Oh thou CCNL

Have you ever been in love? I have been! I certainly have no photographs/recordings as evidence to prove HOW and WHY I felt that way about a particular man and not about the ? 3 billion other men.

Maybe you should spend a little time reading up the writings of Christian mystics. Restricting your reading to Crossan & Co is a bit too limited.

Happy New Year 2008! May the new year find you more open to new ideas and perceptions and more respectful of others who happen to believe in things you don't happen to understand.

Best wishes
Soja

Soja,

So you are saying you have seen "tinker bells" or demons during your higher level of consciousness? You know someone who has? You have photographs/recordings of said encounters?

Oh thou CCNL

There are more things in this world and beyond that your unenlightened mind is unable to grasp, at this point in time. Do respect the experiences of others who have been just as sincere in their search (if not more) of higher levels of consciousness and realities not immediately visible or tangible to the senses. Would you be annoyed if a blind man didn't understand your description of the rainbow? Neither am I suprised that everything you don't understand or have experienced seems like tinker bells to you. Blame your perception CCNL, not the genuine experience of others.

Merry Christmas to you once again!

Best wishes
Soja

Dear Bobby -

I had one more thought about what constitutes evidence.

The OT (Deut.) is very clear that the word of two or three eyewitnesses is enough evidence to start an investigation of a crime.

The problem with this is that two or three eyewitnesses' word is no guarantee that they are being truthful. In fact, it only insures that if somebody wants to wrongly accuse another of a crime, they need only get two or three people together who are willing to tell the same lie.

Case in point: the two false witnesses at Jesus' trial.

It follows that the bar is set pretty low when one considers what amounts to Biblical "evidence." It's not really the fault of the writers of the Bible. They had no concept of forensic evidence or the other tools modern science has developed to parse the truthfulness of evidence in question.

But we now live in a scientific age where forensic evidence trumps circumstantial and eyewitness evidence at every turn, no more so than one considers the big questions in life - like, does god exist?

I, for one, am glad for that.

Anonymous -

You ask a fair question, and one that could be more clearly explained by a fully enlightened practitioner of the 'subtle art' of meditation and illumination.

What we have is basically what they have told us in the aftermath of their long practice over many years (and to a greater or lesser degree, the word of all of the mystics through the ages).

These practices are aimed at breaking down all individual (ego) resistance to perceiving our own natural mind and fundamental nature - Buddhism has as it's goal the end of suffering through self-awareness of that nature, and the naturally arising empathy for all 'unenlightened' sentient beings that inevitabley results from this 'revelation'. But the mystery continues - I may have quoted Huang Po when he said that 'in reality, there are no Buddhas and no sentient beings to be saved'.

I do think you have to have some familiarization with the metaphysics of Buddhism and the concept of reincarnation - nothing is achieved in a single lifetime in this view.

When full enlightenment comes, one sees into one's own nature and the nature of all things. With all barriers finally broken down, pure awareness recognizes itself as the sole undivided reality residing in a transparent, ever-changing universe that is void of objective existence.

Perception occurs, and the phenomenal world arises - even in our present state, we can see very clearly that nothing exists but the present instant as it continues to pass into infinity.

We just don't think about the implications of this very obvious fact (we're also very aware of the fact that we only live for a few years, and for that reason many of our observations are ignored and go unnoticed - we cling to transient solutions, in my opinion).

In the same way, most quantum physicists don't think about the implications of their own discoveries regarding the tenuous nature of matter - it does not exist as we imagine it, and any quantum physicist will agree with this notion - and then go to lunch.

Time is an illusion, and despite all of our after-the-fact evidence, there is in reality no past or future (since neither can coexist with the ever-present instant). Therefore, Emptiness with the appearance of infinite activity is also the true nature of all existence. The masters are very clear however - Reality is beyond words, descriptions, and definitions and these are all relative terms.

As the realized masters say, until you can clearly observe Samsara (our phenomenal universe) and Nirvana as mutually co-existing for all time, you have not seen reality as it truly is.

This is my very unenlightened understanding -

Soja,

In many respects in all comes down to "pretty, wingie, talking, flying, fictional thingies". Stop and think how many religions are dependent on these "tinker bells".

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerer" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinker bells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

Excuse me, my last comment should have been addressed to Terry, not Soja.

Teery--Are you suggesting that there is no objective truth or falsehood, that all is equally ´good´ and equally ´real´?

Soja --Are you suggesting that there is no objective truth or falsehood, that all is equally ´good´and equally ´real´?

