Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?

[ToHoldNothing]

No I don't miss that point of your criticism at all. Why would you think that?

Instead, I am addressing an apparent confusion on your part, first about what EL is. And then from there it will give us a basis for launching off about immortality, which C does indeed leave vague.

I'm not sure how to take your comment here about C's being reborn. That is an eastern term, whereas C talks about a new birth. Note also the Bible speaks not of the second man Adam, but of the last man Adam.

All of this will be vague by necessity, since it is only known by experience. And the experience is that we attach ourselves to G-d, and detach from ourself. So your criticism is both erroneous, and revealing as to where that error lies.

Another way of putting this is to go back to the third arm analogy; let's refine that a bit and point out the third arm is not us at all, but the arm of the Lord, mighty to Save. Again quoting the Baptizer,"we must decrease, and He must increase."

You miss the point, it would seem, in that you still seem to think attachment is a good thing, when you keep missing that point and saying that we get a new self that we, I believe you said, are attached to
Rebirth is not strictly an eastern term except as you understand it in the sense of rebirth resulting from literal death. Christians would speak of being born again, which is rebirth in an extended idea of the prefix re along with the word birth
Attachment to one thing does not abdicate you of the problem of attachment, which you have failed to respond to
The third arm analogy doesn’t work well with your alteration, since it would be an arm of another entity, or at least with another mind behind it

I never conflated these C ideas you decry w/ Buddhism. I said certain things you put forward "prepare people for C."

One could say certain things in Christianity prepare you for Buddhism, so your point is moot unless you could demonstrate that Christianity is more consistent or reasonable in some way than Buddhism

That is the opposite of theosis. Again you're proving my point that dualism has no part in C.

To say dualism has no part in Christianity is to conflate Christian thought with monism or nondualism, both of which don’t have prominence in Christian philosophy. There are different kinds of dualism, many of which we haven’t even touched on

This is the oversimplification I have already decried, comparing the two to conscious and sub-conscious. That simply doesn't line up to C.

Then the psychological parallels seem to fall apart and your terms are once again left in vagueness

1) Your qualms w/ pantheism open a whole can of worms. Why do you conflate the 2?

Because tapping into God directly implies that God is something we have direct access to, like a substance

2) "doesn't render the idea terrible to imagine." IOW, you want me to put lace around the Bible to make it more palatable for you? Sorry, you've got the wrong guy for that.

I said no such thing. You haven’t communicated an idea adequately anyway. But if you do and I still happen to reject it, that can be argued to be a problem with me from your perspective. Thing is, we haven’t gotten there quite yet

You should be able to recognize this as unfounded knee-jerk reaction. Nowhere have I even hinted at any such thing as "the only way to change." And I'm not the one who uses undefined jargon.

You use Eternal Life, god, soul, spirit and the like as if they’re understood by everyone, when clearly they’re not

I'm not sure why you would bring that into this thread, but this is 100% FALSE, and only represents your own lack of understanding of the subject matter.

More unjustified claims with no support to back them up. If I’m wrong about the Trinity, then explain it without dodging the issues that critics bring up

C doesn't distinguish between these, nor does it use the terms attachment or clinging. Particular experiences are put forward as the cornerstone of the Judeo-Christian heritage, vis Abraham.

Just because it doesn’t use the terms doesn’t mean its tenets don’t conform to the definitions of those ideas that can be presented.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I don't see it as a problem, just the way things are.

The way things are would be so regardless of our beliefs. I may have misspoke in terms of the problem I meant. The problem I meant was that you think the self survives.

I suspect you and I are not talking about the same thing when we refer to free will. I see free will as the ability to chose to act in behalf of another or to be able to chose to not act. What do you see as free will?

The ability to choose between various alternatives. This would have nothing to do with whether you actually affect your destiny in the afterlife, if there is one.

I don't agree. A belief in an afterlife does not make me less able to enjoy this life than to not believe in an afterlife. In fact in some ways a belief in an afterlife makes this life more pleasant.

