Lolly

Wanted to add here also something else... many people don't realize that Tibetan Buddhism is actually a theocratic system. The Dalai Lama is essentially a priest-king in exile. The theocracy is held together by the lama system which includes a number of "Tulkus" who are believed to be the reincarnations of past masters. For this reason (in my opinion) you won't find many Tibetans who are very tolerant of a metaphorical interpretation of the doctrine of reincarnation/rebirth, though you will find a wide variety of beliefs among zen students.

Oh, gosh... how much time have you got? Seriously, there are cultural differences and methodological differences. Zen followed a path that brought it from India to China to Japan (and other parts of asia), and was infused (in my opinion, though some disagree with me) with a bit of taoist thought along the way. Tibetan Buddhism I've never studied, so its history isn't as clear to me, but from what I've gathered it took on much of the flavor of the Bon religious system that existed in Tibet, which has an elaborate system of diety worship. It also has a "secret" system of teachings (tantra) which, to be frank, is a huge turn off for me and was a major deterrent to me when I was trying to decide which way to go. As far as what is unique, I think for me it is that Zen strongly emphasizes stillness and mindfulness, and cautions one to not become overreliant on the written word. In zen there's a lot of emphasis on not mistaking "the finger pointing to the moon" for the moon itself. The prevailing notion is that it is only possible to "know" something fully through what one does and experiences, and teachers tend to provide broad guidance rather than detailed information, believing that it is better that the students bring themselves to insight through their own experiences. Unfortunately, many people (including zen students) misinterpret this to mean that zen practitioners don't read scripture, which is not true. It is reliance on scripture ahead of experiential knowledge that is the true issue there; most zen monks and nuns I've run across are very well versed in the sutras but believe the sutras (buddhist scriptures) are there to inform their meditative/life experience, not the other way around. In terms of liturgy, zen is very pared down, which appeals to me because I'm not a "props" sort of person, lol. In zen, the main practice is to go into a sparsely furnished room and sit still. Ceremonies tend to be brief. Tibetan buddhism, on the other hand, is very colorful with lots of elaborate ceremony and a very detailed teaching path. There is more emphasis on a variety of meditation techniques including visualization, and Tibetans also tend to be far more literal when it comes to scripture and things like dieties. Tibetan teachers offer what they call the "gradual path", which means they believe they can bring a student to insight through a very detailed and elaborate system of teachings. Tibetan students meditate, but there is much more emphasis on the literal words of the teachers than in zen. Each system seems to appeal to different personality types. As far as which system is "better" than the other, I wouldn't really venture to say. Things that turm me off might be the very things that another person needs, so I guess it's all fair game in that sense. Both systems seem to help people gain insight, as far as I've been able to tell

Yes, I agree. I've also often wondered why so many people think that one replaces the other-- that you can't have both. I suppose it's due to a fear that science will somehow "contradict" God (as if God could be contradicted). I think the only thing that gets contradicted is our understanding of God, which is fine... this helps us to mature in faith. In the home I grew up in, science was treated as though it were a religion; God and mystery were relegated to the realm of pure myth. I also know many people who, like you've described, have tossed scientific observation out the window entirely in favor of religious dogma. Yet I don't find either of these approaches sufficient. I think that we can observe and describe phenomena to the best of our ability, and this helps us to understand the physical universe, but our ability to perceive what really is through the senses will always be limited. I'm thinking here of what it might be like to try to describe color to a person who is color blind. I suspect that we are all limited, perceptually, in much the same way, but we are unaware of this limitation. There is something beyond our senses and beyond the capacity for empirical measurement which we can "know" through prayer, through mindfulness, through opening up. Science can't touch that, though it can deepen the mystery. Science is a fine tool; it just won't bring us all the way there.

Yes, Aletheia, I believe I remember reading that you used to be with them, and also BeachOfEden, if I'm remembering correctly.