Soja -

Thanks for your response and excellent grasp of
other religions. Would that other Christians were so well educated with regard to other metaphysical points of view - I'm afraid that applies to the Pope himself, who at one point in his earlier career referred to Buddhism as
'mental masturbation'. Of course he believes in the ultimate superiority of Catholicism, otherwise how could he be the Pope??

Christianity would do well to re-gain it's ecumenical spirit. Christians believe in one God and the divinity of Jesus, whereas other religions may prefer to believe in one Reality while declining to believe in avatars and other divine humans. Other folks survive just fine without any metaphysical or religious orientation whatsoever.

You can argue all day long about who's right and who's wrong, but at the end of the day you have to sleep in your own bed and be comforted by your own beliefs.

Contemporary Dzogchen master Rinpoche Norbu says this - 'There is no concept that can define the condition of 'what is', but vision nevertheless manifests; all is good'.

Best wishes in the coming year!

Moderate --That was pretty funny...yet eerily on the mark with how some of these christianity bashers reason. I couldn't have made the point better.

I wonder to what extent they are even aware of it.

CCNL

So a rehash of NT, NT which is the closest account we have from people who knew Jesus in His lifetime, is NOT good enough? Scholarly work, which could even be a clever stretch of the imagination, is supposedly better?

You seem to be a non-believer in all religions. Are you an atheist, agnostic or what? What point might you then be trying to make by saying that the founders of all religions were illerate...? That exposes your ignorance about spiritual matters in general. By your definition, does someone with a PhD from Harvard Divinity School become the most spiritual person? Most of the spiritual greats of Hinduism and Buddhism have no formal education at all and scholars are hard pressed to understand the spiritual depth and wisdom contained in their teachings.

Pope Benedict wanted Christians to get back to basics. He has done a great job of it in his book. We live in an age where there seems to be as many denominations are there are number of churches, so I am glad that Pope Benedict decided to find common ground for all Christians to be united. We need it so desperately these days, even before we think in terms of inter-religious dialogue. First must come unity in spirit among Christians of all denominations based on the basics of our Christian faith.

Best wishes
Soja

Dear Terry

Buddhism as it evolved in Tibet, Sri Lanka and other Far Eastern countries have their own regional flavours and many other beliefs and rituals were integrated into them. Similarly Chan in China which became Zen in Japan are all locally modified forms of Buddhism.

In Zen (whether the Chinese or Japanese version) one learns more about the teachings of the masters of their particular lineage than the teachings of Buddha himself, although of course reference is made to the teachings of Buddha.

After his englightenment, Buddha spent 40-45 years walking up and down India with a band of followers teaching Buddhism. Ashoka, the Indian Emperor, after his conversion to Buddhism, sent out Buddhist monks as far wide as he could. That is how Buddhism spread to the Far East. (Most of the large Buddhist community in India was reconverted to Hinduism in the 7/8th century by the work of Shankaracharya, originally a Nambudiri Brahmin from Kerala, who in his turn walked the length and breadth of India preaching a kind of Hinduism that integrated Buddhist thought, arriving at it through his own spiritual work and not learning from any Buddhist.) The original Buddhist teachings are based on Buddha's teachings, not his silence. It is true that sometimes Buddha chose to remain silent as a way of communicating some truth, but that should not be interpreted as him teaching ONLY through silence.

Best wishes
Soja
--------------

Soja,

B16's book is nothing more than a rehash of the NT. A better book with Catholic Church validation is Father Raymond Brown's book, An Introduction to the New Testament. He also has a larger section of commentary about groups like the Jesus Seminarians.

As noted by many on these threads, we believed the earth was flat for over a 1000 years. Ditto for believing Earth was the center of the universe. And some of us believed Catholic priests could no wrong.

And then there are those "pretty, wingie, talking, flying, fictional thingies" and their ugly counterparts aka "the demons of the demented".

Moderate,

References????? And a list of your "scriptural scholars???

Dear Lepidopteryx

Thank you for your wishes. I'm so touched that you would raise a cup to me at your celebration of Solistice! Of course I know that pagans gave some really beautiful customs to Christianity, or rather Christians in Europe adopted many beautiful pagan customs and integrated Christian festivals to pagan ones adapting the symbolic meaning. Christmas being celebrated just after the longest night is one of them, the symbolism being that Jesus came as the light in the darkest night of winter.

Best wishes
Soja

CCNL

Scholarship can be carried to any extreme you know. You quote a handful of authors over and over again to make your point, forgetting Christianity is two thousand years old and there are literally thousands and thousands of priests and scholars who have spent whole lifetimes on reading, praying and writing and have had different things to say.