Comfortable and pleasant are not the same thing. One can have a pampered life and have a pleasant life that is also comfortable, but one can have an average life and have a pleasant life that is not always comfortable. Which do you think leads to more understanding?
Seems to me if you believe in an afterlife, one has to ask why even care about this life? You could be like the man Plato told about the afterlife and then threw himself against a wall to kill himself.

But if I do not survive, the memories of others is meaningless to me after I die. Right?

Only if you think the memories of others are only meaningful if you can experience them. But you can’t do that when you’re alive. People’s memories are personal by nature. You only experience them as they interact with you, so of course they are pointless when you cease to experience anything.

Not surviving individually is not surviving period, as far as I can tell. You can never seem to convey to me what does in fact survive.

Memories that others have of you. This is a structured idea we have of people even after they die, as well as when they are alive. I remember my parents and I will remember their selves after they die, to use an example

No it is not. The survival of my neighbor is no more meaningful than the survival of my cat if I am gone.

It is to the survival of their memories of your self as they remember it

I quoted it above. You said:"they agree that our self is annihilated."

Individual self being annihilated or dissolved does not preclude that the self that others remember is not gone. You either dismiss this distinction or forget that I brought it up altogether

The word self limits to our individual experience.

I contend that it does not. Self is a concept we have both of ourself and of others.

I don't give it the name self. You do; but then you admit it is a state of self being annihillated.

I said it was the personal self being annihilated/dissolved (Technically, they ARE NOT the same, regardless of your insistence to the contrary) I never said that others remembering our self was a state of that self being annihilated.

True but calling God everything, negates God being anything and makes the word meaningless. I no longer need the word God, just use the word everything.

But if God is distinct, the question is where does God exist in any sense of time and space? But ifGod doesn’t exist in time and space, then how can God be said to exist at all?

As far as I can tell this is not correct. You do not assume a destiny of life--this means by default you assume a destiny of oblivion.

I assume no precise destiny, but only destiny as it comes to us; this is that which I do not admit to knowing.

Its meaning is temporary.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Any meaning is temporary. It doesn’t persist when the person dies except as it affects other people in some sense.

Yes I do because the general self is not self.

Only as it is distinct from the individual self. It is not the negation of self entirely.

Only so long as they remember me--which is not that long and this kind of suvivial of self is hardly comforting to someone after they have been obliterated.

Comfort is not everything, as I said above. Just because you’re not comfortable doesn’t mean that it negates the basic truth of this cycle of life and death

I think it is reasonable, which mean it is realistic. Your assumption it is not realistic, is simply your assumption.

It isn’t an assumption, it’s an interpretation of the observations of life and death as interrelated with each other.

Rejecting your assumption of a destiny of oblivion is not automatically clinging to this life too much.

This presumes you’re correct about me believing in a destiny of oblivion, which you haven’t proven true. Until then, your point is moot.

It is not the memories of others that Buddhists propose is what eventually reaches enlightment.

No one said that. Enlightenment is a state of the mind, but no one said it was able to be understood metaphysically in the sense that the self is surviving in any sense that we traditionally understand the self in Buddhist metaphysics. My speculation is that the dissolution of the self ceases to be in the cycle of samsara, and in a sense, this is the closest to oblivion in Buddhism.

I am not forgetting it--just recognizing that it will not matter to me, when I am gone.

But others will remember you.

 

[razeontherock]

The Divine Nature being partaken of is therefore eternal life?

This is a good question that shows the difficulty of your original question! It is also snipped from a post that shows better understanding between us than we have seen before.

We can partake of His Divine Nature in fleeting moments here and there, which sorta goes against the "eternal" part of EL. Any way you look at it, we run into a paradox because we are temporal beings, trying to discuss immortality.

1 Cor 15:53 "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality."

But this just seems to focus on what you personally believe to be things of God, which not everyone agrees about

Immaterial. We can only walk by that which we know, and we walk by Faith.

 

[razeontherock]

you still seem to think attachment is a good thing, when you keep missing that point and saying that we get a new self that we, I believe you said, are attached to

Well, no. The new creation is, by very definition, NOT self. And the term "attachment" does not apply, because in order to remain steadfast in newness of life we haver to master the idea of detachment.

