Revelations vs the Gospel of Jesus

[PaulS]

On the Bart Erhman blog (https://ehrmanblog.org/member-landing-page/), Bart has been discussing the ideology of domination in the book of Revelation.  Although the bulk of his posts are only fully available with a subscription ($30/yr), his summary around this topic has been posted in its entirety for free, so I have taken the opportunity to replicate it here for people to read if interested.  

Over to Bart:

The Apocalypse of John and the Gospel of Jesus: My Final Thoughts

April 9, 2022

Here now is the conclusion to my lecture on the ideology of domination in the book of Revelation.

******************************

I conclude with several more focused reflections on whether the Revelation of John represents the Gospel of Jesus.  To sum up what I have been emphasizing: there is not a single word in all of Revelation about God loving others and no instruction to the followers of Christ to do so either.  Instead, they are called to be “conquerors” – and once they overwhelm the rest of the earth with divine military might, they become its rulers, kings who control “the nations with a rod of iron.”  Whether John meant this literally is beside the point.   This is how he sees God, Christ, his followers, and the rest of the human race: powerful rulers and abject subjects.

Is this what Jesus meant when he told his followers to abandon all desire for greatness?  To live lives of service to others?  To become slaves?   In the book of Revelation Christ’s followers are slaves, but only to God.  They despise everyone outside their rank and want their blood to spill, just as Christ himself is explicitly said to hate those who are not true believers – even members of his own churches. The slaves of God are not instructed to love, serve, or help anyone – even when they have the power to do so. They live in the new Jerusalem, a city constructed of gold, jewels, and pearls, where their every need is met and life is so good that they no longer ever shed a tear, for all eternity.  Do they use the city’s wealth to help those outside?  No. Those outside don’t matter, except to the extent that they bring their own wealth into the city.  But no one who engages in abomination or falsehood can do so, because no sinners could possibly set foot in the golden city where Christ resides.  Was that Jesus’ view?  Did he shun sinners?  In Revelation, Jesus and his followers do not come to serve and to give their lives for others.  They come to destroy the lives of others and to be served.  It is difficult indeed to see how Jesus would countenance such a view.

John of Patmos is certainly a committed Christian.  He is a passionate follower of the Lamb who wreaks vengeance on earth, a slave of God to the very end.  But is he the kind of Christian that Jesus would recognize?

In his Quest of the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer famously argued that each generation of scholars has painted Jesus in their own image.  That is to say, the historical and cultural contexts of biblical scholars affect how they understand Jesus; they invariably portray him as a person of their own time who proclaimed their own perspectives.  Enlightenment scholars who rejected the supernatural wrote accounts of a non-miraculous Jesus, where his alleged “miracles” were simply misunderstood by the pre-Enlightenment authors of the Gospels, and so on.

Schweitzer’s view has been borne out with a vengeance over the past forty years, including, ironically, among scholars who read and cite his analysis.  More than ever, it has become de rigueur to portray Jesus according to one’s own ideological perspectives.  And so we have scholars (not to mention preachers) who celebrate the Capitalist Jesus, the Marxist Jesus, the Feminist Jesus, the Counter-cultural Jesus, and the Political Revolutionary Jesus.  The Nazis had an Aryan Jesus.  Among us today there is a White Nationalist Jesus.  Name your ideological preference and write your book.

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.

 

[David Sundaram]

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

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.

Hello Paul (and others here) -

I think the 'books' (scriptures) that are presented in the Bible are best viewed and interpreted as historical-mindset generated artifacts.

Given the obviously exceptional depth and breadth of his comprehension , I myself advocate attempting to meaningfully interpret and understand Jesus's actual (as reported by witnesses) statements, not what is said by others about him (or anyone/anything else for that matter). I find discussions here generally don't do this - which is at odds with the fact that great 'homage' is accorded him. For example, what did Jesus actually mean when he said: "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Matthew 16:25-26) What do folks here think the word 'soul' here references, I wonder? I have not heard anyone here talk about this. This is so central to Jesus's philosophy and message (IMO), I devoted most of my treatise titled "What Did Jesus Really Mean?" (available as a free download from my website) to 'splaining it. Be that as it may, I submit that the 'dominating', 'wrathful' and 'vengeful' aspects of "God's" and Jesus's character you speak about are clearly projections that emanated from the mindsets of people around Jesus in his time (as well as a great many since, of course). I hope you and others readers here find the opening paragraphs of my treatise (quoted below) to be convincing in this regard:

