Camel through the eye of a needle

[Habitat]

On ‎30‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 6:02 PM, StarMountainKid said:

I

 A follower of Jesus ultimately comes to a dead end. He/she can never measure up to Jesus, can never be fully realized as a person, only Jesus can or is. Jesus is set on a pedestal to be worshiped as something unattainable. Everyone else are sinners and always will be, perfection is impossible for us.

 

 

That might be the way the churches have portrayed it, but...….

[Habitat]

21 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I guess, to put it in  nutshell, Christ said to put the spiritual first, and to give up enough of the material, that it didn't prevent access to the  spiritual.

 

I seriously wonder whether he wasn't as confused and conflicted, at least some of the time, as all of us. I recall him quoted as saying in the non-biblical Gospel of Thomas, that he was amazed that this "wealth" ( presumably the divine) had come to reside in this "poverty" (presumably dishevelled humanity). It is his amazement that causes me to ponder.

[StarMountainKid]

23 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I guess, to put it in  nutshell, Christ said to put the spiritual first, and to give up enough of the material, that it didn't prevent access to the  spiritual.

Buddha was more hard line, in urging us to give up materialism altogether, and our attachment to the  material, including material feelings 

 The Buddha taught that this detachment was the way to nirvana ,while christ taught that attachment to love peace joy etc., was the right way for humans to reach their spiritual peak/potential  .

Personally, I believe humans  would not be humans if they became detached from all the things which made them human.

So i go with the Buddha so far, then look to how i can create a state of joy, love, wonder, compassion, peace etc. 

Rather than detach from the world I  try to change it . 

There are many Buddha's as there are many Jesus'. I think one can argue a Buddha who's detachment enables a purer form of humanity. A humanity who's core is love and compassion and joy in living. I think we can appreciate our more fundamental human virtues when we learn of the superficial qualities we often mistakenly consider essential. 

Detachment is a sort of pealing away these superficialities. The Buddha considered human beings to be fundamentally good, which means all the capabilities of living a good and happy life. An austere Buddha sitting alone contemplating his navel I think is an incorrect view of Buddhism. 

Images of the Buddha are often depicted as a fat and happy soul, smiling outward at the world. The only real commandment the Buddha made was of loving kindness. I think the Buddha as well as Jesus can be a positive influence in our lives when we understand their fundamental messages of compassion and love. 

 

[Mr Walker]

12 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I seriously wonder whether he wasn't as confused and conflicted, at least some of the time, as all of us. I recall him quoted as saying in the non-biblical Gospel of Thomas, that he was amazed that this "wealth" ( presumably the divine) had come to reside in this "poverty" (presumably dishevelled humanity). It is his amazement that causes me to ponder.

I am a simple bloke.  

I tend to just read words as they are, unless I am deconstructing a writer's purpose 

Christ also said that people are all different, with different natures.

He said that some will be able to get his message while others will find it incomprehensible.  He was speaking in relation to the nature of ,and division,between, the material (that which exists outside  our bodies ) and the spiritual  (That which resides within) 

Strangely perhaps,  he didn't sound in the least judgemental; just describing a fact of life about human nature.

The quote above reminds me of swine and pearls The pearls represent wisdom.  The swine the material which;hides, swallows up, and negates the beauty of the pearls  and shows no understanding of, nor appreciation for, their beauty .   

[Mr Walker]

3 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

There are many Buddha's as there are many Jesus'. I think one can argue a Buddha who's detachment enables a purer form of humanity. A humanity who's core is love and compassion and joy in living. I think we can appreciate our more fundamental human virtues when we learn of the superficial qualities we often mistakenly consider essential. 

Detachment is a sort of pealing away these superficialities. The Buddha considered human beings to be fundamentally good, which means all the capabilities of living a good and happy life. An austere Buddha sitting alone contemplating his navel I think is an incorrect view of Buddhism. 

Images of the Buddha are often depicted as a fat and happy soul, smiling outward at the world. The only real commandment the Buddha made was of loving kindness. I think the Buddha as well as Jesus can be a positive influence in our lives when we understand their fundamental messages of compassion and love. 

 

I agree, and you are right.  His message can be interpreted in different ways, and i personalise  it for myself,  as i do the wisdom's of all great  faiths, beliefs, and teachers. 

[Mr Guitar]

I believe that non believers such as myself can lead an exemplary life without being saddled with the requirements of some fictitious set of rules written by a bunch of  near savages 2000+ years ago. What about those who don't have a lot of ambition or wealth and just want to live comfortably as they might see fit - everyone's idea of what it takes to be 'comfortable' is different - who sets the rules about how 'poor' is poor and how 'rich' is rich?. And nowadays, giving a large chunk of your wealth to charity just means that you're fattening the yearly bonus and paycheck of the CEO of the charity - think Goodwill and SPCA! I seriously doubt that most folks couldn't care less about anything but getting along from day to day the best way they can until they become worm food. You're born, you live, you die....end of story.

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 

Christ also said that people are all different, with different natures.

