Believing All Faiths Are Equal Before God Is Hypocritical

[minsocal]

John 3:31 "He who comes from above is above all, he who is of the earth is from the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.

 

If you knew Christ better, you would know the Father better. Sonomon this quote is talking to you. Those who become vain in their imaginations concerning God will not learn or know Christ. You say you are a Christian than take what is said to heart and change your heart so you can love and accept your brothers and sisters. Those who don't know the glory and grace of Christ and his love will not know the Father that sent him. Sonomon you want to put Buddhist down when you should be concentrating on your Christianity. The mind is tricky and will find ways to bring people away from Christ and into the world of division. The key is to rise above such pettiness an bath in the glory and love of the Father.

 

It seems you don't know Buddhism so why do you talk about it. Go deep into your Christianity and talk about the glory of Christ living and not the negative dogma you have read. I hope that negativity is not coming from within you because then it is more serious. The savior will appear in glory if you open your heart and realize he is already there.

 

Jung, as you may well know, explored Eastern religions from which he derived a number of key concepts. He also explored Gnosticism and shared his views on Gnosticism with the likes of Martin Buber. The Buber exchanges were strained and difficult. In short, his views of the "divine within" come from both sources. In pure form, Jung was talking about this very battle between negativism and opening up to "the gold within", or the "God within" if you prefer.

 

And then there is a provocative point raised by Jung that could be ready to emerge in our common consciousness. It comes from Taoism. In a sense, the "internal" and the "external" dichotomy could be an illusion. East JOINS West in a new consciousness that is a product of both. I find that very compelling. I often imagine God hearing this with a "now you got smile". That's how my imagination works.

[sonoman]

Sonoman,

 

Well, I must be honest with you. I do not accept the NT as translated as the Word of God. Most of it is just letters to churches and I don't believe intended to be a Bible. Jesus himself of course wrote nothing and the writers of the gospels as translated also have their problems. There is a lot of inspiration and truth to it but there seems to me to be much I don't buy and has been revealed by the Spirit to me differently. What you are saying God has not revealed to me. Others may have their own view here but that's the way I feel. Some preach division and some unity. To me God is unity for he makes the sun to shine on the just and unjust and since god is Love, I believe God loves all equally regardless of what you may speak from the Book. Just my view to consider,

 

Love Joseph

 

Well, there you are, Joseph. I do accept the Gospels as the Word of God--the words spoken by Jesus. I do find it difficult to identify you as a Christian when you don't accept the words of Jesus. I'm not talking about historical veracity but inspired writing that has created a Word of God. I'm wondering if your UU/Unity point of view is typical of Progressive Christianity. There is such a battle going on here to try to make me back down from following the Gospel and tossing it aside in favor of this fuzzy wuzzy "let's all feel good and be nice to everyone" that's being promoted here as "Christianity". It seems posters here cannot tell the difference between Buddhism and Christianity.

[sonoman]

There are numerous variations of Buddhism and there are numerous variations of Christianity. I simply ask which variation(s) you consider valid and those you do not in both categories and why. Perhaps you can list them out on a table for us? If you claim to be a voice of God in our times, this should be quite simple. If you need a list of the variations in both categories, I'd be happy to give them to you.

 

For a starter ... let's discuss the basic schools of Buddhism: Theraveda, Mahahayana and Hinayana. How do these schools agree or disagree with your views?

 

The basic assumption of Buddhism is wrong. I don't have to know the various sectarian differences of Buddhism to know that Gautama Buddha, coming from a self-described very privileged childhood, overreacted when he confronted human misery and created a mind control remedy to avoid psychic suffering that threw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

These are the End Times of Buddhist philosophy. God has led me to the fatal flaws of many religious paths and Buddhism is one of them. It is based on creating a single brain state wherein electrical activity to the brain's sense of self center in the parietal area is shunted forward to the frontal lobes, especially the right frontal lobe where pleasure centers register this electrical activity as feelings of oceanic bliss. This information can be read in studies done of Buddhist monks meditating but the conclusion is my own, that Buddhism is really not very different from other forms of mind control, e.g. drugs, in that it seeks a physical brain manipulation remedy for dealing with psychic pain. The "Void" concept in Buddhist philosophy comes from projecting the actual void of electrical activity within the brain's sense of self center. It takes an ego to create novelty which is why those nations where Buddhism is the main religion lag behind their Western counterparts. Nature is revered and traditional art is the product of Buddhist single state brain glorification. No philosophy that promotes a single brain state over other brain states can be good for humanity and therefore as a Christian I warn against following the false Buddhist road. No matter how seductive it seems it is the same old lotus land idea of changing one's oppressed mental state instead of dealing with the social causes of that oppression.