"From his saying “This is my body” when breaking bread and “This is my blood” when pouring wine at what has since been referenced as The Last Supper with his disciples (see Matthew 26), it is clear that Jesus rationally grasped as well as mystically (that is, transpersonally) identified with the Oneness of Creation. If what he meant to communicate by way of such sayings had been truly apprehended, such utterances may indeed have been  foundational in establishing an ecologically sane, holistically Life-augmentative civilization.

That was not to be the case, however. Because the beliefs of most if not all of those around him at the time were hypnotically rooted in projections that God (to wit, the progenitive Source and Sustainer of Life) was a singular, supremely dictatorial ruler who had especially favored mankind by ‘giving’ them ‘dominion’ over all other earthly creatures (see Genesis 1:26-28), analogous to the way kings of old ‘granted’ lords of old the right to govern less powerful folk living in their territories (as long as said lords remained loyally subservient in relation to said kings, of course), the people around him simply did not register and so could not even begin to comprehend the implications of the fact that such sayings by Jesus actually referenced the matrixial interconnectedness and interdependency of all being.

Making matters worse, as they then also construed his references to being “the Son of God” literally, instead of ‘remembering’ the factuality of above-referenced Oneness of Being as they were directed to (in Luke 22), when would-be followers subsequently gathered together for a ceremonial meal of bread and wine (which observance later became ritualized as The Sacrament of Holy Communion), they just imagined and believed the bread and wine to be miraculously transformed (literally transubstantiated!) into the flesh and blood of Jesus himself* who they idolized and proceeded to worship and pledge allegiance to as the “King of kings, and Lord of lords” (I Timothy 6:15 16) 'heir' of said ‘supreme’ God.

Footnote*:
Though such belief and practice is generally, presently at least, simply accepted without significant thought, question or discussion as ‘normal’, it generated quite a bit of controversy when the movement now known as ‘Christianity’ was just getting started as a result of its connoting a kind of cannibalism. Presumably, what is called ‘magical thinking’ (nowadays) led members of the movement to suppose that such ingestion would result in their physically ‘absorbing’ Jesus’ spiritual characteristics and thereby attain personal ‘communion’ with him."

Edited December 7, 2022 by David Sundaram

[romansh]

Welcome David

I will ask you a similar question to what I have asked in the past. With the advances in science, philosophy, law, economics, psychology, sociology, and a general understanding of how the universe ticks in the last two thousand years: what is the attraction of reinterpreting ancient theological texts so that they fit with our current understanding?

[David Sundaram]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Welcome David

I will ask you a similar question to what I have asked in the past. With the advances in science, philosophy, law, economics, psychology, sociology, and a general understanding of how the universe ticks in the last two thousand years: what is the attraction of reinterpreting ancient theological texts so that they fit with our current understanding?

Your presumptions are erroneous, Romansh. I am not attracted to or suggesting that we reinterpret said text so that they fit in with current understandings. There is great wisdom said texts which will continue to be underappreciated if they are only understood as traditionally interpreted. If you (bother to) read my treatise you will see that the my 'interpretations' derive from my understanding of other (non-Biblical) ancient scriptures, like those of Hinduism (The Bhagavad Gita, for example), as well as 'scientific' compilations which are not (yet) appreciatively accepted in the context of (Western) 'mainstream' materialistic and (hence) atheistic philosophy and derivative thinking. Check out Michael Newtons books Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls which present and collate reincarnational case histories garnered via hypnotic regression sessions, for example. Also the writings of Brian Weiss, M.D.m for example.