He said that some will be able to get his message while others will find it incomprehensible.   

He did indeed emphasise that, though I would say with a trace of exasperation at those who didn't "get it". I think we can say that most churches accommodate those that really don't "get" the message.

[Habitat]

7 minutes ago, Mr Guitar said:

. You're born, you live, you die....end of story.

That is the bet that you have made. Who can say how that gamble turns out. If it does become a bet, you didn't think was a bet, but a certainty.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Habitat

[Mr Walker]

13 minutes ago, Mr Guitar said:

I believe that non believers such as myself can lead an exemplary life without being saddled with the requirements of some fictitious set of rules written by a bunch of  near savages 2000+ years ago. What about those who don't have a lot of ambition or wealth and just want to live comfortably as they might see fit - everyone's idea of what it takes to be 'comfortable' is different - who sets the rules about how 'poor' is poor and how 'rich' is rich?. And nowadays, giving a large chunk of your wealth to charity just means that you're fattening the yearly bonus and paycheck of the CEO of the charity - think Goodwill and SPCA! I seriously doubt that most folks couldn't care less about anything but getting along from day to day the best way they can until they become worm food. You're born, you live, you die....end of story.

You are right

But that makes you responsible for constructing or choosing a value line of ethical moralities. and for being motivated and disciplined enough, to always follow them .

Some people like to make their own  handcrafted furniture, others find IKEA a lot  simpler and more comprehensible to put together. 

Ie it is not enough for you to say you CAN live like this you have to demonstrate it by doing so 

Don't make excuses Do your due diligence and find groups which donate all or most of their income to their works

It is true that, while excesses of poverty and wealth are most obvious, most " westerners "  live a non sustainable lifestyle of consumerism consumption materialism and waste 

If you want a real and practical guide to live by, look up how to reduce your ecological footprint so that you only use your own fair share of the earths resources, and don't take away from that of others, and of the future.  It is easy not to waste, and not to buy things you don't really need,  and to be careful with things like water and power use  Doesn't mean you have to go without a single thing that you really need for survival, and some comfort

You are right about people not caring, but a lot of it is ignorance ,which is why state and private education programmes are so important,  and why this sort of stuff is built in as a compulsory part of the Australian  National curriculum for all students, from pre school to university  

The you here is not having a go at you. It is a generic you referring to all people 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Mr Guitar]

12 hours ago, Habitat said:

That is the bet that you have made. Who can say how that gamble turns out. If it does become a bet, you didn't think was a bet, but a certainty.

I'm sure enough that I'm willing to take that chance - you just have to be aware of the odds. I just don't believe that, just because I was not doused in a pool of water at the local baptist church, that I'm going to burn in fire and brimstone - it just doesn't compute to me - it makes no sense. I firmly believe that conscience dies when the brain dies and there is nothing after that. I see NO evidence to the contrary. I don't think a person should lead his/her life always worrying about 'what if'. Whatever happens, happens and mankind has little (VERY little) to do with the outcome. The idea that the human animal is really something special in the overall scope of the universe is just wrong to me. We're an infinitesimal cog in a very large machine which will eventually wear out but I don't care because I won't be here.

[Habitat]

8 hours ago, Mr Guitar said:

I'm sure enough that I'm willing to take that chance - you just have to be aware of the odds. I just don't believe that, just because I was not doused in a pool of water at the local baptist church, that I'm going to burn in fire and brimstone - it just doesn't compute to me - it makes no sense. I firmly believe that conscience dies when the brain dies and there is nothing after that. I see NO evidence to the contrary. I don't think a person should lead his/her life always worrying about 'what if'. Whatever happens, happens and mankind has little (VERY little) to do with the outcome. The idea that the human animal is really something special in the overall scope of the universe is just wrong to me. We're an infinitesimal cog in a very large machine which will eventually wear out but I don't care because I won't be here.

I have seen evidence to the contrary. But I agree with you, that the rituals of religions in all likelihood, have no bearing on it. As I stated earlier, realism demands we make no assumptions about things we have no evidence, for, or against/

[jaylemurph]

On 8/31/2018 at 7:34 PM, Mr Guitar said:

I believe that non believers such as myself can lead an exemplary life without being saddled with the requirements of some fictitious set of rules written by a bunch of  near savages 2000+ years ago. What about those who don't have a lot of ambition or wealth and just want to live comfortably as they might see fit - everyone's idea of what it takes to be 'comfortable' is different - who sets the rules about how 'poor' is poor and how 'rich' is rich?. And nowadays, giving a large chunk of your wealth to charity just means that you're fattening the yearly bonus and paycheck of the CEO of the charity - think Goodwill and SPCA! I seriously doubt that most folks couldn't care less about anything but getting along from day to day the best way they can until they become worm food. You're born, you live, you die....end of story.

Inhabitants of the Roman Empire were scarcely savages. 

—Jaylemurph 

[Habitat]

The "savages" haven't gone away. Just a minor break-down in law and order, and they appear very rapidly.