[minsocal]

The basic assumption of Buddhism is wrong. I don't have to know the various sectarian differences of Buddhism to know that Gautama Buddha, coming from a self-described very privileged childhood, overreacted when he confronted human misery and created a mind control remedy to avoid psychic suffering that threw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

These are the End Times of Buddhist philosophy. God has led me to the fatal flaws of many religious paths and Buddhism is one of them. It is based on creating a single brain state wherein electrical activity to the brain's sense of self center in the parietal area is shunted forward to the frontal lobes, especially the right frontal lobe where pleasure centers register this electrical activity as feelings of oceanic bliss. This information can be read in studies done of Buddhist monks meditating but the conclusion is my own, that Buddhism is really not very different from other forms of mind control, e.g. drugs, in that it seeks a physical brain manipulation remedy for dealing with psychic pain. The "Void" concept in Buddhist philosophy comes from projecting the actual void of electrical activity within the brain's sense of self center. It takes an ego to create novelty which is why those nations where Buddhism is the main religion lag behind their Western counterparts. Nature is revered and traditional art is the product of Buddhist single state brain glorification. No philosophy that promotes a single brain state over other brain states can be good for humanity and therefore as a Christian I warn against following the false Buddhist road. No matter how seductive it seems it is the same old lotus land idea of changing one's oppressed mental state instead of dealing with the social causes of that oppression.

 

Your description is interesting, but it does not agree with what we now know about the brain. Your theory is not all that unique and, in fact, a bit old. I suggest you review the work of Abraham Maslow on peak experiences. Jung on introversion and extraversion. Jung and Whitehead on psychic energy. These views were clearly presented almost 100 years ago. Not very new at all.

[JosephM]

Well, there you are, Joseph. I do accept the Gospels as the Word of God--the words spoken by Jesus. I do find it difficult to identify you as a Christian when you don't accept the words of Jesus. I'm not talking about historical veracity but inspired writing that has created a Word of God. I'm wondering if your UU/Unity point of view is typical of Progressive Christianity. There is such a battle going on here to try to make me back down from following the Gospel and tossing it aside in favor of this fuzzy wuzzy "let's all feel good and be nice to everyone" that's being promoted here as "Christianity". It seems posters here cannot tell the difference between Buddhism and Christianity.

 

Well Sonoman,

 

I must tell you that your views are welcome even though they may be significantly different. And No I don't speak for all here. Let them speak for themselves but it is considered very disrespectful to insinuate someone here is not a Christian. and that is an opinion best kept to oneself. Jesus never defined Christianity as believing all the words written in the then non-existent Gospels. Continuing on this line will get you at the least suspended as long as I am moderator. Your views differ from mine but I will not call or insinuate you are non Christian. That is unacceptable here and uncivil. Not everyone here believes that the gospels as written and translated are inerrant or unchanged by the church system. All seem to hold to the basic tenets of what we see as the foundation teachings of Jesus and some may even agree with you but that doesn't mean they can disrespect differing views of Christianity. Please be more careful with your words. If you are trying to better understand us . Do it with questions. If you disagree, state why you believe differently and others may read it and be influenced.

I hope you will try to understand why i wrote this because I do enjoy reading your point of view as long as it is sensitive to others. Your statement is like going into a JW or Catholic church and because you may differ in some areas tell them they are non Christian. Not acceptable for a member here.

 

love in Christ,

Joseph

[davidk]

This post by davidk has been deleted. It was warned as inappropriate for this site in the previous post. davidk will not be posting for 7 days.