I offer additional quotes from my treatise to hopefully induce you to genuinely delve into what I present therein before so presumptuously asserting (again) that the 'advances' in Western understanding of how the universe works you reference are completely definitive in relation to the spiritual/soulful  matters under discussion:

"[As logically argued in the preceding chapter,] The Entity of Life (which is The Flow of Creation), of which you and I and everyone else ‘in’ existence is a ‘vital’ part, is the outworking and feedback-infusing dynamic of The omnipresent, Love and Joy focused Essence of Life (which is Creativity Itself!), such that said living Essence and living Entity operationally ex‧press and (thereby) ex‧peer‧ience Love and Joy (which is the ‘nature’ of said Essence) in every possible way to the utmost possible degree together. Here now, in order to begin explicating the true meaning of Jesus’ otherwise esoterically mystical statements, let me infuse what the words ‘being’ and ‘doing’ seminally denote with what the words ‘mind’ and ‘spirit’ nominally represent:

Every aspect of Life (i.e. of Being-n-Doing) is an emanation of Life’s omnipresent Essence (d/b/a Source) that, by virtue of Its Power, is endowed with (1) the capacity to be conscious to some degree, which consciousness, or presence of ‘mind ’, enables ‘it’ to ex·peer·ience whatever vibrations (occurrences, data-packets, etc.) ‘it’ is therefore capable of perceiving (i.e. registering) and so possibly responding to, and (2) the motive‧ation, or ‘spirit ’, to ex·press ‘itself ’ by way of causing, (generating, transmitting, propagating, etc.) whatever vibrations (occurrences, data-packets, etc.) ‘it’ is thereby motivated to ‘make’ in response thereto. In full zoom perspective, every nodal and multi-nodal feature of Life may be ‘seen’ to be a subsidiary soul, or gestalt of Life, which is facultatively imbued with ‘mind ’ and ‘spirit ’ by, and consequently both experiences and expresses ‘itself ’ in relationship to and with other nodes of Life ‘in’ the matrixial framework* of, a (supranodal!) Soul, which is the Mind-n-Spirit constellation (which many regard and relate to as having personal attributes, though all personal attributes actually derive from It**) of That which is All That Is.

[Footnotes:
 * “In him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28)

** As channel-spoken and recorded in Ch.10 of The Bhagavad Gita: “I am the Seed of all being, … no creature moving or unmoving can live without Me.”]

Orthodox materialists [blithely!] dismiss such idea as being no more than an example of wishful thinking because they believe that consciousness (i.e. ‘mind’) and motivation (i.e. intention, will, or ‘spirit’) are just epiphenomena which derive from the electro-chemical activity of molecular-chain linked ‘neural’ circuits, and that any differential discernment and directional movement must therefore simply be the result of innately unconscious and involitional matter-energy configurations (such as photons, atomic particles, molecules, DNA gene sequences and amalgams thereof) all just auto mechanistically responding to the influence of equally mindless and innately purposeless tempero-spatial (nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational) power-‘fields’. They therefore ‘see’ what we know as Life as being no more than the composite cause-effect result of everything and everyone in the Universe just ‘acting out’ essentially soul less, theoretically completely mathematically delineable scripts. Embedded in the above-articulated soul full☺ model of Life, however, is the possibility that, when and as the fantastically complex aggregation of associated beings which constitute the vehicular platform for one’s earthly experience and expression eventually disintegrates (in other words, when one’s body ‘dies’), the gestalt of one’s mind-n-spirit characterized soul-constellation may nevertheless continue to function as a disembodied psychospiritual entity which ‘lives on’ in the ‘bosom’ (idiomatically speaking☺) of the superordinate, eternally-ongoing because supraphysical (i.e. not temperospatial) Mind-n-Spirit composed Matrix of All That Is. This is the logic that gives rise to otherwise nonsensical scriptural exhortations such as “Labor not for the ‘meat’ which perisheth, but for that ‘meat’ which endureth unto everlasting life” (John 6:27), for instance.