Pope Benedict wrote in the introduction to his book, 'Jesus of Narareth' that he wrote the book precisely to clear some of the confusion that has arisen due to the kind of scholarship that you mention.

Best wishes
Soja

Dear Concerned Christian Now Liberated:

When Mary and Joseph fled into Egypt they went to Alexandria, which had a large and sophisticated Jewish community, where there was construction boom and carpenters could find work.

Jesus read the scriptures there, and encountered Jewish Rabbis and Hellenistic philosophers. He was a young genius and learned his lessons well. Later, he returned to teach with authority.

We took a vote among a community of scriptural scholars. So we know this to be true.

Other anonymous --Tony Blair is not the only convert to have been wrong about many things.

Consider Paul of Tarsus' conversion. He was obsessed with killing Christians.

Anonymous -- thanks for posting that. I'm happy to see these kinds of Anglicans find another church. As the article states: "In recent years a growing number of Anglicans, opposed to the ordination of women and gay bishops, have asked to convert to Catholicism."

Now that Tony Blair has converted will anyone
follow?? He was wrong about so many things -

E Favorite: Perhaps that is why Anglicans are converting to Catholicsm.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=11a04fce-9757-463d-b965-936ff16534ca&k=41623

Soya -

In my comment I was referring to Huang Po's elucadation of (6th patriarch) Hui-neng's comments on The One Mind - 'all Buddhas and all ordinary (sentient) beings are only The Mind itself, and nothing whatsoever exists objectively apart from this Mind'. (the Mind being merely a convention referring to the One Substance which neither speaks nor hears).

'From the first, nothing is' sums up Hui-neng's point of view. In a similar manner, the Buddha is said to sum up the mysterious essence of Buddhism in his comment,' I truly gained nothing from Complete and Unexcelled Enlightenment'.

As to Enlightenment itself, Bodhidharma (the first Patriarch of Zen) is quoted, 'The moment of realizing the unity of Mind and the 'substance' which constitutes reality may truly be said to
baffle description'.......

Huang Po further summerizes that although the Buddha preached continuously for 50 years, not a single word was spoken.

The Tang Dynasty Zen (chan) masters were quite amazing and may represent the zenith of Chinese Zen in the 8th and 9th centuries - they led the way to the development of the Rinzai (sudden enlightenment) and Soto (gradual enlightenment through sitting or zazen) schools of Zen.

Was that more than anybody wanted to know about Zen??

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL!!

This just in: the Archbishop of Canterbury said on the BBC yesterday that the three Kings are legend, that stars “don't behave” the way the star of Bethlehem supposedly did and that you don't have to believe in the virgin birth to sign up with the anglican church. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3076008.ece

This info is not news to anyone with seminary training, but I may come as a surprise to the people in the pews.

Here's another link to a story in the Australian press: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/three-wise-men-just-legend-archbishop/2007/12/20/1197740452480.html

Concerned:

Jesus demonstrated having read the scriptures in more than one place (e.g. regarding divorce, David eating sanctified bread, etc.)

Yet, even if it had been in only 1 place, that would be sufficient. There is an infinite difference between 0 and 1.

Concerned:

Jesus demnstrated having read the scriptures in more than one place (e.g. regarding divorce, David eating sanctified bread, etc.)

Yet, even if it had been in only 1 place, that would be sufficient. There is an infinite difference between 0 and 1.

Soya,

I did not say Buddha was illiterate. As per Terry's comments above, however, "As vast as the sutras may be, we can be certain the Buddha never wrote a single word. In truth, the Buddha never spoke a single word either (Hui-neng, 8th century CE)."

With respect to the illiteracy of Mohammed, see the books and studies of Karen Armstrong one of the contemporary experts about Mo.

With respect to the illiteracy of Jesus, see any book or on-line encyclopedia written by a contemporary NT exegete on the historical Jesus. Examples:See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

Also, there is only one place in the NT that suggests Jesus could read i.e. Luke 4:16. This passage is not attested to in any other NT passage or in any other related document making it a later addition or poor translation as per most NT scholars' analyses.

See also Professor Crossan and Professor Reed's book, Excavating Jesus, p. 30.

See also Professor Bruce Chilton's commentary in his book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography, pp 99-101- An excerpt:

"What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate mamzer in his claim to be the Lord's anointed".