 

Love Joseph

[soma]

Our Christian faith is rich with great virtues and teachings. Buddhism is not a threat, Christianity is a hope for society, but religious haters need to realize how irrational their hatred of different religious is and realized that faith, hope, and love are still forces for good in society. Instead of hating on another religion, life style or person, we need to concentrate on our own spiritual journey. What a waste of energy. I feel these people do not know their own religion so talk about other religions. They don't know themselves so talk about others. Instead of spreading love, they spread smear campaigns.

 

The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades thanks to shallow Christian behavior.

[JosephM]

The origial question of this thread seems to me to say that believing all faiths are EQUAL before God is Hypocritical. Personally I do not believe all faiths are equal before God and it seems to me that is not the meaning of TCPC point 2 to say that all are equal. The wording of Point 2 of TCPC was done very carefully if you research it on www.TCPC.org. And the study guide further explains its intent. I have included it here for your convenience.

 

By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us.

This approach to religious and cultural differences can be called "pluralism", but that identification can be confusing because the word has two distinct meanings. Pluralism can refer to a condition of a particular society in which diverse ethnic and religious groups maintain their traditions and autonomy. Or pluralism can mean a policy of promoting such a condition for the common good. Although the Bible does not discuss pluralism in either sense of the word, many passages suggest that the writers and editors of scripture accepted the reality of the condition. For example, the verse known as the first of the Ten Commandments reads:

 

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other Gods before me. (Exodus 20:2-3)

Each of the tribes among whom the people of Israel lived had its own god, and the Lord's people were admonished to be loyal to their own God. Over the centuries, however, the idea emerged that the Lord they worshiped was not simply the God of their tribe, but the ruler of the universe who embraced even the people who did not know the Lord by name. So it was that a prophet could call Cyrus, King of Persia, the Lord's messiah (Isaiah 45:1). At the same time, Jews thought of themselves as being in a special relationship with the universal God. They were the "chosen people".

 

 

The early Christians displayed some ambivalence toward the religious diversity of the Roman Empire in which they found themselves. As a tiny sect within the empire, they profited to some extent by the official policy of pluralism, but they never embraced the policy as a matter of doctrine. Instead, they developed the notion that they had replaced the Jews as God's chosen ones. With the rise of Islam, the western world had yet a third group of people claiming to be the people favored by the universal God. If history has any lessons to teach, one lesson surely must be that people claiming special access to God have a tendency to justify their hatred and oppression of anyone who does not affirm their beliefs and traditions.

 

 

A few years ago there was a popular bumper sticker that said: "God is too big for one religion." As appropriate as this statement may seem to progressive Christians today, this idea has not been a traditional part of Christian teaching over the centuries. Although it is often argued that there is biblical foundation for the idea that Christianity is the only way that one can have a relationship with God or experience salvation. In the New Testament, this is not as clear as the church may have suggested over the centuries. There is little evidence in the "synoptic gospels" (Matthew, Mark, Luke) that Jesus was trying to begin a new religion or was even calling for converts to what some recognize as his "brand" of Judaism. To the contrary, his relationship with the Samaritans and other gentiles seems to indicate an openness and pluralistic attitude that would have been unusual for a first century Jew.

 

 

It is true that the author of John's gospel does place the following words in Jesus' mouth: "I am the way, and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6) It is important to remember, however, that these words were written for a religious sect that was a persecuted minority cult, struggling for survival in the first century. Those same words, written with a specific purpose, would have had a very different feel for the first century Christian than they do in contemporary times. However, since the fourth century and the advent of "Christendom," these words and other quotations from the book of John have been used by the church and the state as a source of power and control through their exclusive nature. Christianity and "correct belief" were the only way that one could find salvation. The church became the exclusive broker for tickets to heaven.

 

 

Today with our awareness of black holes, post quantum physics, multiple dimensions and multiple and expanding universes, it is impossible to believe that any one religion could have the whole picture or the correct understanding of God, let alone have an exclusive path to that God. To suggest anything else would be at best, arrogant. More importantly, many Christians today find that learning about other religions and even encompassing some practices from these traditions has enhanced their understanding of their own religion, has augmented to their personal religious experiences and deepened their faith.

 

 

Important as it is for Christians to be clear and positive about what they stand for, the time has come for followers of Jesus to embrace pluralism as a necessary condition for a peaceful and just society.