Accounts of (so-called) ‘out of body’ and ‘near death’ experiences provide evidence that, though souls generally don’t wander away from the bodies they are ‘attached’ to (i.e. ‘associated’ with) while one is in a ‘normal’ waking state, they can, and in certain circumstances indeed do, operationally range well beyond the parameters of said bodies and therefore, arguably at least, aren’t just a function of said bodies’ beingnesses. Transcripts of hypnotic regression sessions wherein subjects coherently recall and report past-life and between-life experiences (those documented in Michael Newton, Ph.D.’s books, for example) also lend credence to the metaphysical proposition that personal psychospiritual gestalts, or vital aspects thereof, ‘survive’ the ‘death’ of one’s body and continue to live on in a non-physical realm and may ‘reincarnationally’ enter into partnership-associations with ‘new’ bodies from ‘there’ in order to programmatically execute their ‘innate’ Love and Joy maximization imperative and complete their maturational journey in said regard by way of so doing. For anyone wishing to investigate and contemplate the phenomenon of reincarnation further, the reports and commentary contained in Brian Weiss, M.D.’s various books are additionally corroborative and explanatory.

[Note: Unlike instrumentally measurable and mathematically describable, hence ‘reliably replicable’, phenomena stemming from what are regarded as being physical ‘laws’, there is much confusion and unresolvable speculation pertaining to psychospiritual (hence metaphysical) phenomena which are  subjectively actualized happenings that can’t simply be replicated at will – ‘higher order’ mental focus and spiritual motivation are not amenable to ‘exact’ description or ‘precise’ experimental control. I must therefore leave it to readers to consider and sort out what strikes them as being relevant data and reasonable explanations pertaining to (what is called) ‘reincarnation’ with the caveat that a great deal of what has been bandied about in connection with the subject strikes me as just being ‘loose’ gossip and speculation which, to the degree it is seriously entertained, may wastefully divert attention and energy away from the goal of actualizing the best possible Love and Joy experience and expression in the ‘framework’ of one’s present physiosocial context. I only reference the above sources of information to introduce readers who may not be familiar with the subject to reports and analyses thereof which fairly convincingly support the proposition that souls (i.e. psychospiritual gestalts) can and do ‘transmigrate’ because I think Jesus’ statements referencing ‘the way’ to ‘the Father’, ‘everlasting life’, etc. must be interpreted with such and related ideas in mind for what he meant thereby to be meaningfully understood and wisely utilized.]

The truth (which I just present as a hypothesis to anyone who is presently still agnostic in this regard) that one may potentially either integrally actualize the condition that Jesus referenced as ‘everlasting life’ as a coherent soul or irretrievably ‘lose’ one’s beingness and potential to do so as such as a result of what one believes and so thinks, feels and does or doesn’t think, feel and do (as suggested in statements like “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” and “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it,” for instance) may, I  think, be functionally comprehended and profitably applied if and as one thoughtfully considers and contemplates the implications of the following reincarnational-possibility related propositions:"

Much more follows, of course.

Edited December 7, 2022 by David Sundaram

[tariki]

Way back I read a question posed upon any work of literature. This was:- was the meaning of any passage restricted to the actual meaning and intent of the author. 

That question has always bubbled in my mind, along with many other bubbling things. Whatever the "answer" is, as I see it, the words are "out there" and WILL mean whatever anyone reads into them.

A passage of literary criticism seems relevant to me, of a critic speaking of the works of T S Eliot:-

......Eliot feels no compunction in alluding to the Bhagavad Gita in one section of the poem and Dante's Paradiso in the next. He neither asserts the rightness nor wrongness of one set of doctrines in relation to the other, nor does he try to reconcile them. Instead, he claims that prior to the differentiation of various religious paths, there is a universal substratum called Word (logos) of which religions are concretions. This logos is an object both of belief and disbelief. It is an object of belief in that, without prior belief in the logos, any subsequent religious belief is incoherent. It is an object of disbelief in that belief in it is empty, the positive content of actual belief is fully invested in religious doctrine.

Giving my own "allegiance" to significance, rather than to any thought that ultimately all existence is simply a "tale told by an idiot signifying nothing", I am one for the logos, the Tao, call it what you will. And literally everything is a concretion of such. All genuine diversification follows. Diversification prior to any allegiance to such will simply be disparate and part of the endless cycle of samsaric existence, leading nowhere. 

 

[romansh]

On 12/7/2022 at 2:06 PM, David Sundaram said:

Your presumptions are erroneous, Romansh. I am not attracted to or suggesting that we reinterpret said text so that they fit in with current understandings.