The third arm analogy doesn’t work well with your alteration, since it would be an arm of another entity, or at least with another mind behind it

This is exactly why it DOES work so well, and why I followed you in it's usage originally Of course you have to realize this new "appendage" is not a physical substance.

One could say certain things in Christianity prepare you for Buddhism, so your point is moot unless you could demonstrate that Christianity is more consistent or reasonable in some way than Buddhism

Your plane of concern is logical consistency, while mine is revelation of the Divine. To that end, the empty tomb is unparalleled. Neither B nor C needs to be logically inconsistent, although they are clearly different systems.

Because tapping into God directly implies that God is something we have direct access to, like a substance

See the above reference to "different systems" Pantheism need not be the route of access:

Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Eph 3:12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

Hbr 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

 

[ToHoldNothing]

This is a good question that shows the difficulty of your original question! It is also snipped from a post that shows better understanding between us than we have seen before.

We can partake of His Divine Nature in fleeting moments here and there, which sorta goes against the "eternal" part of EL. Any way you look at it, we run into a paradox because we are temporal beings, trying to discuss immortality.

1 Cor 15:53 "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality."

Temporality and mortality are not necessarily the same thing, however related they may nonethless be. By your beliefs something can be immortal and also have temporal limitations, in that humans are temporal but also have an immortal soul.

But temporality and mortality also can be distinct in that temporality and mortality don't apply to your God in any way, shape or form, except in one isolated incident where it supposedly was human and God at the same time. I won't get into difficulties with that, but basically, God transcends those two things.

Humans can transcend temporality and mortality in some sense, but only after they've gone outside of those cycles by death, facing up to both their temporality and their mortality.

I wonder how the metaphor works with putting on incorruption and immortality as we put on clothing. It seems too casual, since humans casually change clothes. Unless these are meant to be inward changes instead of actual immortality and incorruption externally appearing.

Immaterial. We can only walk by that which we know, and we walk by Faith.

So basically you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe? Where does this leave us but at an impasse that cuts off any real discussion?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Well, no. The new creation is, by very definition, NOT self. And the term "attachment" does not apply, because in order to remain steadfast in newness of life we haver to master the idea of detachment.

Part of this is a difficulty with the Western and Eastern ideas of self that may very well be more distinct than we imagine them to be. Western self is somehow attached to our very existence, Eastern self is more phenomenological and can be separate from our general natural existence as beings that share much in common with animals and plants by general metaphysics.

By not self, you mean that you don't own that self, I'm interpreting your pseudo Buddhist Christian connection you're attempting to make. Yet you still have an attachment to your life even if you don't believe it is your possession anymore, but God's. There is still the craving for permanence that I find a problem with.

And detachment is not what Buddhism advocates, even in the sense of monastic life. Non attachment is not identical to detachment, since the former is merely changing perspective and still appreciating things, whereas the latter seems to be very contemptuous of anything being valuable except some singular goal.

This is exactly why it DOES work so well, and why I followed you in it's usage originally Of course you have to realize this new "appendage" is not a physical substance.

It would be better to call it something like a vestigial arm that is rejuvenated and restored to its original use, though the evolutionary and biological difficulties remain, since vestigial traits would not by their function be necessary anymore, but merely be old traits from previous common ancestors, like our tailbone, if I'm not mistaken. We don't have tails anymore do we? So why would we have a tailbone implying a tail of sorts?

Your plane of concern is logical consistency, while mine is revelation of the Divine. To that end, the empty tomb is unparalleled. Neither B nor C needs to be logically inconsistent, although they are clearly different systems.

Why do you think logical consistency is somehow in conflict with Divine revelation? From what I understand of Catholic teaching in particular, Divine revelation, being from the original truth and logic of existence, will not conflict with basic human logic and reasoning. So you seem to assert something contradicting that; God's revelation doesn't care about any kind of logic or reason as long as it gets some point across. If that's the case, God becomes a very dangerous thing to believe in, since it's revelation is purely subjective and not limited by any structure of interpretation. If you believe, however, that scripture and revelation are subject to some limits of logic and interpretation, you cannot say logical consistency is not valued in Christianity.