 

 

We may find a certain comfort in believing that "our" way is the only way. This is a natural part of any cultic religious experience. Far greater faith is required, however, to seek and trust that which you accept as infinite, beyond your comprehension, and subject to change. Today, this just may be the challenge of an educated and thinking Christian — to retain a faith "in face of the mystery." (Gordon D. Kaufman, Ph.D.)

 

Love Joseph

[sonoman]

Joseph, you have a dangerous mindset if you don't mind me saying so. You're one of these people who believes they are above acts of egotistical behavior but are not at all. You claim to stand for a Christianity that is tolerant of other faiths yet you are now censoring TCPC members who don't agree with your particular definition of Christianity, a definition I might remind you you would have a great deal of trouble defending within the great majority of Christian church congregations. In short, you have a distinctly minority Christian point of view and yet here you are trying to push your minority view down TCPC members throats by force of threat of censorship.

 

You are not unique in this role, it is the most common one of forum owners and administrators but it also the reason such minority religious views like mine get censored on these Internet religious discussion forums. All I can suggest is that once upon a time there existed the best Internet discussion forum in the world. It was called Lycos boards and there the Lycos administrators had a light touch on the censorship button and amazingly, we posters managed to weed out all the garbage postings and their posters by simply ignoring posted views that had nothing to offer but vitriol or sales pitches--and that worked! Long lasting forum board communities were formed. I had Lycos friends for years after Lycos folded due to lack of knowing how to make the Lycos forum pay for itself. But Lycos remains in my memory as proof that heavy handed censorship is not needed on these forum boards. Blatantly violating posts can be and should be censored under general posting rules but when you get into personal religious prejudices dominating others, then it's time to step back and see if there's another way to hold common dialogue.

[minsocal]

Joseph, you have a dangerous mindset if you don't mind me saying so. You're one of these people who believes they are above acts of egotistical behavior but are not at all. You claim to stand for a Christianity that is tolerant of other faiths yet you are now censoring TCPC members who don't agree with your particular definition of Christianity, a definition I might remind you you would have a great deal of trouble defending within the great majority of Christian church congregations. In short, you have a distinctly minority Christian point of view and yet here you are trying to push your minority view down TCPC members throats by force of threat of censorship.

 

You are not unique in this role, it is the most common one of forum owners and administrators but it also the reason such minority religious views like mine get censored on these Internet religious discussion forums. All I can suggest is that once upon a time there existed the best Internet discussion forum in the world. It was called Lycos boards and there the Lycos administrators had a light touch on the censorship button and amazingly, we posters managed to weed out all the garbage postings and their posters by simply ignoring posted views that had nothing to offer but vitriol or sales pitches--and that worked! Long lasting forum board communities were formed. I had Lycos friends for years after Lycos folded due to lack of knowing how to make the Lycos forum pay for itself. But Lycos remains in my memory as proof that heavy handed censorship is not needed on these forum boards. Blatantly violating posts can be and should be censored under general posting rules but when you get into personal religious prejudices dominating others, then it's time to step back and see if there's another way to hold common dialogue.

 

Well, David was right and I think the red flags are flying.

[JosephM]

Joseph, you have a dangerous mindset if you don't mind me saying so. You're one of these people who believes they are above acts of egotistical behavior but are not at all. You claim to stand for a Christianity that is tolerant of other faiths yet you are now censoring TCPC members who don't agree with your particular definition of Christianity, a definition I might remind you you would have a great deal of trouble defending within the great majority of Christian church congregations. In short, you have a distinctly minority Christian point of view and yet here you are trying to push your minority view down TCPC members throats by force of threat of censorship.

 

I am sorry you feel that way Stephen. But perhaps you are mistaken because I don't expect you to believe as I do and I have been very tolerant of you as you have admittedly been banned the first day from many forums. I have no fear of what you have to say but you were told that you can express what you believe as your view but when you accuse others of being non-christian and insist on pushing the point rather than moving on you step across TCPC lines. I am sorry I am not as tolerant as you expected. I will give you 7 days to think about it and if you cannot abide by our policies you may as well not return.

