David Sundaram

21 minutes ago, tariki said:

I'm sorry you see my point of view/faith as "esoteric" and "irrational". 

Thank you. 

That's you  self-reifyingly putting your words/ideas into my mouth.

PROVING my POINT: Avoiding REALLY engaging with someone who understands/sees/thinks about things, in this case Jesus's widsom, in a way different than you do.

Bye-Bye

On 12/17/2022 at 12:36 AM, tariki said:

Just another word or two David. As "Telegram Sam" ( "Born to Boogie" ) on another forum I will be found often far less "esoteric". Possibly I am a bit of a chameleon. 

Again, you are invited to engage on the threads here in the "Other Wisdom Traditions". Speaking for myself, you could say what you like there (in spite of the fact that I might still be the moderator of that section.......😁)

All the best

I appreciate the engagement and the invitation. tariki. I hope you appreciate the fact that I think-and-so-opinionated that your idea of of "coming to die" reflects a gross, to the point of being absurd in my view,  misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Jesus's words and actions.

Given that you did not deign to respond to quote about Jesus saying he 'came' here so that others could/would have more 'abundant' Life, but simply further rationalized' your expressed positionality, I think it would be a waste of my energy to attempt to communicate further with you or your cohorts here.

"In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them." (Matthew 6)

I am accessible via email and/or phone should anyone else here think/feel they have something to gain by engaging in conversation with me - I can be reached via the 'message' feature here in that case to set that up. I suggest anyone interested peruse my website to get a sense of what I am about first, however.

22 minutes ago, PaulS said:

It shouldn't be lost on people that more has been said about 'soul' in a few posts here than is ever attributed to Jesus teaching or talking on the matter!

David - Belittling others who challenge your point of view or otherwise answer you in a manner that you don't find satisfactory, is not aligned with Member Expectations here.  Some tolerance was initially granted - no more will be offered. You will be suspended from this Forum if I see this behaviour repeated.

Yes, Paul, my aim/goal was/is to amplify understanding of Jesus's teaching. More words than he used was necessary.

IMO, I did not 'belittle' Tariki's point of view. I said/implied that the kind of 'mysticism' expressed by his words struck me as being 'absurd', meaning it did not make 'sense' to me - such statement could also be interpreted/understood to mean that I was too dumb to 'grok' it.

Do you have a personal or role-as-moderator objection to my talking about 'soul' at greater length than has ever been attributed to Jesus teaching or talking on the matter?  If so, please amplify.

Long time since anyone posted on this thread. Just thought I would add this for any passers by who might enjoy a trip down the alley of my self concept:

Any and every soul’s developmental ‘journey’ merits ongoing introspective review and reevaluation and, when and where appropriate, the refine­ment – this is what conscious evolution is all about! – not just of the ‘content’ of what one personally thinks, feels, believes and does in relation to others and Life- at-Large, but also of the ‘significance’ one places on and so ‘ascribes’ to one’s self  and other selves, in your case the very ‘self  ’ that thinks, feels, believes and does so. To possibly help expedite such process, here’s a discussion of some often overlooked (because of ‘innocent’ ignorance) but just about as often (for personal expediency) swept under the rug details and issues which, when and as overlooked and/or ignored, often result in folks who don’t yet fully grok what actually happens when a soul transcends self hood by whole-mind-n-heart-edly acknowledging and embracing the fact that it and others are integral aspects of The Entity of Life’s (i.e. of Christ’s) Being-n-Doing being bamboozled by as well as bamboozling others.

For one thing, one’s self hood doesn’t then just evaporate into insubstantial­ ity or dissolve into inconsequentiality as many have historically, apparently self-effacingly and seemingly humbly, for supposedly unself ish reasons, self-deludingly imagined and other-misleadingly proclaimed. Take the words of anyone who speaks, preaches, or acts in ways which imply that he or she (or his or her ‘kind’) is so self-abnegating as to therefore be especially holy and (so) especially worthy of devotion, reverence, obedience, generosity, etc. with a grain of salt. A posture of personal insignificance may indeed be adopted as a result of a person’s genuinely loving and enjoying and so wishing not to in any way detract from the glorious Magnificence and mind-boggling Grandeur of Life-at-Large, in contrast to which the gestalt of his or her present self  as well as the gestalts of other selves may indeed appear – to him or her, that is – to be relatively unimportant. But obsequious, Cosmic Presence (or Persona) ‘adoring’ stances and corollary behaviors may also be consciously or unconsciously coat-tail rider ‘gain’ motivated, and sometimes even downright wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing predatory in relation to unwitting others!