See the above reference to "different systems" Pantheism need not be the route of access:

Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Eph 3:12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

Hbr 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

So you're saying people can still "access" God even though these other systems admittedly tend to say God transcends human capacity? How would one actually attain to access of God if we don't have the capacity? The only explanation that creates any kind of general logical reasoning is that humans actually have a hidden capacity they must unlock. Am I wrong?

 

[razeontherock]

But temporality and mortality also can be distinct in that temporality and mortality don't apply to your God in any way, shape or form, except in one isolated incident where it supposedly was human and God at the same time.

NOT one isolated incident! Christ and the Church is a great mystery, even though it is spoken of in the most common of terms.

Humans can transcend temporality and mortality in some sense, but only after they've gone outside of those cycles by death, facing up to both their temporality and their mortality.

This is an absolutely essential first step in Christianity, beautifully detailed in the Tabernacle of Moses, when and where Israel went to worship.

I wonder how the metaphor works with putting on incorruption and immortality as we put on clothing. It seems too casual, since humans casually change clothes. Unless these are meant to be inward changes instead of actual immortality and incorruption externally appearing.

We have the same metaphor applied to G-d Himself and the entire Universe. Our change(s) is meant to be inward, but the picture shows it to be external first, in the sense that at first it feels like a put-on.

So basically you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe?

Well unfortunately, all too often fellow believers have taken this road. The fact is we each have different POV's, that are all valid at least to some extent. Cultural differences can hide common ground well. We are to look past all that, and I think this is one measure of maturity.

 

[razeontherock]

Part of this is a difficulty with the Western and Eastern ideas of self that may very well be more distinct than we imagine them to be. Western self is somehow attached to our very existence, Eastern self is

You are forgetting that Judaism arose between the 2, and has elements of both.

By not self, you mean that you don't own that self

Nope. By not self, I mean ... not self. TONS of Scripture to this effect! Not the least of which would be the picture of the Cross.

, I'm interpreting your pseudo Buddhist Christian connection you're attempting to make. Yet you still have an attachment to your life even if you don't believe it is your possession anymore, but God's.

No on all counts:

1) if there is any connection to any Buddhist thought, it is merely due to 2 systems both arriving at Truth. I have not commented on that.

2) Your concept of a C still having an attachment to their own life is easily defeated by even the most rudimentary understanding of Scripture. And even that is wholly uneccessary; all one need do is look at the martyrs. The first of which is our Lord Jesus Christ! How do you fail to perceive this?

There is still the craving for permanence that I find a problem with.
And detachment is not what Buddhism advocates, even in the sense of monastic life. Non attachment is not identical to detachment, since the former is merely changing perspective and still appreciating things, whereas the latter seems to be very contemptuous of anything being valuable except some singular goal.

You mean like this?

"But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Philippians 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but [this] one thing [I do], forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."

It would be better to call it something like a vestigial arm that is rejuvenated and restored to its original use

But it's not. Adam and Eve had no Lord. Which is kinda the point of the whole story, eh?

Why do you think logical consistency is somehow in conflict with Divine revelation? From what I understand of Catholic teaching in particular, Divine revelation, being from the original truth and logic of existence, will not conflict with basic human logic and reasoning. So you seem to assert something contradicting that; God's revelation doesn't care about any kind of logic or reason as long as it gets some point across. If that's the case, God becomes a very dangerous thing to believe in, since it's revelation is purely subjective and not limited by any structure of interpretation. If you believe, however, that scripture and revelation are subject to some limits of logic and interpretation, you cannot say logical consistency is not valued in Christianity.

None of this is responsive to what I said. Perhaps I worded it weakly, but the gist is that B & C are 2 different systems. I am the one asserting that C is perfectly consistent logically, but that said logic is not limited to human thought.

So you're saying people can still "access" God even though these other systems admittedly tend to say God transcends human capacity? How would one actually attain to access of God if we don't have the capacity? The only explanation that creates any kind of general logical reasoning is that humans actually have a hidden capacity they must unlock. Am I wrong?

Wow! This line of questioning shows some genuine communication between us!! This suggestion of "hidden capacity to unlock" is expressed in Scripture as "righteousness by the law." No we don't have that. This is very humbling to accept, and the greater point of the first story of the Bible.