 

You are not unique in this role, it is the most common one of forum owners and administrators but it also the reason such minority religious views like mine get censored on these Internet religious discussion forums. All I can suggest is that once upon a time there existed the best Internet discussion forum in the world. It was called Lycos boards and there the Lycos administrators had a light touch on the censorship button and amazingly, we posters managed to weed out all the garbage postings and their posters by simply ignoring posted views that had nothing to offer but vitriol or sales pitches--and that worked! Long lasting forum board communities were formed. I had Lycos friends for years after Lycos folded due to lack of knowing how to make the Lycos forum pay for itself. But Lycos remains in my memory as proof that heavy handed censorship is not needed on these forum boards. Blatantly violating posts can be and should be censored under general posting rules but when you get into personal religious prejudices dominating others, then it's time to step back and see if there's another way to hold common dialogue.

 

We have allowed you to express your views freely but obviously you do not see it that way. We are not Lycos and you have been our guest member here. We censor very few posts but you were warned and do not seem to want to show any respect for PC. Hoping you will reconsider but if not just do not return after your 7 days expires.

 

Sonoman's posts have NOT been deleted and Sonoman will not be posting for 7 days.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

[minsocal]

I am sorry you feel that way Stephen. But perhaps you are mistaken because I don't expect you to believe as I do and I have been very tolerant of you as you have admittantly been banned the first day from many forums. I have no fear of what you have to say but you were told that you can express what you believe as your view but when you accuse others of being non-christian and insist on pushing the point rather than moving on you step accross TYCPC lines. I am sorry I am not as tolerant as you expected. I will give you 7 days to thing about it and if you cannot abide by our policies you may as well not return.

 

 

 

We have allowed you to express your views freely but obviously you do not see it that way. We are not Lycos and you have been our guest member here. We censor very few posts but you were warned and do not seem to want to show any respect for PC. Hoping you will reconsider but if not just do not return after your 7 days expires.

 

Love in christ,

Joseph

 

The "guest member" status has always concerned me. I post on a variety of progressive message boards. That is my passion. Progressives do not agree on everything and I enjoy dicussions with fellow progressives on issues. The point I want to make is that the term "progressive" does NOT belong to Christianity. There are progressive versions of all faiths. I get frustrated when people try to block that discourse. Two cents issued.

[JosephM]

The "guest member" status has always concerned me. I post on a variety of progressive message boards. That is my passion. Progressives do not agree on everything and I enjoy dicussions with fellow progressives on issues. The point I want to make is that the term "progressive" does NOT belong to Christianity. There are progressive versions of all faiths. I get frustrated when people try to block that discourse. Two cents issued.

 

Myron,

Your point with the word progressive is well taken. I certainly do not want to block discourse on the term "progressive." I was not aware that was an issue in this thread. You are free to start a discourse thread on it if you like. I hope I am understanding your post here correctly. The 2 members here were blocked because they were warned of the inappropriate tone of their posts and not for their view. If you are saying they should not have been blocked I would be happy to discuss it privately with you as that is not the purpose or burden of the public portion of this board.

 

Love Joseph

[soma]

I feel Joseph has been clear and patient with uncharitable post. "Serenity Through Meditation."

[minsocal]

Myron,

Your point with the word progressive is well taken. I certainly do not want to block discourse on the term "progressive." I was not aware that was an issue in this thread. You are free to start a discourse thread on it if you like. I hope I am understanding your post here correctly. The 2 members here were blocked because they were warned of the inappropriate tone of their posts and not for their view. If you are saying they should not have been blocked I would be happy to discuss it privately with you as that is not the purpose or burden of the public portion of this board.

 

Love Joseph

 

My use of the term "blocked" is the the near equivalent of your term 'innapropriate tone". The inappropriate tone blocks debate.

 

The term "progressive" has a long history with a set of core values that help bridge the gap betweeen groups whether they are religious sects or not.

[October's Autumn]

Can't be a spiritual activist if you don't believe in yourself as a vessel of spiritual knowledge. When someone's drowning, you toss them a lifeline or give them a hand or jump in and save them. And if they're family, you jump in even if you don't know how to swim.

 

Whenever quoting another source it is appropriate to acknowledge that source. IOW, if it is not original to you, say where you got it. For example, according to so-and-so...

[October's Autumn]

Post deleted... Unnecessary response .... Poster Sonoman was banned JosephM