To put any self   or other generated razzle-dazzle that may presently be interfering with your clearly seeing what’s really what in this regard into perspective, let me point to and emphasize the implications of the obvious fact that genuinely devoted husbands and wives – ‘lovers’ of all kinds, really! – recognize that their lives are far from being insignificant in relation to those they love and ‘espouse’. They live and act with consummate awareness of the fact, as well as experience and evince a certain degree of self-appreciation as a result of knowing, that their personal presence and relational engagement functionally complements and enriches their spouse’s lives in ways which they could not and would not be otherwise. This, even as they acknowledge and are deeply grateful for the fact that their own lives are also complemented and enriched in ways that they otherwise would not be by virtue of their having been ‘espoused’ (as a self ) themselves. Similarly, Cosmically ‘awakened’ souls continue to live and make choices as personally response-able, choice-implementing selves who are well worth every ‘bit’ of their 'salt’, albeit they do so so ‘sacrally’, without putting themselves on any kind of 'pedestal', knowing that they are vital components of Life’s Grand Being-n- Doing, in other words knowing that they are Love and Joy experiencing and expressing ‘buds’, ‘leaves  ’, ‘flowers’ and potentially ‘seed’ bearing ‘fruit’ on ‘the Tree’ of Life Itself  !

9 hours ago, tariki said:

The "soul". From reading a few posts here (and I must thank David for stirring up this rather dormant forum) my mind turned in its rather strange way to a comment made by C S Lewis who insisted that Jesus should not be seen as a "good man" or whatever. No, "Jesus came to die"! 

In my own way I agree with him. Beyond all the "teachings" and "sayings" is the eternal mythos of death and renewal (as per Joseph Campbell, who speaks of all these common themes and parallels across the whole cultural spectrum of humanity) Before Jesus, there were more that 15 crucified saviours. Of course, "Jesus was the real one in time/space history", the others merely the work of the devil, who seeks to corrupt and decieve.........etc etc etc etc ad nauseam. Yet there are many books now making a strong case that Jesus never existed at all - but let us not go there. Back to the "eternal theme" of death and renewal, found right across the spectrum of humanity. 

This is really the theme of Wei Wu Wei's Harlequinade, from which came the "divest yourself of your garments" saying found in the Gospel of Thomas. (The whole "Halequinade" is readily found on the internet)

It may seem a jump, but associated with this is the way some modern Christian theologians seek to speak of new Christologies, making the point that the "eternal mythos" in its Hebrew home then evolved within the context of Greek philosophy/thought. That Christianity is basically a product of such. They seek to speculate just how the mythos (or the event itself of the death and resurrection of Jesus) might have flowered in a Mahayana context of thought. A bit of googling will reveal "A Mahayana Christology" if anyone is interested. 

Myself, I stagger on. Though chastised for making jokes I am basically unrepentant. I think of Merton writing in his Journal as he read a passage from Irenaeus (A passage that I have said before here somewhere  can relate to my understanding and experience of the Pure Land notion of "being made to become so (of itself) without/beyond the calculation of the devotee, where "no working is true working" - Japanese hakarai)

Merton read:- If you are the work of God wait patiently for the hand of your artist who makes all things at an opportune time........Give to Him a pure and supple heart and watch over the form which the artist shapes in you........lest, in hardness, you lose the traces of his fingers......

Merton comments......