My apologies for my erroneous assumptions. So can I ask, so are our current understandings irrelevant to how we navigate our lives?

[David Sundaram]

7 hours ago, romansh said:

My apologies for my erroneous assumptions. So can I ask, so are our current understandings irrelevant to how we navigate our lives?

No. That is also a presumptuous (to 'fit' your own attribution) question. If you bothered to read the piece from my treatise that I quoted, you will see that I think 'current' understandings (albeit they are not 'mainstream' yet) of  the phenomenon of 'reincarnation' and 'spiritual' (i.e. NON-physical) Life are quite germane to grokking the significance of Jesus's sayings which, in turn, I champion as being super-relevant to 'successfully' navigating The Flow of Life on earth.

 

Requoting the last paragraph from that piece, which is a 'tease' aiming at getting folks to download, read, and contemplate the entirety of what I present in my treatise:
"The truth (which I just present as a hypothesis to anyone who is presently still agnostic in this regard) that one may potentially either integrally actualize the condition that Jesus referenced as ‘everlasting life’ as a coherent soul or irretrievably ‘lose’ one’s beingness and potential to do so as such as a result of what one believes and so thinks, feels and does or doesn’t think, feel and do (as suggested in statements like “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” and “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it,” for instance) may, I  think, be functionally comprehended and profitably applied if and as one thoughtfully considers and contemplates the implications of the following reincarnational-possibility related propositions:"

Download link: https://davidsundom.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/6/5/7765474/what_jesus_meant_2022.pdf

Edited December 12, 2022 by David Sundaram

[romansh]

To be fair David, I am letting a lot of what you say float by.

On a lot of websites what you post would be considered spam. But the admin here has a high tolerance for a variety of efforts of discourse.  Basically, cutting and pasting with a link to whatever it is you are trying to promote.

You like many alternative Christians, write in code. 

I don't think you are meaning to be rude David, but this particular receiver is tuning in on that perceived frequency.

My experience ... people who can't succinctly and simply describe whatever they are on about, often don't really understand it themselves.

@David Sundaram

Edited December 12, 2022 by romansh

[David Sundaram]

46 minutes ago, romansh said:

To be fair David, I am letting a lot of what you say float by.

@David Sundaram

Clearly! Bon voyage, Romansch.

Edited December 12, 2022 by David Sundaram

[romansh]

7 minutes ago, David Sundaram said:

Clearly!

Now, how much time should I spend on reincarnation and the afterlife? I am far more interested in what is considered tangible.

I don't find you as interesting as you find yourself. You are here to proselytize whatever it is you are proselytizing. That's fair enough. But you have shown no interest in other people's thoughts. If I believed in shame, I would say "shame on you David." Happily,  I don't believe in shame.

 

And you can't even get my stage name correct.

Edited December 12, 2022 by romansh

[David Sundaram]

25 minutes ago, romansh said:

Now, how much time should I spend on reincarnation and the afterlife? I am far more interested in what is considered tangible.

I don't find you as interesting as you find yourself. You are here to proselytize whatever it is you are proselytizing. That's fair enough. But you have shown no interest in other people's thoughts. If I believed in shame, I would say "shame on you David." Happily,  I don't believe in shame.

That is your choice, Romansh. I am 'shamelessly' interested in sharing and seeking to 'dia'log with others about what I think is most important in Jesus's world-view and teachings. You are right that I am not interested in relating to those who don't relate to that. I hope you will leave me to my business in said regard hereafter.

Edited December 12, 2022 by David Sundaram

[romansh]

7 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

I hope you will leave me to my business in said regard hereafter.

On a forum for debate and discussion?

11 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

The truth (which I just present as a hypothesis to anyone who is presently still agnostic in this regard) that one may potentially either integrally actualize the condition that Jesus referenced as ‘everlasting life’ as a coherent soul or irretrievably ‘lose’ one’s beingness and potential to do so as such as a result of what one believes and so thinks, feels and does or doesn’t think, feel and do (as suggested in statements like “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” and “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it,” for instance) may, I  think, be functionally comprehended and profitably applied if and as one thoughtfully considers and contemplates the implications of the following reincarnational-possibility related propositions:

Take this sentence ... and even here the sentence appears not to end. It's gobbledygook. 