My (limited) understanding of wicca would agree with this; I've always thought it was an interesting path. I also think that any tools one needs to use for focusing are fine, as long as it is understood as such and ultimately helps one along an authentic path. The only real problem I have with "new-agey" symbols is that, for some, the symbols actually become their religion, in that the motivation seems more rooted in a need to stand apart from the crowd and less in what the path actually has to offer. It's hard to describe what I'm trying to say, but it's something along the lines of the glitz and sparkle having the potential to distract one from seeking-- or something like that. But, the other side of that is that everyone starts where they are and, hopefully, moves forward from there. It's hard to say what a person needs, or what will help someone along the way. And, yeah, I flirted with the Jehovah's Witnesses for a while. I had become really disappointed with some serious infighting that was going on between different sects in the buddhist tradition I was trying to follow at that time. I hadn't yet discovered Zen. I was open minded, though, and when the woman from Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door, I thought "why not see what they have to offer?" So, she started coming to see me weekly, bringing books and other friends and talking to me in depth about what they believed. I went to the kingdom hall a few times with them. I remember once, when I was not feeling well, she and a few others came by with bags of groceries and helped me out around the house. They were so kind; no one had ever done anything like that for me before. It was very tempting. I felt like I was being accepted as part of a loving community, and I was very alone at the time, so this felt really good. But their rigid way of "study" (which was basically parroting and memorizing lines written by the powers that be in the organization), among other things I was seeing, was too big a turn off. Still, I really appreciated some of the ways in which they took care of one another. There was a sense of commmunity there, though I realize now it was community with too big a price, in that you could only partake of community if you were willing to go along with all their dogma. Yet I've often thought about this. If we could build such a sense of community, but make it wholly inclusive rather than conditional and exclusive... wow! Wouldn't that be some kind of paradise world?

I'm active in another forum that uses the same software as this one, and it does the same thing with lowercase and caps. Apparently the software thinks that every word in a title should begin with a capital letter, but any acronym in the title it will treat like a word-- first letter capitalized and the rest lower case-- even when the letters are separated by periods, as you did here. Like Des, I am sorry that I don't have a comment on the book. You want to share with us what you find intriguing? I'm now intrigued by your intrigue-ment

Many times and places... I just didn't always know to call it God. Mostly I get that connection when I am being completely mindful of the moment, sometimes in meditation and sometimes not. When I am doing whatever I am doing and only doing that, doing it with rapt and full attention and being completely attuned to the moment, it happens. At those moments, it seems like only me and God, and the line between us ceases to exist.

Well, I guess I'm the resident Zennie... actually have been practicing some form of buddhism on and off for more than 20 years and still practice zen on a regular basis. I have recently come to Christianity (it's all been rather surprising to me) but don't feel it invalidates or requires a disengagement from the other path... I strongly feel that they both point to the same reality, but they use radically different language, metaphors, methods and parables to point with. My previous experience with Christianity was almost non-existent... I was born into a household where agnosticism was the prevailing mindset, and was discouraged from seeking any sort of spirituality. I became a buddhist in my early twenties. In my mid thirties, after a disillusionment with the buddhist sect I had been with, I briefly flirted with the Jehovah's Witnesses for a time, but that was short lived. I realize now that I was-- primarily-- lonely at that time and I was highly attracted to the security their society presented to me. Oddly, I came to Christianity in all sincerity after finding myself at a few services with a friend's family. Listening to the service and the gospel I realized that I could relate to it completely; it all made perfect sense to me. I kept coming back, and it kept making sense. I felt that I finally understood what it was to be in the presence of God-- in Christian terms. So... I talked to the rector and was baptized. Like you, I am not big on the "New Age" stuff, and never have been. Crystals and pyramids and the like I have just never had any interest in.

saving as a .gif file will certainly work, but a .jpg will also work and shouldn't require a mode change. Plus, for files with complex color information, they are usually smaller than .gifs.

Hello, Darby- I pretty much agree with Fatherman's views here-- except for hell, which I'll get to in a minute. I think that these teachings of Jesus' you have mentioned are very important and that much needless suffering has been created in the world as a result of these teachings being misunderstood. I don't think progressive Christians selectively edit the bible-- we just haven't talked about these issues much here on this forum, at least not yet. I welcome the chance to do so. I don't think that a loving father (as God is depicted by Jesus in the New Testament) would have wanted harm to come to his children. I think that Jesus' teachings on sin, repentance, and hell are important ways to point to how we, as human beings, can find our way to peace. And yes, it is a narrow gate indeed, for very few can find their way there. As for hell, I tend to see this as a metaphor for the mindstate which occurs if a person is out of step with God. I should say that I don't believe in a literal heaven or hell. I believe that heaven is the way the world is experienced when our lives accord with God's will for us, and hell is the way the world is experienced when our lives do not. Of course, those are just my current thoughts, and as I learn, my thoughts on all this might very well change.

In zen there is something known as the "don't know mind" or "beginner's mind". It involves opening up to the possibility that everything we believe we know could be limited, incomplete or incorrect. Shunryu Suzuki, a zen master, put it well when he said "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few."

Thanks for this list, BrotherRog... I am so behind on my reading... need to catch up with the rest of you

Aletheia: Perhaps God chooses to care. Perhaps God chooses to allow him/herself to be vulnerable to hurting, because of that caring. Perhaps God has the power to remain unaffected by his/her creation, but chooses not to. fatherman: Yup. And this would go right along with the idea that God has a choice in the matter and chooses to feel it all. To fully feel may be one of many things God wants to experience. Though I have no way to know, I could postulate that what God feels, if anything, probably resembles the deep compassion borne of equanimity; and perhaps a deep pity that his beloved, to whom he has gifted free will, find it so difficult to find their path to his lasting peace.