The reification of faith. Real meaning of the phrase we are saved by faith = we are saved by Christ, whom we encounter in faith. But constant disputation about faith has made Christians become obsessed with faith almost as an object, at least as an experience, a "thing" and in concentrating upon it they lose sight of Christ. Whereas faith without the encounter with Christ and without His presence is less than nothing. It is the deadest of dead works, an act elicited in a moral and existential void. To seek to believe that one believes, and arbitrarily to decree that one believes, and then to conclude that this gymnastic has been blessed by Christ - this is pathological Christianity. And a Christianity of works. One has this mental gymnastic in which to trust. One is safe, one possesses the psychic key to salvation......

I am serious about this. I do not joke about it. (In fact being serious about it allows me to joke about much that others consider serious, which I see as trivialities) I do keep a close watch on my mind/heart for any evidence of hardness, and often find, but always give thanks for the pure gift of "softness" that I know I can never "earn" from my own poor efforts.

Like the common mythos of death and renewal, the "encounter with Christ" (the Universal Christ, the Dharma, the Tao etc etc etc) is found across the whole spectrum of humanity, and is not the possession of anyone or any creed. My worldview, my faith, sees reality itself as a vital, ephemeral agent of awareness and healing. Or as another has said......"the liberative qualities of spatiality and temporality. " Others may mock such a faith. For me it is the Reality in which I live and move and have my being.

Hello tariiki - I read the rest of your post. I have a very different e-motional 'leaning' than you do - the idea that Jesus "came to die" , for example, strikes me a being a 'ridiculous' kind of 'mysticism' which is quite contrary to what I think of a the imperative of Life. Sure, he was willing to 'give' his personal Life to serve Life's greater cause. But his personal statement, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" resonates as expressing the truth to a greater degree. We all 'Came to die' in that our souls chose to be (re)incarnationally embodied, in my view that is.

At this point, given your tendency to embrace (what I regard as being) wildly irrational/esoteric statements, I doubt we will find common ground to meet on.

I do ask and wish that you consider actually relating to issues related to the concept of 'soul' that I have raised and talked about in this thread. Maybe such relationality is beyond your capacity, but maybe you could choose to engage so (as invited to) - I have no way of knowing.

2 hours ago, John Hunt said:

Maybe Santa was consciously constructed as an anagram of Satan. After all, he's old, portly, with air transport, vast amounts of stuff, the embodiment of consumerism. Jesus was young, ascetic, told his followers to give everything way, particularly stuff they didn't need, and walked everywhere.

My mind 'grooves' with the wisdom conveyed by such thought, but I think 'Santa' is a transliteration of the word 'Saint', someone who is self-lessly devoted to 'serving' others. in this case by 'giving' anyone/everyone their 'due'. The 'materialism' of 'Christ'mas is just an "As above (in provide-ential Spirit), so below (in Matter)" phenom, I think. The trouble is that whereas 'spirit' is limitless, the limitations of 'matter' requires that it be 'wisely' managed if there is to be a 'heavenly' result.

Satan is the epitome of egotistical 'me'-first 'self'ishness. Santa, at worst, may be thought of as being overly generous toward 'kids', as many parents, in 'generous' extension of 'self'ishness, still tend to be.

6 hours ago, tariki said:

Ah ha! From tariki in therapy, to tariki the joker (though his humour be "sick")

and over on another forum its Telegram Sam who was "born to boogie". Do I lay down on a counch, enter BGT as a stand up comedian, or bop my way down the high street after leaving McDonalds?

What I say is just feedback relaying what things look and feel like to me: in my view, based on how they 'land' on me, your 'jokes' are 'sick' (ones).

I advocate, and in my first (think) response to you, I suggested/offered Jesus's 'way' (which I am still just a student- apprentice of) a a way of going 'beyond' needing or depending on 'therapy'. You rejected engaging with me with such possibility in mind.

This is just a quick response. Tariki. I haven't read the rest of your post. I;ll get back to it/you.

P.S. If you ever do decide to 'engage' with what I am about, please know that it isn't a simple/slick "Just believe 'Jesus is the Lord' kind of process". It involves much more than applying the Merton 'formula' for one thing.