The Gospel, Grace by contrast to law, is that w/o said capacity, access is granted solely by G-d coming down to our level, making Himself available.

And while I am certainly no expert on Krishna, I would be very surprised if there weren't partial revelation of this amongst his followers. I don't see the full revelation there, but that's ok as I don't see all of it manifested amongst C's either.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

NOT one isolated incident! Christ and the Church is a great mystery, even though it is spoken of in the most common of terms.

Are you suggesting God just becomes mortal whenever it wants? This whole series of incidents involving this deity defies any sense of consistency or integrity.

This is an absolutely essential first step in Christianity, beautifully detailed in the Tabernacle of Moses, when and where Israel went to worship.

Of course there are different ways to solve issues of attachment to self besides just dying, especially if samsara and rebirth are involved.

We have the same metaphor applied to G-d Himself and the entire Universe. Our change(s) is meant to be inward, but the picture shows it to be external first, in the sense that at first it feels like a put-on.

It can't be an external change first off, that would supersede the sequence of internal change leads to external change that works consistently for the most part. Of course there can be some external changes that affect internal changes, but not as commonly and for less than significant reasons (Changing your hairstyle to feel more confident, for example)

Well unfortunately, all too often fellow believers have taken this road. The fact is we each have different POV's, that are all valid at least to some extent. Cultural differences can hide common ground well. We are to look past all that, and I think this is one measure of maturity.

Interfaith dialogue would be a great step in this forum, but I doubt that's happening any time soon apart from the tiny portion you give it, hm?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

You are forgetting that Judaism arose between the 2, and has elements of both.

I can't say I'm as familiar, but any incidental connections are just that, incidental. It doesn't imply anything more than connections we observe.

Nope. By not self, I mean ... not self. TONS of Scripture to this effect! Not the least of which would be the picture of the Cross

This just sounds like altruism, which isn't what no self in Buddhism is concerned with technically

No on all counts:

1) if there is any connection to any Buddhist thought, it is merely due to 2 systems both arriving at Truth. I have not commented on that.

2) Your concept of a C still having an attachment to their own life is easily defeated by even the most rudimentary understanding of Scripture. And even that is wholly uneccessary; all one need do is look at the martyrs. The first of which is our Lord Jesus Christ! How do you fail to perceive this?

Don't you mean on both counts? You'd have to elaborate on what you mean by Truth in the general sense. And you still confuse what I mean by attachment to life. Even if you don't believe that the physical life is valuable, the attachment still remains to life in general as opposed to accepting life as a whole of parts, not parts reduced to themselves within a group.

You mean like this?

"But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Philippians 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but [this] one thing [I do], forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."

Buddhism doesn't regard nirvana as the absolute end, but an end you realize moreso. Not to mention the bodhisattva tradition emphasizes that postponing nirvana is a more compassionate and mindful action than simply going to nirvana and being what would seem to appear as a still self centered person.

But it's not. Adam and Eve had no Lord. Which is kinda the point of the whole story, eh?

That makes it sound like you reject the notion that God had authority over Adam and Eve, which seems silly.

None of this is responsive to what I said. Perhaps I worded it weakly, but the gist is that B & C are 2 different systems. I am the one asserting that C is perfectly consistent logically, but that said logic is not limited to human thought.

Ad hoc qualifications do not consistent logic make. You have to establish basics from the start, not bring in more tangents as you progress. If Christianity is logically consistent, shouldn't it be so in terms of basic human logic as well as this supposed divine logic?

Wow! This line of questioning shows some genuine communication between us!! This suggestion of "hidden capacity to unlock" is expressed in Scripture as "righteousness by the law." No we don't have that. This is very humbling to accept, and the greater point of the first story of the Bible.

The Gospel, Grace by contrast to law, is that w/o said capacity, access is granted solely by G-d coming down to our level, making Himself available.

And while I am certainly no expert on Krishna, I would be very surprised if there weren't partial revelation of this amongst his followers. I don't see the full revelation there, but that's ok as I don't see all of it manifested amongst C's either.

