SteveS55

Rumi seems to agree with you, Luvtosew. He said: "God turns us from one feeling to another and teaches by means of opposites, so that you will have two wings to fly, not one.” Peace. Steve

I think that the notions of “Primal Cause”, “First Cause”, or the “Cosmological Argument” for the existence of God fall into the category of the “vanity of metaphysics”. We only arrive at the idea of a first cause as a result of our observation of the causal links that result in change over time. Without the illusion of “time”, speaking of any cause is impossible. I suspect that prior to the Big Bang there was no space, time or causation. There was literally nothing. People may call this void God, the Absolute, Universal Consciousness, or whatever, but it is literally the “unspeakable”. Still, it is fascinating to ponder and discuss. Peace. Steve

Hi Amy, I read your post with interest. I guess the question becomes, can one call them a Christian if they do not accept Jesus as God, and the Second Person of the Trinity. I’m not convinced that even the early Church fathers, those responsible for developing Christian doctrine, believed Jesus was God. There was much debate and in-fighting involved in deciding on that doctrine. The belief that Jesus was God and the doctrine of the Trinity seem to be the only things separating Christianity from Judaism. Beyond that, I don’t think the “message” of Jesus was anything particularly new to the world. Given his brief ministry, I think Jesus’ message is probably incomplete. Peace. Steve

My personal view of mystical experiences is that they arise as a result of a constellation of internal beliefs and spiritual practices in which one engages Believers may assert these are the experiences of God, or at least a result of grace, uncreated energies, and so forth. Non-believers may refer to them as “Peak Experiences”, a term coined by Abraham Maslow. No matter what the specific underlying belief, they seem to be somewhat common, but my evidence for this is merely anecdotal. I have experienced these mystical encounters for myself. In time, these experiences seemed to be replaced by a sense of “presence”, which was almost palpable, but also rather ethereal. Over the past year or so I have engaged in a combination of analytical and Samatha meditation on a daily basis. During this time I have experienced certain insights which sometimes occur during waking hours, but often seem to take place in a state somewhere between sleep and wakefulness. They are non-visual and non-conceptual, but they leave me with a very calm and peaceful mind, as if something that once was a problem is no longer. I don’t assert a supernatural explanation for any of this. I think these experiences are within everyone’s power, given sufficient study, reflection and understanding. Peace. Steve

There are a few Christian authors, and perhaps a “fringe” element within Christianity who believe that “Christ” is not Jesus, nor is Jesus the second person of the Trinity. Some would prefer to make reference to the “Logos”, as the divine animating principle in the universe. To some Christians the “Incarnation” is more reasonably explained as the Logos creating its own human nature, which is then united to the divine nature. The term “Christ” then, becomes the union of the Logos’ human nature with the divine nature. Jesus was representative of this union, something Christians attempt to strive for. So, if one were to refer to the “divine” within us that would be “Christ” (union of two natures) within us. This is just something to ponder. I think this type of explanation would likely blow most Christians completely out of their cherished beliefs. This doesn’t have much to do with the original thread topic, but it seems to be where some people are headed. And, it might say something about why God is said to be "love", or at least "loving". Peace. Steve

I think, as its end, all mysticism aims at a direct realization, or non-conceptual cognition of an apprehended object. In the case of theistic religions, one desires a direct, subjective experience of God, an intellectual object inferred from teachings and the experience of others. Normally we fuse the perceived object with a generic idea of the object, and arrive at an indirect conceptualization. What we really want to know is the nature of the object in "itself", rather than the conceptualization of the object as it exists in "myself", or my mind. So, I think this is what all the fuss is about when people speak of mysticism. I think valid questions regarding mysticism would be: "Is direct, non-conceptual cognition of the nature of an object even possible?", and; "Can I actually trust my subjective experiences?" I tend to think that both are possible, and that it is the experience of the non-conceptual cognition of reality that people refer to as "God". Peace. Steve

I think you might enjoy some of the Sermons written by Meister Eckhart in this regard. He often spoke of "God" and God. He also famously stated: "Pray to God that you may be free of "God". Simone Weil also has some very interesting insights along these lines. Neither mystic is easy to understand, and Weil may be even more difficult than Eckhart, but these ideas are more to be pondered than to force an instant insight. Peace. Steve

Most Americans are finally coming to grips with this as a human rights issue, rather than a moral/religious one. It was also somewhat comforting to see that the Supreme Court is beginning to recognize and acknowledge changing societal values. Twenty years from now everyone will be wondering what all the fuss was about. Peace. Steve

Hi Bob, I think the fundamental issue that all humans face is the “existential problem”, and our desire to solve it. We do this by developing a belief in a permanent, enduring self, then place something we refer to as our “ego” to act as a sentry. Personally, I think both “ego” and “self” are merely constructs having no enduring qualities. They are, in my opinion, illusory. We find it so difficult to say “I don’t know”. When we acknowledge that we don’t know, we begin to chip away at our security, and few people want to do that. Yet, it is this insecurity, uncertainty and unknowing that defines life itself. By the way, welcome, and thanks for the insightful comments. Peace. Steve

I forget where I was reading this; I think it was either by Bishop Spong, or someone else. In any case, the point being made was that religion offers believers an outlet for their anger, violence, hatred, and even greed. I suppose we would call it “righteous anger”. At least, that’s the label I’m familiar with. Whether we want to admit it or not, we all have a “dark side” that we want to repress. But, if we are unable to repress our anger, what better way of expressing it toward our brothers and sisters than by attacking them in the name of God and religion? So we end up with all of this righteous indignation about abortion, gay marriage, welfare, wars, the economy and anything else we can think to get angry about. But it’s okay, because God is on our side in this and those who don’t agree are not only our enemies, but the enemies of God Almighty. In a sense, religion may perpetuate violence. I think there is a lot of truth to this. We all have this dark side, by virtue of the fact that we are human. I think religion should provide an antidote for anger and violence, not a reason to act it out. I’m wondering if others see any truth in this. Peace. Steve

I have had similar frustrating conversations with evangelical fundamentalists, and I always seem to walk away without any satisfaction. But, I suppose this is also true of the person attempting to convince me to believe the same doctrines as they do. A while back I remember reading one of the Buddha’s discourses in which he talked about how to “preserve” the truth. Basically, he said that it is fine to hold certain beliefs as long as we don’t exclude all other possibilities. The only way to preserve the truth is to think: “This is what I believe now, but there could be other explanations.” As soon as we exclude other possibilities we have destroyed our ability to discover the truth for ourselves. So, it’s preservation and discovery that is important. The truth is always there, but it does require a lot of effort to find it. Once we have discovered truth, it is no longer a belief, it is merely the nature of reality. Peace. Steve

Hi, My name is Steve, from Long Beach, CA. I am formerly Roman Catholic (contemplative background), who is now studying and practicing Therevada Buddhism. I do not identify as either Christian or Buddhist, because at my age, labels aren't terribly important. I think there is something to be learned from both traditions, but I've grown weary of Theism and all of the talk about "God is this, God is that". In my view whatever "God" is, is undetermined and unknown. Therefore, there is no reason to constantly speak of God. I guess I'm more interested in trying to preserve the truth with the hope that I will one day actually discover it. I've read a little of and about Bishop Spong, and find myself drawn to some of his insights. Peace. Steve