It is very unfortunate that Jesus was illiterate for it resulted in many gospels and epistles being written years after his death by non-witnesses. This resulted in significant differences in said gospels and epistles and with many embellishments to raise Jesus to the level of a deity to compete with the Roman gods and emperors.

See also Raymond Brown's 878 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Luke 4:16 note on p. 237) for an exhaustive review of the true writers of the gospels and epistles.

Paganplace --

I believe that all touches the spiritual plane, whether one, or any entity, is aware of it or not. God is spiritual so it is impossible for anything to not be in some way spiritual. I sort of look at it like Teilhard de Chardin, a pan-en-theist (not a pantheist). All that is created is a small circle within God, the larger circle, Being Itself. Some non monotheistic religions (i.e. buddhism, hinduism) believe that one can, by one's efforts, attain an enlightened state, or even God-consciousness, consciousness of being God. I believe that is a partial delusion, resulting when a person confuses his own soul, full of God, with God. Christians and monotheistic religions mark a distinction between one's soul and God. The former is contingent on the latter, the former created, ther latter not.

The Christian accepts God's preeminence, and that 'salvation', that is, living in the presence of God, is the result of God's initiative with us (grace), and our acceptance (or rejection) of it. Nothing can happen unless God initiates.

Buddhist or Hindu experience involves, in my view, an acceptance of God's grace, yet they are under the (vain) delusion that it is due to personal effort. For the Christian, personal virtuous effort is evidence that one is in God's grace, not the price one pays to attain it. No price would be high enough.

I believe I've addressed your main concern, the others were offshoots. I hope I have been sufficiently clear.

Soja,

My sarong is not in a twist over Christians using Pagan symbology, nor do I get offended when people wish me Merry Christmas. What pisses me off is when certain obnoxious groups of Christians start sccreaming that they are being persecuted and marginalized when Pagans claim those same elements, or when other groups have the gall to celebrate holy days in December. I know those folks don't represent all Christians, but they are the ones that cause so much trouble for non-Christians.

A Merry Christmas to you and yours, and I will lift a cup in your honor when I attend a Solstice service tonight.

Dear LEPIDOPTERYX

O please don't get your sarong into a twist about something so silly! Christmas is a ?worldwide holiday, and in the US where the majority are Christians, you should not be offended that everybody doesn't remember you are a pagan who takes offence at being mistaken for a Christian. Forgive your enemies, I say! ;)

About the social customs associated with Christmas, I can assure you that each country has evolved its own variety. Don't take offence at that. My parents never kissed under the tree (I have never seen them kiss in public anyway); we didn't even have a Christmas tree in the first place, (until we decided to imitate the Anglo-Indians, putting cotton to remind us of snow in England!). The Germans, Swiss and Austrians have customs that are somewhat different from the Anglo-Saxon ones. So why the fuss about nothing, about what people do to have a good time? Relax and untwist your sarong (which by the way is worn only by men in my native state of Kerala, India and NOT by women)!

Merry ?Solistace to you!

Best wishes
Soja

CCNL

I can't help noticing that you go on and on about the illiteracy (?sp) of Buddha, Jesus and Mohammad.

Buddha was a prince. He left home only after he was married and had a child. So it is hardly possible that he was illiterate. Buddha studied under many Hindu sannyasis before he decided to set out on his own in search of liberation. He was enlightened only after several years of intense meditation. If you were to read how Hindu rishis came to their spiritual experience you would know that they also spent many years in solitary meditation. There is even a legend about a rishi who meditated unbroken (in complete stillness of body)for so long that honey bees treated him like a tree and went about their business of building a hive!

In Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism the work towards salvation is very hard, involving several lifetimes. Self-purification must be completed first (that is one must become pure like God) through hard work before God-realisation can occur. Buddhists later began to believe in grace that is transmitted by Bodhisattvas, the merit of whose spiritual work is sometimes passed on to their followers. When one comes to think of it, that is the essence of Christianity, the grace which comes through Jesus Christ as the result of His work.

There seem to be those who claim that Buddism is not a religion. I wonder why. Ever heard of atheists believing in reincarnation etc? A belief in reincarnation is integral to Buddhism, so how it possibly be not a religion? Buddha explained God in negative terms, that is all. His description of God is not foreign to Hindus or mystics of all religions, who claim that God is beyond any image that a human being could conceive. Does any particular image appear when one thinks of YHWH? God the Father is just a way of describing God in way that a human being finds easy to understand.

Jesus was considered a Rabbi by the Jews. He could not have taught in the synagogues as He did, with the permission of the Pharisees of His day without being familiar with Jewish Scripture. Unless one is prepared to say that it was normal custom for Jewish Rabbis to be illiterate, I don't know how one comes to the automatic conclusion that Jesus must have been illiterate.