2 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

Of course, the Quality of the Life-experience of (christ-like) 'Creators' is on one side of a continuum or spectrum (which some metaphorically speak of as being characterized by shades' of Love and/or Light) and the Quality of the experience of (satanic) 'Destroyers' is on the other side of said spectral continuum (which some metaphorically speak of as being characterized by shade of Hate and/or Darkness.

At certain times in history, when both 'sides' of Life's expression become 'intense', (my ;sense' is that we are close to such point a now), the 'gulf' between them becomes too great for even the best Love and Light to bridge - as portrayed in 'story' form in: Luke Ch.16

"20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table:  moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom:  the rich man also died, and was buried;  23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue;  for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things:  but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.  26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed:  so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot;  neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.   27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28 For I have five brethren;  that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.   29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets;  let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham:  but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.   31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

Here's my concept/idea pertaining to what I image-in to the 'reality' of 'soul' (it related to my concept/idea of what I image-in the word 'God' references, of course)"

EVERYbody in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency. This was termed ‘atman’ or ‘soul’ by sages of old, who recognized everyone and everything as an immediate expression of the universally present, intelligently creative essence which they understood to be the real meaning of ‘Brahman’ and ‘God’. But, because such words have been misappropriated by cus­tom and their significance sometimes grossly distorted by mis­usage, I generally refer to it alter­natively, as Intelligence, Creativity, Life Itself or the Life-Force. However labeled, it is the source ‘element’ from which all Being springs, the core I-Am-That-I-Am, That Which Is at root within EACH and EVERYONE.

To clarify: The 'soul' is non-'physical', It is not one's 'body' for 'form', but rather one's living 'mind'-n-'spirit' constellation which exists in a non-material dimensions, in a physical 'realm' (i.e. REALm ), It is this (living) constellation, of configuration, which continues to live on after one;s 'body' 'dies', i.e. after one's 'form' dis-integrates.

It is this aspect of our 'being' that (I think-n-believe) is capable of actualizing the 'eternal Life' state that Jesus spoke of. IT is one's (ongoing) Presence, as referenced in The Bhagavad Gita , the most widely known and loved Hindu scripture.

"I will speak to thee now of that great Truth which man ought to know, since by its means he will win immortal bliss – that which is without beginning, the Eternal Spirit which dwells in Me, neither with form, nor yet without it.
Everywhere are Its hands and Its feet; everywhere It has eyes that see, heads that think and mouths that speak; everywhere It listens; It dwells in all the worlds; It envelops them all.
Beyond the senses, It yet shines through every sense perception. Bound to nothing, It yet sustains everything. Unaffected by the Qualities, It still enjoys them all.
It is within all beings, yet outside; motionless yet moving; too subtle to be perceived; far away yet always near.
In all beings undivided, yet living in division, It is the upholder of all, Creator and Destroyer alike;
It is the Light of lights, beyond the reach of darkness; the Wisdom, the only thing that is worth knowing or that wisdom can teach; the Presence in the hearts of all."

Of course, the Quality of the Life-experience of (christ-like) 'Creators' is on one side of a continuum or spectrum (which some metaphorically speak of as being characterized by shades' of Love and/or Light) and the Quality of the experience of (satanic) 'Destroyers' is on the other of said spectral continuum (which some metaphorically speak of as being characterized by shade of Hate and/or Darkness.

The above is, obviously, just an 'abstract' generalization. I hope readers can, based on the own experiences to date, make 'sense' the range of meanings it 'contains'.

According to Jesus, one may possibly 'lose' one's 'soul; in that it may cease to 'live'. But that is another essay for another time.

39 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I see no erosion of any true value, other than religious folk perhaps being 'offended' (another issue at large these days) because somebody jokes about something that their religion tells them they shouldn't.

I suppose that you 'see' 'Satan worship' similarly - as just another non-nonformist 'joke'.

2 minutes ago, tariki said:

Ha ha! Well obviously from my own point of view it was a case of mistaken identity!

Also obvious to me in the short time I've know you.

Speaking of 'soul'-configurations. I wonder if folks here are aware of the kinds of 'soul'-configiruations or 'soul;-values that this forum has, under the 'name' of Christ-ian inclusiveness, become a 'host' to and 'cover' for?

