UM, not all the Christians here agree with each other on absolutely every point. In addition to arguing with skeptics and other non-Christians, we sometimes argue points of doctrine amongst ourselves. We have our own points of view on varying matters of scripture. But in the end, most of those disagreements are on small matters that ultimately have no bearing on the way we live our lives, or on our relationship with God. Now, the extremist on the other hand, and the fundamentalist, may very well block their ears and go LALALA, I'M NOT LISTENING, when someone disagrees. And if disagreement persists will decry the other person as a heretic which starts a chain reaction of anger, resentment, and someitmes violence.

If we keep in mind Jesus' two greatest commandments, then everything else falls into place naturally, even if we don't always agree.

Now, as for William Law's article/quote, it was an interesting point brought up that often people reject a truth simply because someone they disagree with brings it up. Ignore points of law because another denomination holds that law as the cornerstone of their belief. The pervading implication, of course, being that to agree with someone is to validate their belief over your own, rendering your own a lesser belief. It's a coping mechanism to think of one's own belief as the "right" belief. And as wrong as it is to think like this (imo, at least), the fact is people do sometimes think like this.

Again, this is not to say that we can't disagree. Here the article ties in with the previous discussion on Castellio, in that Law does not advocate that we all decide to suddenly agree with each other (for this is impossible), but to put aside our ego's. Find the beauty in Jesus' message, and not throw out that message simply because someone you disagree with has said the same thing.

To conclude, I'm going to quote the first of three truths that William Law espouses in his article, that I think sums it up perfectly: He that would obtain this divine and catholic spirit in this disordered, divided part of the church without partaking of its division, must have these three truths deeply fixed in his mind.

First, that universal love, which gives the whole strength of the heart to God, and makes us love every man as we love ourselves, is the noblest, the most divine, the Godlike state of the soul, and is the utmost perfection to which the most perfect religion does any man any good but so far as it brings this perfection of love into him. This truth will show us that true orthodoxy can nowhere be found but in a pure disinterested love of God and our neighbour.

Hope that satisfies you, bnw

Regards, PA

PA,

a quick question on your "take the first two golden rules..."

Jesus was not the first nor the only to state these golden rules.
So why attach so much to the messenger rather than the message?

One does not find the understanding in the messenger.
One does not find enlightenment in the messenger.

So I wonder, why not synthesize the message?
Why not contemplate how the message first came to be?
Why not contemplate why it was repeated so many times?
Rather than focusing on one of the repetitions.

This tragic misfocus is akin to focusing on the format a piece of music is distributed on rather than the music itself!

On face-value, they seems similar to Jesus' "do unto others what you would have them do to you", but i think it is not the same at all. Not doing something to someone is very passive. I could, if I wish, sit in my room all day and never have contact with a human being, and I would quite readily fulfil that golden rule to not do to others what you don't want done to yourself.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree, because I see a massive difference between the two versions. Your example - It is the same as comparing "thou shalt not kill" to "thou shalt kill no one" - seems to me simply that you changed the sentence structure and then ammended the grammar to fit. Jesus' statement has not simply changed the sentence structure, but rather he affected a complete reversal of the verb's. Do has been changed to do not. It creates a subtle difference that many will not see as important, but I see as of supreme importance. I think most people in this world adhere to the rule "don't do to others what you don't want done to you". I see very few people who actively do for others what they want done to them.

That's as how I see it, anyway, and I guess it's a little different to yours

Because it doesn't matter who preaches it, it is an eternal gospel that will be with man as long as man or any other corporeal or incorporeal beings exist and require spiritual enlightenment. If not from Jesus than from some other sage in the future or only recently like Ramana Maharshi. There was never a time when the message first came to be because the message is a reflection of eternity.