So basically we just attain the capacity by becoming empty vessels to some great presence? It sounds more and more like Hinduism to an extent and not anything like either Daoism or Buddhism's notions of emptiness and receptiveness to things. One still maintains awareness, but does not succumb to notions of grandeur like becoming the ultimate in oneself.

And where did Krishna come into this? He's related to Hindu thought moreso than any Buddhist thought I'm even remotely aware of. Reading the Bhagavad Gita would be a whole other subject for discussion of human/god relations.

 

[razeontherock]

Are you suggesting God just becomes mortal whenever it wants? This whole series of incidents involving this deity defies any sense of consistency or integrity.

Ok, so now we have exposed one limit on your understanding of what Christianity IS. This concludes the first portion of my address to your OP.

Next step:

clear up the confusion you have re: consistency and integrity.

Prerequisites:

a thorough grasp on Justification by Faith, God's Love, and His plan of Salvation. Are you up for it?

It can't be an external change first off, that would supersede the sequence of internal change leads to external change that works consistently for the most part.

Well the concept here you present is good, but it's not the only one we encounter as believers. Essentially, G-d changing us can be described as an external-first type of thing, since we are not G-d. and yet I will be the first to admit that the first change is indeed internal, even if it is as small as a mustard seed.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Ok, so now we have exposed one limit on your understanding of what Christianity IS. This concludes the first portion of my address to your OP.

You're not making it clear. Jesus as God incarnate only happens once, unless you refer to future prophesied incarnations of Jesus such as in Revelation in which case, the whole point is moot since prophecy is not compelling evidence to me.

Next step:

clear up the confusion you have re: consistency and integrity.

Prerequisites:

a thorough grasp on Justification by Faith, God's Love, and His plan of Salvation. Are you up for it?

A lot of this seems to basically surrender any criticism up to submitting to some great being's plan, as if they know everything, when it would appear they have little to no insights that resemble Buddhist ones that are far more compelling to me on their face.

Well the concept here you present is good, but it's not the only one we encounter as believers. Essentially, G-d changing us can be described as an external-first type of thing, since we are not G-d. and yet I will be the first to admit that the first change is indeed internal, even if it is as small as a mustard seed.

Are you suggesting God striking people blind or the like is the external first change?

 

[razeontherock]

You're not making it clear. Jesus as God incarnate only happens once, unless you refer to future

Ok, sorry. The concept of theosis / deification has been touched on by us before. I thought you could follow that. Here it is, plain and simple:

Colossians 1:27 To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"

A lot of this seems to basically surrender any criticism up to submitting to some great being's plan, as if they know everything, when it would appear they have little to no insights that resemble Buddhist ones that are far more compelling to me on their face.

Again, my primary exposure to Buddhism is the zen variety, re: studying trumpet, which is the only thing that ever brought me to the Mid-West. So while I am no expert, I ask you to consider Christ's life and death and then assert He had no zen mastery. I don't think you can do it! I do accept that you have not noticed anything in Christian Scripture to alert you to Buddhist insights, and I will readily accept the Bible is NOT any all-inclusive source of knowledge. It is merely one revelation of how mankind can have a relationship with G-d.

Also notice the sharp contrast between intellectual understanding of a concept(s), vs actually submitting to it. Isn't this where we came in?

Are you suggesting God striking people blind or the like is the external first change?

Hmmm, this is important to address. Here, I imagine you are referring to Paul's conversion? I would point out he had MUCH contact w/ G-d beforehand, and this event would be more like "being perfected by sufferings," as Jesus also was.

So I say the first change for a C is being born again, (which can involve a dizzying array of variety from one individual to the next) and the next step is "putting on the robe of righteousness." Which feels like a put-on at first, for most of us. The inner and outer changes meet, eventually.