Quoting a very recent post in the "You might be a Humanist if ... " thread:

In the spirit of the First of the 8 Points, stated here as a way of 'framing' PC: By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who ... believe that following the path and teachings of Jesus can lead to an awareness and experience of the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life -

I would like to ask/invite and engage in conversation with readers of this who feel spiritually moved to contemplate, share and explore what they think the word 'soul' means in the context of Jesus's parable "And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee:  then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." (Luke, Ch.12)

7 hours ago, tariki said:

Myself, I give you a hearing but simply do not want to engage. That is the end of it.

Having registered the stated attitudinality that you do not want to engage with my theses (I think/feel you have heard me), again, although this may now be unnecessary, I renew my request that you do not intrude on my efforts to engage (or 'cleanly' fail to) others here without distracting and usually (in the past, that is) 'impish' 'noise' being thrown the mix for 'fun'.

7 hours ago, tariki said:

Hi again David, just to say I am a veteran of over twenty or so Discussion Forums spanning about 25 years. I have morphed from being afraid to say boo to a goose to virtually saying whatever I like. My apologies if it has come across as rude, but I do have a pretty weird sense of humour at times.

Myself, I give you a hearing but simply do not want to engage. That is the end of it.

Getting back to forums, just recently on another I was told that they did not want to hear any "inter-religious ######", and I was basically hounded off the forum (this a Buddhist Forum) Again, I have even been called the "antichrist" on a Christian forum, as well as a hypocrite and a liar on others. That is the way of it and I apologise again if, in becoming hardened to such robust exchanges I have offended you in any way. I try to keep my mind/heart soft and pliable, open to the workings of grace, but sometimes I fail. 

All the best

I resonate with and very much appreciate all that you relate here, tariki.

High-Five, Soul Brother!

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

It is not an 'opinion' David - you said I have prevented you from having a fair hearing.  This is simply untrue and you are being disingenuous framing it as a 'point of view'. Not deigning to engage with you for whatever reason I have simply does not prevent you in any way from having a fair hearing on this forum, no matter what you may pretend.

As has been previously noted, I allow substantial leeway here in challenging remarks, yours included, but false claims and aspersions won't be tolerated.  Please desist.

As far as my review led me, I said "As yet, I haven't been able to get past your and other's reactivity to the general idiocy of humanity (and therefore 'majority' delusions regarding 'God' , 'Heaven' and 'Hell', Jesus even) to get a fair hearing in this regard."

If I said (somewhere else) that you 'prevented' me from having a fair hearing, I retract that as a misstatement. Please quote me, so I may be sure that I was 'wrong' and accordingly 'desist'. If I wasn't, then it is up to you to correct your own misperceptions and misattributions.

I acknowledge the truth in your statement "I allow substantial leeway here in challenging remarks, yours included, but false claims and aspersions won't be tolerated," and appreciate your intentions in said regard.

38 minutes ago, PaulS said:

yet you claim that my reactivity to idiocy and delusions regarding God, have prevented you from having a fair hearing.

That is just my supposition (hypothetical explanation), which you 'simply' dismiss as being untrue, as is your right to do.

Please accept and allow for the fact that, in my view, you haven't deigned to engage with any of the ideas I have shared and related questions I have raised about 'god', 'possible immortality', 'soulful after-life', etc. that I have repeatedly raised and argued as being central to Jesus's world-view and philosophy. Also, again in my view, you have ignored (excused?) quite disrespectful/pejorative characterizations and comments of others (tariki and romansh, to be specific) towards things I have quite reasonably/logically (IMO) presented as well as my chosen style of articulation. Thus, your 'judgment' in regards the issue of 'fairness' that I have raised strikes me as being 'unfairly' biased.

I accept the fact that this is not the case in your view.

I hope and trust there is 'room' here (in this forum) for this disagreement between our respective 'views' to remain as stated.

1 hour ago, romansh said:

I notice you have done this sort of thing on several different websites ... and indeed you seem familiar.  Have you had any success anywhere?

Not YET.