Here's one take on it: http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/Th...ngOfAmerica.htm

Actually, I have some problems with the concept of "religious tolerance". It seems to imply a sort of condescending acceptance, like saying "we know we've got The Truth, but we'll let you play in our sandbox, anyway". I've replaced dialog about intolerance vs. tolerance with dialog about inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness. The model I hold up for myself is that of inclusion... that all are intended to have a place at God's table. It is up to each individual to find their way to that table (or not) and they can get to the table through many different means. Some will fall prey to the voices of bigotry and exclusionism they hear along the way. I don't have to condone this, and I don't. But I can understand that it is just another way that ego asserts itself in its misguided effort to find security, and I can look to myself and see that, in my own ways, I am no better. It may not manifest as bigotry, maybe it's something else, some other fear driven behavior or set of unreasoned beliefs that causes me to act out in ways that harm others... I may not like it, but if I look for it, it's there. This way of seeing things puts us all on the same field, really. It's just that we all have different perspectives, different points of view, based on what we believe is right. But really, I think that when you look at what motivates people, deep inside we all want the same things. We all want to be happy, safe, secure, and we want this same thing for our families. We just have very different ideas about how to go about securing these things that we believe we need.

Fatherman: Yup. This is what I think, too. Jesus is pointing to the need for us to make these changes internally, as a matter of changing our personality at a core level. Or, as I like to think of it, to open ourselves up to the personality God gave us-- the place within us that already knows the correct course of action and isn't driven by ego.

BeachOfEden: Yes! Exactly

I am not sure how best to make people aware that such a thing as progressive Christianity is possible, but I agree that it needs more press. That being said, one of the things I have observed time and time to not work well in conversation is to go up against another person in an argumentative way, challenging their closely held ideals and beliefs. I think there are a couple of things I'd bear in mind when talking to other Christians (or non-christians, for that matter). One is that you can't convert a zealot. They are too self-identified with their beliefs and will only use your challenge as an opportunity to dig in their heels and repeat well worn rhetoric. Another is that no one wants to be told that their beliefs are wrong. I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea that it's my responsibility to "convert" anyone. After all, no one converted me. I still go to my zen group, still participate there and still receive teachings from my teacher. When I began to come into harmony with Christ and felt compelled to seek baptism, I also felt strongly that my new understanding of Christ's love did not pose a conflict with what I was already doing in zen. Instead, I found them complimentary, and I wasn't willing to stop doing one to participate in the other. I spoke with my rector about this and she was willing to accept me into the congregation exactly as I am. I was very honest with her, and there was nothing I expressed to her that caused any alarm. So I was baptized. When I talk to others (on both sides) about religion and belief, I can usually tell whether someone is likely to be more or less open minded (or at least polite) about what I have to say. Since I believe that religion-done-right helps people, it's not out of the question that I might want to offer them some taste of how it helps me, but I can't offer this to someone whose mind is closed. It's futile. I liken this to the way I eat ice cream from a carton-- there's a soft area around the edges that's easy to dig a spoon into, and a hard area in the middle. I don't start with the hard part first... I look for the softer part around the edges. When enough time passes, the part that was hard gets softer, too. I think people can also be like that. So I look for the ones along the edge, so to speak, and hope the others will soften in time.

Sure. I don't see why he wouldn't. It's only fairly recently in the history of mankind that we've known and understood that the Earth isn't all there is, seated at the center of the universe. Earlier people spoke in terms of what they could see and understand-- which would have been this earth and what is on it-- but I don't see why God's love and care wouldn't extend throughout all creation. And now that we know that all creation is much bigger than just one ball of dirt orbiting around one sun, it makes sense to me that God's love for creation would be just as big.