Similarly Mohammad was not born poor, even if he was not born rich. He was a merchant who travelled frequently. He attracted the attention of his boss, a woman who would propose marriage to him. It is hardly possible for Mohammad to have been completely illerate and a successful merchant at the same time. It is quite possible that he did not know Hebrew to read Jewish Scripture by himself, nor the translation of the Coptic Bible at the time. It is clear that he must have learnt about Judaism from the many Arab Jews he had dealings with, and Christianity from Christians he associated with. It is likely that he knew more Jews than Christians. But one cannot jump into the conclusion that he was illiterate for that reason.

Merry Christmas to you and to all who visit this page! To those who take offence at being wished Merry Christmas - Merry Whatever! Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year 2008! (Sorry the New Year is according to the Christian calendar!)

Best wishes
Soja

Dear OKDW -

Sorry to see you've fled the field.

You're really hung up on this religious holiday thing, aren't you? I wonder, do you rail at people who say "Happy Halloween" if they don't believe in its religious underpinnings (All Hallows Eve)? How about those who celebrate Valentine's Day shorn of its Saint? What of corporate managers who celebrate Labor Day?

Seems to me that you're going out of your way to find offense.

Mr Mark,

Hate to put a plug in your drain, but I dont observe Easter, either.

This is applicable to my point. You presume things about people as well as presume there is not a creator God. Guess what? Presumptions can put mud on your face.

BTW..Jesus gave instruction on new symbols for the the Passover. 'Easter' was injected in scripture where the greek 'pascha' had been. Just FYI. All part of the religious deceit on this world that scripture foretold...whether any wish to admit it or not. Its there.

Easter is religious error. Christmas is religious error. Sunday keeping is religious error.

>>That IS the fuller view of the logic behind your rant, isn't it?

No, it is not. To tie in names of days of the week in comparison with observances that are not scripturally backed is a feeble attempt at nothing and does not apply to the discourse here on religious observance at all. Grade schoolers know that every day of the week is not a religious observance. FYI..there were original days of the week long before the Romans...we just adopted there names and calendar. Another part of the grand scheme of things...but we'll save that one for later.

Perhaps you can go to your holiday parties and debate with individuals on 1) Why they believe in Jesus or 2) how intelligent you all are to not believe in Jesus, yet you will enjoy a festivity with His name on it.

All the best, and so long.

Dear OKDW -

May I ask you a question? What greeting do you offer to your fellow Xians on Easter Sunday? Would it happen to be, "Happy Easter?"

I ask because the word "Easter" is derived from the old Anglo-Saxon names for the pagan Goddess of the Dawn, ie: Ēaster, Ēastre, or Ēostre. In German, that goddess' name was Ostara. The word "Easter" has NOTHING at all to do with Jesus, Christ, crucifixions, resurrections etc. Yet this now-very-Christian holiday draws its very name from a pagan goddess.

It's the equivalent of Christmas being re-named Saturnmas.

I think that the answer for why you go about saying Happy Easter while I go about saying Merry Christmas has to do with tradition and popular convention and has nothing to do with the etymology of the respective words. The difference between us is that I would never make a mountain out of a molehill by accusing you of uttering blasphemy against your Xian god when you speak the word "Easter" and honor the memory of a pagan goddess.

Of course, the simple response to your not-well-argued point is that Christmas is just one of the many words we use in our modern day that find their base in the names of imaginary gods. Following your logic, I should refused to use the imaginary-god-derived names we have for the days of the week and the months of the year. That IS the fuller view of the logic behind your rant, isn't it?

CCNL - you have a point. As vast as the sutras may be, we can be certain the Buddha never wrote a single word. In truth, the Buddha never spoke a single word either (Hui-neng, 8th century CE).

Do not, under any circumstances, vote for Romney.

Happy meditations in the coming year and may we all see more humor in 2008!!

" Anonymous:

"Paganplace -- Therefore your spirituality hinges on your world view and not vice versa. That is precisely where Catholics and persons like you differ."

In that you insist no one else's worldview has anything to do with Spirit, a priori, if they don't profess Christianity?

You might well think that. Doesn't make it so.

"For Catholics who truly believe, it all starts with revelation, with an opening of the heart, of the eyes, of the ears, to the living Christ who pours consolation and life upon our weary souls."