P.S. I noticed I had already been on this forum way back around 2018 - had totally forgotten about that. Relevant quote: "No man ever steps into the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man!" (Heraclitis)

Another one: "Behold, a sower went forth to sow;  4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:  5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:  6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched;  and because they had no root, they withered away. 7 And some fell among thorns;  and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:  8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.  9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."

I (my book and treatise) have been well received by Pastor and hid congregation in Kenya of all places! They are much more grassroots attuned to and grounded in the wisdom contained in Biblical scriptures, I think

On 9/19/2022 at 7:41 PM, PaulS said:

It is incredibly amazing to me to try and fathom that so many well-meaning Christians in the world, who in so many ways demonstrate compassion and caring, somehow think it is fair and reasonable for 'God the Father' to send their friends and loved ones to an eternity of hell and suffering, because they didn't get their theology right during their short life span on this blue orb.  70 or so years vs billions and billions of years (eternity) of pain and suffering equals justice and goodness?  Yet so many Christians adhere to this belief.  Why?

It is because the Jesus's message has been 'hijacked' by hateful and fearful people, in ways not much different that the way ISIS afficionados have 'hijacked' Muhammad's transmissions. The 'solution' is not 'Humanism', IMO. A la "We are (immortal) 'spiritual' beings' having a (mortal) 'physical' experience," I think that what 'Humanism' does is quite unChristian in that it "Throws out the eternal-life Christ-Spirit baby with the (dirty-misunderstandings) bathwater." I am trying to 'correct' misunderstandings of Jesus's message. As I said in a previous post, the title of my treatise is "What Did Jesus REALLY Mean?" And its subtitle is "A Refreshing Rearticulation of Honest to God Truth."

As yet, I haven't been able to get past your and other's reactivity to the general idiocy of humanity (and therefore 'majority' delusions regarding 'God' , 'Heaven' and 'Hell', Jesus even) to get a fair hearing in this regard.

In my view, you are also one a 'well-meaning' Christian who, in this case, has 'simplistically' relegated the ideas of 'God' and 'immortality' (i.e. 'eternal life') to irrelevance and thereby in your own (admittedly non-terrorizing, and that's 'good') way do great injustice to Jesus's teachings, much to his/their detriment, again IMO.

Your ideas of 'justice', for example, are 'human' ones which are quite different from the 'godly', transhuman one that Jesus shared. Read Matthew 25:14-30 closely (and open mindedly) if you wish to 'get' what he meant about 'The Kingdom of Heaven'. This is a far cry from the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" human-compassion generated 'ideal'.

I hope to will receive this as an honest and honorable attempt to engage your and others here in genuine discussion of the subject of 'humanism versus transhuman spirituality' and not simply reject or, worse, think that is just an 'assault' on what you thinks of as 'sacred' and so ban me from posting here. I genuine wish to serve to help "Progressive Christianity' live up to its 'flag-waiving' title.

7 hours ago, tariki said:

I think you might need to get a sense of humour.

Your 'humor' registers as 'sick' on my scale of values.

21 hours ago, romansh said:

Well David ... you should practice what you preach and engage in the argi bargy of discourse.

I am more than just practice-ing what I preach. Too bad you don't (can't?) 'get' it. That is not within my power to change.

1 hour ago, tariki said:

I must admit that until now I thought that I was the king of waffle.

The web of your 'logic' is so 'foreign' to mine that I often don't know why/how something makes sense to you. But just in case you are thinking that my saying
"That's great and very clear - I 'get' the reason and personal benefits of [your] choice and have absolutely no 'objection' to you (or anyone else!) doing so" strikes you as being a 'waffle' (i.e. the reverse of something I have previously asserted), I would like you to know that it is not. I am well aware and so respectfully accept and honor the fact that many (most?) people don't share my understandings and corollary values and am quite 'at peace' with let-go-and-let-god (because I can't change their 'karma') 'letting' them be and do as they wish to. I know their lives (as currently expressing) are organically just as much a part of THE Flow of Life as mine is and that 'objecting' to them being what the are and doing as they do is a waste of precious energy and 'my-arms-r-too-short-to-box-with-god' pointless.