 

[razeontherock]

Snipping to expose break in logic:

expecting me to take this God as believable outside of the literature David is writing as poetry and prose instead of just appreciating it as fine literature. There's a point where suspension of disbelief cuts off, and that's when you posit a God's existence that only becomes real when you seek it out regardless of evidence or arguments to the contrary

No, where we came in was with the ability to distinguish between fathoming a concept, and accepting it as reality. While it may be true that some Biblical concepts are only understood by "the initiated," I am not so foolish as to lead you into those. Much is comprehensible on the surface, and that is what I am drawing your attention to. Ever read Psalm 91? It's a good one to check different translations of, since the poetic language is flowery to the point of being obscure. (blueletterbible and biblegateway each have some different translations available, the latter includes MSG and NLT which I recommend, for contrast to KJV/ESV)

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Ok, sorry. The concept of theosis / deification has been touched on by us before. I thought you could follow that. Here it is, plain and simple:

Colossians 1:27 To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"

You're confusing the Incarnation of God itself with the incidents of theosis of believers on God, distinguished from believers in God (Deists, theists, pantheists, etc). Theosis is not strictly the same as God becoming man, it is God manifesting in man moreso, somewhat like sacraments from my understanding. Manifestation of an inward faith in an outward action by one definition.

Again, my primary exposure to Buddhism is the zen variety, re: studying trumpet, which is the only thing that ever brought me to the Mid-West. So while I am no expert, I ask you to consider Christ's life and death and then assert He had no zen mastery. I don't think you can do it! I do accept that you have not noticed anything in Christian Scripture to alert you to Buddhist insights, and I will readily accept the Bible is NOT any all-inclusive source of knowledge. It is merely one revelation of how mankind can have a relationship with G-d.

I don't deny you could study Zen with the trumpet, but I wonder if your real exposure to Zen was through koans or zazen meditation? And how does the midwest relate to Buddhism or Zen explicitly? To say Christ was Zen is not to ascribe anything special to Jesus beyond what anyone else can accomplish. To ascribe divinity and zen mastery to Jesus is missing the point of what Zen mastery consists of. But if you claim Buddhism is a revelation or a way to have relationship with God, you have again missed the point.

Also notice the sharp contrast between intellectual understanding of a concept(s), vs actually submitting to it. Isn't this where we came in?

Believing in God and believing on God, I've said it before in other posts, even though I separate myself from either basically.

Hmmm, this is important to address. Here, I imagine you are referring to Paul's conversion? I would point out he had MUCH contact w/ G-d beforehand, and this event would be more like "being perfected by sufferings," as Jesus also was.

So I say the first change for a C is being born again, (which can involve a dizzying array of variety from one individual to the next) and the next step is "putting on the robe of righteousness." Which feels like a put-on at first, for most of us. The inner and outer changes meet, eventually.

Being born again is an internal change though, and the outward "works" are resultant from the faith born out of the being born again; am I wrong? This just sounds like how Christians justify works as complementary to faith and not superseding it or surpassing it.

 

[razeontherock]

You're confusing the Incarnation of God itself with the incidents of theosis of believers on God, distinguished from believers in God (Deists, theists, pantheists, etc). Theosis is not strictly the same as God becoming man, it is God manifesting in man moreso

I would counter that you are minimizing the mystery that is Christ and His Church!

I don't deny you could study Zen with the trumpet, but I wonder if your real exposure to Zen was through koans or zazen meditation?

I have no idea, but if it was, I re-invented that on my own.

​

And how does the midwest relate to Buddhism or Zen explicitly?

The Professor I moved to study under.

To say Christ was Zen is not to ascribe anything special to Jesus beyond what anyone else can accomplish. To ascribe divinity and zen mastery to Jesus is missing the point of what Zen mastery consists of. But if you claim Buddhism is a revelation or a way to have relationship with God, you have again missed the point.

This is a horrible distortion of anything I said on the subject! Shall i try again?
Can you consider what Jesus must have done to follow through with His Passion, and deny that He must have had mastery over Zen concepts? (Even though they aren't directly stated in the Bible)

Believing in God and believing on God, I've said it before in other posts, even though I separate myself from either basically.

Neither are applicable to our undertaking here. Comprehension only. And yes it is possible w/o accepting it as reality. We have a long posting history, doing nothing more than establishing this idea over and over again.

Being born again is an internal change though, and the outward "works" are resultant from the faith born out of the being born again; am I wrong? This just sounds like how Christians justify works as complementary to faith and not superseding it or surpassing it.