For Catholics, it seems to mean beating yourself up, or submitting to beatings, until you think someone else's 'revelation' overrides your own experience, cause they *beat into you* the idea that your own experience has nothing sacred or spiritual to it.

I say, no. Ain't so.

"Faith, as philosopher-methodologist Bernard Lonergan SJ expresses in one of his works, is what happens after one experiences God´s love, not vice versa."

If that's so, I'm afraid you're just gonna have to accept that my *faith* has nothing to do with your *religion.*

Happy holidays.

Terry,

Actually when using names like Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed et al, we should always note the critical importance of the scribes of the time period. I doubt there is enough history to determine if Buddha was literate but both Jesus and Mohammed were both illiterate.

What we have then are the musings of the scribes of said historical figures. As noted by many contemporary NT exegetes, the historical Jesus can be found in the difference in the stories related by the scribes of Jesus i.e. Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, James and another John. Comparing these stories (attestations) and time of publication (stratums) leads to the conclusion that only 30% of the sayings and ways of Jesus in the NT were historical. And what is left was probably borrowed by Jesus from the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

Unfortunately the same historical analyses of the koran has not been done because of the punishment of those who dare question the authenticity of the ways and sayings of the warmongering and hallucinating Mohammed and his scribes.

Considering the same holds true for the Jewish scribes who filled the OT with myths and significant embellishments, one can only conclude that Buddha's scribes were more important than Buddha himself.

>>Why would I believe "what the Bible has to say"

>>And, Merry Christmas!

Just curious, Mr. Mark...why do you celebrate Christmas...or more specifically, why do celebrate something with Christs name on it, yet you dont believe in Him?

I also wonder if it would bother you to tell people you dont celebrate Christmas because you wouldn't be 'included', or you would feel 'left out' or perhaps others would 'belittle' or 'mock' you and make an example of you. Sort of like...if I dont join in the crowd...wow, Ill look different. Inquiring minds would really like to know your view on this very interesting dichotomy.

Personally, I see someone as yourself as the one who very confused or delusional. You vehemently cast down in your own way any person who even hints of belief in Jesus Christ, yet out of your own mouth you utter a greeting with the name of Christ as a part of it. Some go so far as to say that doing so is, well, basically ...hypocracy.

And now, a little test:

Secular holiday + pagan origin + atheists joining in something with Christ's name on it + too many other aspects of mankinds devices to name here = _________________ (fill in the blank)

You may begin testing. I will grade what you fill in later.

Ah, but a confused and deceived world we live in, dont we?

And by the way, I cannot return your greeting. I dont celebrate the holiday.

But, I wish you well.

CCNL - it's always the message that matters, whether or not you choose to give credit to the messenger. As for myself, having been raised a Catholic, I never found satisfactory answers to my particular (metaphysical) questions. At the age of 17 I was done with it. About 7 years later I ran across Zen Buddhism and have been hooked on Buddhism and the study of religion ever since - even returning for a second look at esoteric Christianity and Gnosticism.

The Buddha was of course a Hindu steeped in Vedanta philosophy before he made his departure as a wandering mendicant....as you point out, the caste system may have been a motivating factor. The heart of Vedanta is not so very different from Buddhism, but many commentators have further elucidated both the similarities and differences over the centuries.

Fantasic stories abound and the man who was Gautama has been revered for his spiritual discoveries, but the man has never been mistaken for the truth behind his message by practitioners of Buddhism - such is not the case with the man Jesus, and Christianity. A certain Zen master advised his followers to 'kill the Buddha if you should meet him on the road' - clearly a warning against being distracted by a revered personality.

The Buddha shared a similar historical time frame with Pythagorus, Zoroaster, Confucious, Lao Tzu and Patanjali (the early master of yoga) - interesting times.

Christ = Buddha ..... role models and figureheads for Perfect Wisdom if you follow the esoteric practices & tradition in both religions.

Humans capable of altered states of consciousness
(true spirituality) and transpersonal experiences (mystics) surely have been around for a very long time. Shamanism preceeded all forms of organized religion by many thousands of years (perhaps back to Neanderthal) and shamans continue putting themselves in trance states even today. Are they having mystical experiences?? Mysticism is too broad a topic for this discussion but worth exploring by all means!

Even though we all love celebrities, admittely
no human is more divine than the next.

Occasionally Christian mystics ran afoul of the Church if their 'experiences' didn't match with & support prevailing Church doctrine including confirming the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Trinity.