I do not 'want' you to be/do anything you don't 'want' to be/do. I just wish others 'hear' and 'consider' my opinion, which I am convinced you have done to the best of your ability. No waffle here.

1 hour ago, tariki said:

I must admit that until now I thought that I was the king of waffle.

You are the 'king' of 'snide' projections, which you seem to revel in doing -  which reveling is very un'christian', IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

51 minutes ago, romansh said:

Well David ... you should practice what you preach and engage in the argi bargy of discourse.

Though I am having fun here, romansh, I have a much 'higher' purpose - that I what I 'indulge' in.

On 4/9/2022 at 6:39 PM, PaulS said:

This phenomenon has real-life consequences. Not only do people interested in Jesus paint him in their own image, they also model their lives on the image of Jesus they have painted. Those who see Jesus as a pacifist tend to oppose war and work for peace.  Those who see Jesus as an advocate for the poor and needy often engage in volunteer work and generously share their own resources.  Those who take to heart Jesus’ teaching, “Judge not lest you be judged” are often open to the opinions and perspectives of others – not to mention their gender identity, race, nationality, religion, and everything else about them that makes them human. Those who see Jesus as one who loves and saves all people equally often work to bring justice and equality to the world.  Scriptural portraits of Jesus in these modes can and do make the Christian message a beneficial reality.

But what about a portrait of Jesus that shows him as vengeful?  Filled with wrath against those who do not believe in him?  Infinitely powerful and determined to use his almighty force to dominate those he disapproves of – to harm them, torture them, and massacre them?   The Jesus who once suffered and is now out to destroy his persecutors?  The Jesus who is interested in material wealth, whose followers will be rewarded with power and domination and allowed to rule the peoples of earth with “a rod of iron”?

This is not the Jesus of the Gospels, but it is the wrathful Lamb of the Apocalypse. It is also the portrait of Christ many people prefer today.  It is a portrait that enables and encourages Jesus’ followers to embrace violence, vengeance, domination, and exploitation — to do whatever it takes to assert their will on others.   Some of these people have been our neighbors.  Some of them have been our leaders.  Some of them very much want to be our leaders.

What would the Jesus of the Gospels make of them?

For those of us who choose to follow Jesus –  whatever kind of Christian we are or even if we do not identify as Christian — whether we are fundamentalist Christians, evangelicals, liberal main-line Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, agnostics and/or atheists, or anything else our understanding of Jesus will almost certainly affect how we model our lives.  Is he the loving, peaceful Jesus found in the Gospels, ever attentive to the needs of others?  Or is he the wrathful, vengeful Jesus of the Apocalypse, who seeks to hurt and destroy everyone outside his band?  Each of us has to decide.

I once read (In Seth Speaks, channeled by Jane Roberts if anyone is interested in exploring further) that there were quite a number of folks who believed/thought and 'preached' they were 'the' (prophesied) 'Messiah' in Jesus's (obviously very stressful) time. And, since there was no photo-ID 'system' to tell people apart in those days, the 'sayings of the (supposed) Messiah in The New Testament are actually an amalgam of the sayings of  a range of similar, but in significant ways different. personalities.

I agree with the gist of the OP in this thread, to wit that we each have to sort out and what we embrace regard to be the 'sayings' of a 'true' Jesus (messianic teacher), who will obviously be a 'projection' heavily 'colored' by our own current level of soul development and (consequent) predilections.

There are many 'contradictions' (in terms of 'strict' logic) which may 'confuse' and/or 'mislead' readers in said regard. For example, in relation to the issue of ;judgment':

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Matthew 7)
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (John 7)
"Ye judge after the flesh;  I judge no man.  And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me."

It is up to each of us to make our 'own' sense of all that, though I am sure (based on what has been thrown my way) that some here will simplu dismiss all that as just being 'goobledegook'.

'Simpletons' are presently at a disadvantage in the above regards, there is nothing I can personally do about that! Albeit, hopefully - at least that is my prayer - they may be in a better position to decipher complexities in a future life, assuming they have one!