Both of you have very good points. I've allways looked at Christ's love your neighbor as going the extra mile to do good for that person. If you just sit in your room all day what real good are you doing? His story of the Samaritan is just this. If you do nothing what good is there in the action. Do unto others describes the point that you must do good or bad to receive good or bad. One of Christs teachings is also, do not expect reward for the charity you do because more in likely you will not receive it. Care more for the rewards you will receive from the Father in Heaven fore they will be whatever disired reward on earth times eternity. Another point would be not to fuel the ego with charity or good deeds. The bragart will recieve no reward from Christ or the Allmighty since he has rewarded himself tenfold with his boasting and has shamed himself in the eyes of God. I think Pride and Vanity are two of the worst sins that most "Good Samaritans" can be accused of.

My point was that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto others" implies the same samaritan meaning as "do not do to another what you would not like done to yourself". If one doesn't do unto others what he himself wouldn't like done unto himself that pretty much means that he is only gonna do the nice things since he isn't gonna do anything nasty because he wouldn't like it done to himself.

Thats my point. That is the diffrence between Christ's version and the other version of do unto others. with the other it goes along the lines of if bad is done unto you do the same bad to that person that has wronged you. Another of Christ's teachings was turn the other cheek. He dismissed the teaching eye for an eye with this. Eye for and eye was under the boundaries of do unto others because it taught inflict what harm or good that was done to you back. When you turn the other cheek you are basicly forgiving that person for the harm he has done by allowing him to do it without redemption or vengance.

SHARED BELIEF IN THE "GOLDEN RULE"

Ethics of Reciprocity



Click below to visit our sponsors.



Quotation:

"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." The Dalai Lama

Overview

Religious groups differ greatly in their concepts of deity, other beliefs and practices. Non-theistic ethical and philosophic systems, like Humanism and Ethical Culture, also exhibit a wide range of beliefs. But there is near unanimity of opinion among almost all religions, ethical systems and philosophies that each person should treat others in a decent manner. Almost all of these groups have passages in their holy texts, or writings of their leaders, which promote this Ethic of Reciprocity. The most commonly known version in North America is the Golden Rule of Christianity. It is often expressed as "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you."

One result of this Ethic is the concept that every person shares certain inherent human rights, simply because of their membership in the human race. People are individually very different; they come in two main genders; different sizes, colors, and shapes; many races; three sexual orientations; and different degrees of ability. They follow many religious and economic systems, speak many languages, and follow many different cultures. But there is a growing consensus that all humans are equal in importance. All should enjoy basic human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is one manifestation of this growing worldwide consensus. 1,2

In our opinion, the greatest failure of organized religion is its historical inability to convince their followers that the Ethic of Reciprocity applies to all humans, not merely to fellow believers. It is our belief that religions should stress that their membership use their Ethic of reciprocity when dealing with persons of other religions, the other gender, other races, other sexual orientations, etc. Only when this is accomplished will religiously-related oppression, mass murder and genocide cease.



Some "Ethic of Reciprocity" passages from the religious texts of various religions and secular beliefs:

Bahá'í World Faith:
"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah
"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf
Brahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "
Buddhism:
"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
Christianity:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
Confucianism:
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4
Ancient Egyptian:
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written. 3
Hinduism:
This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
Humanism:
"(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."
"(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. " 4
"Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you, British Humanist Society. 3
Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 5
Jainism:
"Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.
"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
Judaism:
"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 6
Native American Spirituality:
"Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.
"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk
"Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb.
Roman Pagan Religion: "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."
Shinto:
"The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form"
"Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God." Ko-ji-ki Hachiman Kasuga
Sikhism:
Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world". Japji Sahib
"Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259
"No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend." Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299
Sufism: "The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.
Taoism:
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49
Unitarian: "We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarian principles.
Wicca: "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One's will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede
Yoruba: (Nigeria): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."
Zoroastrianism:
"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5
"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29


Some philosophers' statements are:

Epictetus: "What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (circa 100 CE)
Kant: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."
Plato: "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." (Greece; 4th century BCE)
Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)
Seneca: "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors," Epistle 47:11 (Rome; 1st century CE)


Examples from moral/ethical systems are:

Humanism: "...critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled." Humanist Manifesto II; Ethics section.
Scientology: "20: Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you." This is one of the 21 moral precepts that form the moral code explained in L. Ron Hubbard's booklet "The Way to Happiness.