The 14th century mystic priest/monk Meister Eckert is one such well documented example, and both St. Francis of Assisi and later, St. Theresa of Avila were politicized figures that reportedly walked a fine line when commenting on their own mystical experiences - a wrong comment could get you burned at the stake quite easily, as it did Giordano Bruno, also a Catholic priest and
not far removed in time from both Theresa and her fellow mystic St. John of the Cross.

Now we begin to see that it's hard to honor our ancients and their various roles in our evolving spirituality without actually naming names, but that's hominid history for you.

Dear AYK -

I use the word "deluded" purposefully. To delude means, "to mislead the mind or judgment of ." That misleading need not be intentional, it just needs to exist.

Depending on where one was standing, one could be deluded into believing that Ransom Stoddard shot Liberty Valance when, in fact, Valance was shot by Tom Doniphon. Certainly, Stoddard believed that he was The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, as did the whole town.

Same with belief in the supernatural. Ancient man didn't set out to intentionally delude himself into believing in gods, he just misinterpreted the world around him. The very stars and the sky misled his mind into arriving at a fallacious judgement.

I'll stick by my use of the word "deluded."

"At one point in man's history, everyone believed the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. At one point, everyone on earth was deluded in their belief that the sun orbited the earth, not the other way 'round. If you can agree that people were deluded about such things for "millenia upon millenia," then why can't you imagine that the same is true of belief in the supernatural?"

Mr Mark,

I agree completely with this.

Only a hundred years ago, the general public was largely unaware of the existence of germs. They believed that disease rose from miasmas. Only a few hundered years ago people believed in witches. Only 500 years ago many people believed that tomatoes were poisonous (the acidic tomatoes leeched the lead from their pewter cookware).

I don't think these people were deluded (I also don't think you were saying that), but I won't pretend that they were CORRECT either!

OKDW's post is trite.

"This is a statement with 2 stories to it. Yes, I would have to concur...billions on this planet are deluded. The bible, though, uses the word deceived. Delusion, deceit has become and is mans realm. He does a good job at it...even at this time of year."

Paragraph 1: Yes billions of people are deluded, but when I use the same reasoning I am not. I am the one who is correct.

Reasoning: The Bible is true. I know it is true because IT says it is true.

"But the other story is the uncanny presumption this person applies to billions of people - that billions, for millenia upon millenia, have been deluded about their personal beliefs that there is a God? Not only uncanny, or weird, but a bit presumptuous."

Paragraph 2: Though done through implication, arguing tradition as proof of something is a fallacy. Arguing that something is true because any number of people believe it is also a fallacy. The total number of people that could simultaneously be wrong about something is the number of the total world population at the time. Even if EVERYone agrees on something, it is no guarantee that EVERYone is not wrong.

Dear OKDW -

Your post has the effect of giving the word "delusion" a bad name.

At one point in man's history, everyone believed the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. At one point, everyone on earth was deluded in their belief that the sun orbited the earth, not the other way 'round. If you can agree that people were deluded about such things for "millenia upon millenia," then why can't you imagine that the same is true of belief in the supernatural?

In fact, is not the pomposity and presumption on YOUR side of the ledger? After all, it takes a high level of presumption (defended from attack by the high dungeon of all-too-human pomposity) to believe that man's corporate knowledge set of the world and the cosmos has increased over the centuries on just about everything imaginable...EXCEPT when it comes to belief in the existence of supernatural beings, where the knowledge set reached its absolute apex a few thousand years ago.

You write:

"Yes, I would have to concur...billions on this planet are deluded. The bible, though, uses the word deceived."

You are trying to use the argument from authority to make your point, that authority being the Bible. Yet 2/3's of the world's population does NOT believe in what the Bible has to say, so what kind of authority is that? On the other hand, if you wish to argue from the minority position of the one having "real" knowledge, then I can go you one better there as well by citing the simple fact that atheists are out-numbered by Xians by 2 to 1. For our minority, what "the Bible says" carries less truth than what the phonebook says.

Why would I believe "what the Bible has to say" on who's deceived and deluded when the Bible gets it so wrong on so many other things - simple-to-understand-with-man's-increasing-knowledge-set things! - it "explains" about our universe?

Thanks for the chat.

And, Merry Christmas!

>>Well, there you have it. Yes - you ARE deluded, as are billions of others on this planet.

This is a statement with 2 stories to it. Yes, I would have to concur...billions on this planet are deluded. The bible, though, uses the word deceived. Delusion, deceit has become and is mans realm. He does a good job at it...even at this time of year.

But the other story is the uncanny presumption this person applies to billions of people - that billions, for millenia upon millenia, have been deluded about their personal beliefs that there is a God? Not only uncanny, or weird, but a bit presumptuous.