I think this is such a good point. In response to someone who was asking the question elsewhere of why people ascribe all sorts of superstitious beliefs to their concept of God, I wrote the following: My take on this whole question of why people believe silly things and call it God is that it has to do with the level of emotional or spiritual maturity, both personal and cultural. It has been said that man created God in his own image, and while I don't necessarily agree with this 100% I would certainly concede that man personifies God in accordance with his own emotional needs. I believe this has an awful lot to do with our desire to feel safe, to feel protected, to feel like there is some purpose or meaning to our existence. Some people believe in a God that comes off like a very strict and punishing parent. This abusive personification of God probably resonates with anyone who had a parent like that and especially in societies or cultures where the rule of law is very strict and violent. Toe the line, and this God will reward you with safety and will refrain from destroying your life. Some people believe in a loving God that comes off more like a caring, nurturing parent. This nurturing personification of God probably resonates with anyone who had a less strict upbringing or with anyone who is attracted to a familial ideal of promoting personal growth above order. Toe the line with this God and you will be cared for and loved. That some people have the capacity to conceive of a non-authoritative God which isn't a projection of our fears or a response to our need to be protected probably says something about those people too, but being one of them I am going to refrain from too much conjecture here. I will say that I think that beliefs can move through a progression as a person or society matures and ages. I also believe that the greatest religious teachers probably understand this, and use metaphors and images which are appropriate to the time and people they are teaching. I do believe that we tend to seek the religious flavor that fits our emotional and psychological landscape. If we change and grow, that landscape also changes, and we might find ourselves rejecting and refining what is sensible to us as we age. On the other hand, if we remain in a closed system where the proper beliefs are fed to us and we are dissuaded from questioning, this sort of growth can't happen. We will instead remain mired in one view, one way of seeing, where the religious structure inhibits us from moving forward. I've never been to a CS church, so I have no idea what that is like. I can relate to the JWs, though, because for a brief time I flirted with the idea of joining them and I went to several meetings at the local Kingdom Hall. I will say that the security they were promoting was very compelling and I can really see why it would be difficult to leave that society once one has been fully integrated into it. Fortunately for me I was never able to get comfortable with the unquestioning aspect of their doctrine, so I eventually stopped going. Have you ever noticed how painful it is to objectively examine a very cherished belief? I think we defend our beliefs as passionately as anything else we could name, probably because we are very attached to our definitions of self. For a person to whom this definition is extremely important, to question beliefs is a big threat. To change what one believes at a core level is like a kind of death. Once you accept that something you believe is not rational or sensible, you fundamentally cannot be that believing person ever again... and many people have their entire self-worth tied up in what they believe. I remember reading an article somewhere that talked about this, and why it's hard to talk to fundamentalists. I'll see if I can dig that up and post it here.

I agree... I think that an active board tends to attract participants, so I'll try to do what I can to be more active here. I enjoy the sorts of discussions described above, though I'm not always very knowledgeable. Still, I think it's great that there's a place where such discussion can take place. Let's keep it going. I've got an idea for a post I've been wanting to make here for a little while. I'll see what I can do about getting it written in the next couple of days.

Welcome, Ken Nice to have another voice on the forum. I look forward to reading your posts.

I guess this is an okay place to post birthday greetings, since there's no informal lounge for OT stuff. Anyway, Happy birthday to Fatherman. May the coming year bring you God's peace in great abundance!

As far as the question of whether humanity is fallen, I tend to believe that once God set into motion the forces of creation, the potential for good or evil also came into being. When man came into being, he had the potential to choose well or to choose poorly in every endeavor. By "choose well" I mean to make those choices that support and affirm others, support balance and renewal in our environment, and contribute to a peaceful way of being in the world. In this sense, a kind of "fall" or split from God's will was inevitable from the very beginning, if creation was to be non-deterministic affair which included some form of free will or the ability to choose-- because some will choose poorly. I believe that when we make poor choices, it takes us farther from God. In opening up to God's will, the right choices more and more will become second nature, and to me this is the meaning of reconciliation. To truly reconcile ourselves to God means to stop paying primary allegiance to our own egos and to move back toward a life in the sort of harmony that characterizes God's love for us. And we look for this God within; one might also call this the ground of being. I don't know if this makes a whole lot of sense; I'm still looking for the right words and ways to explain this viewpoint, but I thought I'd give it a shot here.

AletheiaRivers: I understand. For me, I suppose it could be said that I believe discernment is always in order as we make our way in the world, and with religion and religious teachings there is no exception. Words are very slippery things, and at best are poor conveyances. A word will never be the same as the concept it is trying to symbolize. As readers, we have no choice but to use discernment in deciding what is meant as metaphor and what is meant to be taken literally, and each of us approaches this task with our own set of perceptual filters firmly in place. However, we can use a bit of our God-given common sense, and we can inform ourselves to the best of our ability regarding historical context and so forth. In this way, I think it's possible to make use of the gifts God has given us to advance in our understanding. And I also think it's possible to put these stories into context and make sensible decisions about whether or not they apply to current times. Case in point: "Go forth and multiply." Many people take this as a mandate to have as many children as possible, as though the story had God speaking these words into an unchanging vacuum. Yet historical context would suggest to us that this was commanded at a time when people had not yet populated the earth. Common sense, if we were to apply it, would tell us that, with over 6 billion people in the world and resources shrinking rapidly, we have already accomplished this task. Do we really need to blindly keep "going forth and multiplying", or did God not give us common sense and the ability to apply reason for any good purpose?