Hijacking Jesus?

[Robert the Pilegrim]

RTP, I am not the only one who uses the term "Christ" in this way.

My question wasn't meant to be aggressive or accusatory, I apologize if it came across that way.

It has become a word that is used to describe God incarnate as man.

Okay, that clarifies things.
My previous post stands then as an adequite expression of my response to your post and to the original post.

I am speaking from a "removed" stance on this subject. Though I used to feel quite certain of the "many paths" idea, I am not committed to even one path, or one God, for that matter. I am an agnostic.

Would you care to share why?
(no pressure, I'm just curious)
Peace be with you,
Robert the Pilegrim

 

[Im_A]

There have been a number of human beings in the history of the world to have, through meditation, prayer, or other avenues, come to a realization of identity or union with God or the absolute. Only in Christianity has this realization been made out to be the sole possession of a particular human individual. In the following excerpt, Ken Wilber analyzes this development and describes it as a loss for all Christians.

What are your thoughts?

this part stood out to me.

every religion has it's pivatol person they follow their teachings of...maybe with exception of paganism. now sure other religions don't go as far as Christians do with their proclamation of their beloved teacher, but what's the difference between calling that person Lord and "God Incarnate", and living and doing works and believeing in their teachings? there must be a reason why all of us deists who are involved with a religion stick with primairly the teachings of just one individual.

 

[Wickwoman]

My question wasn't meant to be aggressive or accusatory, I apologize if it came across that way.

Okay, that clarifies things.
My previous post stands then as an adequite expression of my response to your post and to the original post.

Would you care to share why?
(no pressure, I'm just curious)
Peace be with you,
Robert the Pilegrim

Once I allowed a small seed of doubt which is natural for humans, only supressed by some religionists, I found that there was no real proof for my belief system, just my desire for it to be true. So, I am admittedly wanting there to be a god up there, generous and kind, loving and saving all humanity, that is just as unprovable as the idea that God is angry and intends to damn most of humanity for all eternity.

The benefit to having no beliefs or at least realizing upon what they are based, can be found in the following verse:

There is no other task but to know your own original face. This is called independence; the spirit is clear and free. If you say there is some particular doctrine or patriarchy, you'll be totally cheated. Just look into your heart; there is a transcendental clarity. Just have no greed and no dependency and you will immediately attain certainty. -Yen t'ou

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Once I allowed a small seed of doubt which is natural for humans, only supressed by some religionists, I found that there was no real proof for my belief system, just my desire for it to be true. So, I am admittedly wanting there to be a god up there, generous and kind, loving and saving all humanity, that is just as unprovable as the idea that God is angry and intends to damn most of humanity for all eternity.

Maybe when I have more time I will discuss the point..., in the meantime I can understand your POV.

The benefit to having no beliefs or at least realizing upon what they are based, can be found in the following verse:

Except that it denies the possibility that that little voice you hear, that feeling of having been listened to, is a real manifestation of the Creator.

Yes, there is faith involved, and acknowledging that is, IMO, a good thing.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Im_A]

Maybe when I have more time I will discuss the point..., in the meantime I can understand your POV.

Except that it denies the possibility that that little voice you hear, that feeling of having been listened to, is a real manifestation of the Creator.

Yes, there is faith involved, and acknowledging that is, IMO, a good thing.

Thanks for sharing.

maybe the little voice in your head is either divinely put in, or brought in from the upbringing. i'm wonder what that voice is when someone doesn't believe, and their little voice t hat is only natural, is telling them the opposite of Christians. i think it's too easy to just go and say, it's the devil, or it's God in either of the case. my little voice of eternal torment changed to universal reconciliation. my little voice went from the blades of grass is emperical evidence of a Divine Being, to now there is no such thing as scientific evidence for God. i guess that voice maturs, changes as well.

 

[PureX]

That "little voice" has a name ... it's called "intuition".

 

[Wickwoman]

RTP, it is in the deciding to whom that "little voice" belongs that we begin denying who it is or isn't. In leaving it open, undecided, we are able to let it be whatever it is. When we tell ourselves we know who it is, we also think we know who it isn't.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

RTP, it is in the deciding to whom that "little voice" belongs that we begin denying who it is or isn't. In leaving it open, undecided, we are able to let it be whatever it is.

Understood, don't necessarily agree , but understood. I was simply quibbling with your quote which denied the possibility that the ittle voice was from outside ourselves.

 

[Wickwoman]

O.K. Robert. I get you. But can I continue to quibble with you? Sorry. Just humor me.

The Atman is a Hindu terminology which I sometimes think of as a precurser to Buddhism, though it's not technically true, but the Buddha was probably a Hindu. But anyway, Atman is meant to mean something like "God in You," I think but it is also used interchangeable with Self. Which I believe makes Hindi a panENtheistic religion vs. Pantheist. In other words: God is both outside and inside creation. So, though the quote is Buddhist, it could have very well meant something similar to Atman, with regard to the phrase Original Face, which would technically mean something inside and outside of man.

Anyway, I respect your right to disagree. But feel very strongly that we give the author the benefit of the doubt. I also appreciate the polite tone of your posts.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

O.K. Robert. I get you. But can I continue to quibble with you? Sorry. Just humor me.

The Atman[snip]

Ah, interesting.

Anyway, I respect your right to disagree. But feel very strongly that we give the author the benefit of the doubt. I also appreciate the polite tone of your posts.

Thanks, I have enjoyed the exchange.
Robert