Your statements here are controversial. Some believe along these lines, some don't. Some say the wrongness contained in there is really significant, some say it's not. Anyway, this is away from our goal of understanding what EL is, and why it is desirable.

Time to recap:

Ok, so now we have exposed one limit on your understanding of what Christianity IS. This concludes the first portion of my address to your OP.

Next step:

clear up the confusion you have re: consistency and integrity. [within C]

Prerequisites:

a thorough grasp on Justification by Faith, God's Love, and His plan of Salvation. Are you up for it?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Snipping to expose break in logic:



No, where we came in was with the ability to distinguish between fathoming a concept, and accepting it as reality. While it may be true that some Biblical concepts are only understood by "the initiated," I am not so foolish as to lead you into those. Much is comprehensible on the surface, and that is what I am drawing your attention to. Ever read Psalm 91? It's a good one to check different translations of, since the poetic language is flowery to the point of being obscure. (blueletterbible and biblegateway each have some different translations available, the latter includes MSG and NLT which I recommend, for contrast to KJV/ESV)

I can fathom many concepts through a general phenomenological lens, but of course, this doesn't mean I am required even by being a religious studies or philosophy major to acquiese to their existence. And somehow I think the surface comprehension is only natural religion, so to speak, not anything like the Christianity that involves this taking refuge in God that Psalm 91 talks about.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I would counter that you are minimizing the mystery that is Christ and His Church!

I'm not minimizing the mystery. you can believe there's a mystery within those experiences, but you shouldn't conflate things that are of two distinct but slightly overlapping categories. One is God in itself in creation, the other is God by faith manifesting in works of faithful, am I wrong?

I have no idea, but if it was, I re-invented that on my own.

Do you merely think you had Zen exposure before you met this professor you speak of or did you know what Zen was when you studied the trumpet and made that connection at all?

The Professor I moved to study under.

Pretty incidental connection

This is a horrible distortion of anything I said on the subject! Shall i try again?
Can you consider what Jesus must have done to follow through with His Passion, and deny that He must have had mastery over Zen concepts? (Even though they aren't directly stated in the Bible)

Incidentally Zen concepts that probably existed before Buddhism in some form or another. Martyrdom is not what Buddhists seek though, so the connection of Zen and Buddhist ideas to what is a martyr practice of crucifixion by persecution in speaking your faith has little connection to Zen, except perhaps in the sense that samurai could be said to have a similar lack of fear towards death that Jesus did, albeit in a military context, not a social activism context.

Neither are applicable to our undertaking here. Comprehension only. And yes it is possible w/o accepting it as reality. We have a long posting history, doing nothing more than establishing this idea over and over again.

And yet I seem to get little recognition because people see my Buddhist icon and think I must have no real contribution to a Christian discussion

Your statements here are controversial. Some believe along these lines, some don't. Some say the wrongness contained in there is really significant, some say it's not. Anyway, this is away from our goal of understanding what EL is, and why it is desirable.

Whether my statement conforms with some orthodoxy is not my concern, it's merely a general understanding I've gained from analysis on a phenomenological level of believers.

Time to recap:

Ok, so now we have exposed one limit on your understanding of what Christianity IS. This concludes the first portion of my address to your OP.

Next step:

clear up the confusion you have re: consistency and integrity. [within C]

Prerequisites:

a thorough grasp on Justification by Faith, God's Love, and His plan of Salvation. Are you up for it?

If you think you can explain it to me without bringing up unnecessary tangents and/or jargon, by all means

 

[razeontherock]

I think the surface comprehension is only natural religion, so to speak, not anything like the Christianity that involves this taking refuge in God that Psalm 91 talks about.

Yet Psalm 91 is comprehensible, is it not? And please define natural religion, as you used it.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Comprehensible in the literary sense of someone believing that God will save them from basilisks, among other things.

And natural religion could be defined roughly as those basic tendencies to anthropomorphize and seek intent and consciousness and agency, among other things, behind otherwise natural occurrences and phenomena, such as the universe and other things of a miraculous nature. Deists have commonly been defined as advocates of natural religion, religion we come to by the use of our reason alone (for another even shorter definition)