I take that back.....highly presumptuous, and pompous, I might add.

Terry,

You noted: "The Buddha allowed that with correct practice, the individual could at some point in their 'individual' existence (perhaps many lifetimes in the making) see all of this clearly for themselves. This moment of clarity in self-awareness is called Enlightenment - and known by many other names. This is the transformative moment when perception changes forever - this is the Nirvana moment - and then life goes on. There is no nihilism here whatsoever."

Historically there is a problem with "The Buddha" and what are historically his comments.

"Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

"Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life."

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line question: What did Buddha borrow/plagiarize from other ancient "mystics"? We probably will never know?

So honor our ancients giving credit to the continuing evolution of the "good side" of hominids and not its specific representatives like Moses, Buddha, Jesus et al and their scribes.

Seeing as how Buddhism is kind of under discussion in a few of these posts I will weigh in for a moment - in my great fondness and respect for this view.

While Buddhism does not support the concept of a personal creator God as the origin of all things, it's philosophy is not materialistic in any sense.

For example - Buddhism does not support the idea of a 'beginning of the universe' but rather a perpetually recycling universe that has always existed in one form or another (therefore no Creator is needed). This eternal recreative process may even include dieties and other planes and dimensions of existence, but none are eternal and ever-lasting.

All things in existence are inter-dependent, co-existing and mutually determinent - and ever-changing. The phenomenal world is apparently real, but is not absolutely real in the sense of objects existing autonomously as individual entities (all things are mutually coexisting).

What allows this all to happen?? Emptiness, the ultimate nature of all existence and all things.
What allows perception?? Self-existing Pure Awareness as forever coupled with Emptiness causes the entire phantasmagoria of the apparent universe to arise. We are both Emptiness and Pure Awareness ourselves - this is our true nature (individual consciousness is a 'lower' manifestation of pure awareness as complicated by ego, self-identity, and self-reflective thought processes). We all believe we are individual, self-existing entities and act accordingly.

In recent years there have been any number of interesting discussions between quantum physicists and practising Buddhist philosophers as to the similaties and differences in these cosmologies and theoretical paradigms. There are many points of commonality.

The Buddha allowed that with correct practice, the individual could at some point in their 'individual' existence (perhaps many lifetimes in the making) see all of this clearly for themselves. This moment of clarity in self-awareness is called Enlightenment - and known by many other names. This is the transformative moment when perception changes forever - this is the Nirvana moment - and then life goes on. There is no nihilism here whatsoever.

I'm hoping this is an accurate summation of the core of Buddhism, but if others want to add or subtract, please do so!!

Angela B,

Au contraire!!! K-12 Catholic schools with the best and the brightest of the Franciscan Order as teachers.

And the real Catholicism/Christianity as being taught in graduate theology courses at many large Catholic universities:

excerpts:

"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions.

Christ 's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."

Amazing how this agrees with Professor Crossan and the Jesus Seminarian's conclusions based on attestations and stratums. e.g. Professor Crossan's book The Historical Jesus.

http://books.google.com/books?id=AsPHR4-7Wc8C&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=%22place+of+life%22+%22the+historical+jesus%22+crossan&source=web&ots=8mVx_1M6g4&sig=XFqT8S1coAT18xq8Qwt1vMcMjW0

Shemhazai,

You noted:

" - First of all, there is no historical evidence, beyond the four gospells, that Jesus was ever born, or lived, so I'm thinking that evidence of his death/whatever happened afterwards isn't going to be forthcoming. "

Is countered with:

Besides the Josephus reference (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html)and the Tacitus reference (see below), NT exegetes use the attestations to Jesus' crucifixion as proof he existed.

"Therefore to scotch the rumour, Nero substitured as culprits and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius by sentence of the procuator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out again in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find vogue." (Tacitus, Annals 15:44; Moore & Jackson 4.282-283)

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style."

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus

And

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be. The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened. While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

I wrote:

"It comes down to your beliefs which are pure beliefs, ie: beliefs held in absence and defiance of evidence"

Bobby replies:

"Nonsense. I have plenty of evidence left and right.(I have a memory of discussing them at a previous WaPo post with yourself present)."

Now I understand completely that may not consider that evidence as evidence but for honesty's sake, you must change your statement to : Christian belief due to evidence that they only see."

No, not really. If one "must" be "honest," then the most-honest response to your position is that you hold the conceit that you are allowed to redefine what words like "evidence" mean to support your position. Evidence is "1 a: an outwar