I am reminded of Chopra, but at least it is succinct.

[David Sundaram]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Take this sentence ... and even here the sentence appears not to end. It's gobbledygook. 

I am reminded of Chopra, but at least it is succinct.

What would Jesus say? Disclaimer: not claiming to know, just playing what I imagine was his kind of 'game'.

Edited December 13, 2022 by David Sundaram

[romansh]

Well, @David SundaramI do have to thank you for providing a little mirth on an otherwise mirthless day. Mrs rom phoned this morning, to tell me that she had slipped on some ice and passers-by had called an ambulance. I called a neighbour to ask her if I could give her a ride into town so she could bring Mrs rom's car home. She could. I got to the hospital and she, Mrs rom, informed me she had likely broken her wrist and banged her head on possibly a fire hydrant. She assured me the fire hydrant was OK. Anyway, hours pass, as they do in Emergency. It turns out her radius is broken. They set the fracture in a plaster cast. re-Xrayed it, not good enough. The surgeon wants to operate, but the theatre does not. I come home for a bite to eat. Mrs rom texts that they will try re-setting without an op. Drive back ... hunt down where the Mrs is hidden in the hospital. A couple more hours pass. Eventually, the Mrs escapes the event horizon of the local hospital.

In the meantime, during lulls in the events, I read a few bits of David's musings. And commented on them. It would appear a serious critique is not what was hoped for by David. It appears David wants happiness and not criticism. 

Now if someone were to critique my writing negatively and I respected their opinion or their negative opinion was accurate, I must admit, it would hurt. So extrapolating from a point of one, either my opinion was accurate or David respects my opinion. Who would have thought? An inaccurate, anonymous opinion on the internet ... 

For me, dissenting opinions and clarification is where the fun is.

Edited December 13, 2022 by romansh

[PaulS]

14 hours ago, romansh said:

On a lot of websites what you post would be considered spam. But the admin here has a high tolerance for a variety of efforts of discourse.  

Correct.  Currently monitoring.

I hope Mrs Rom has a speedy recovery.

[tariki]

Rom, Hope all is as well as can be with Mrs Rom.

Always good to be reminded just how a lot of responses here are squeezed in between various states of unrest and activity!

Hope today is better.

 

[tariki]

14 hours ago, romansh said:

Now, how much time should I spend on reincarnation and the afterlife? I am far more interested in what is considered tangible.

Stephen Batchelor:-

 

Dharma practice requires the courage to confront what it means to be human. All the pictures we entertain of heaven and hell or cycles of rebirth serve to replace the unknown with an image of what is already known. To cling to the idea of rebirth can deaden questioning.

Failure to summon forth the courage to risk a nondogmatic and nonevasive stance on such crucial existential matters can blur our ethical vision. If our actions in the world are to stem from an encounter with what is central in life, they must be unclouded by either dogma or prevarication. Agnosticism is no excuse for indecision. If anything, it is a catalyst for action; for in shifting concern away from a future life and back to the present, it demands an ethics of empathy rather than a metaphysics of hope and fear.

[David Sundaram]

7 hours ago, tariki said:

Stephen Batchelor:-

Dharma practice requires the courage to confront what it means to be human. All the pictures we entertain of heaven and hell or cycles of rebirth serve to replace the unknown with an image of what is already known. To cling to the idea of rebirth can deaden questioning.

Failure to summon forth the courage to risk a nondogmatic and nonevasive stance on such crucial existential matters can blur our ethical vision. If our actions in the world are to stem from an encounter with what is central in life, they must be unclouded by either dogma or prevarication. Agnosticism is no excuse for indecision. If anything, it is a catalyst for action; for in shifting concern away from a future life and back to the present, it demands an ethics of empathy rather than a metaphysics of hope and fear.

Agreed. But it doesn't have to 'deaden questioning' etc. IMO, 'ideas' and 'beliefs' are (like) tools, which may be deployed for 'good' or 'ill' depending on the 'inner motives of the holder/believer and'or or the his/her 'foolishness'.

IMO, overemphasis (i.e concern with) on 'the present' to the exclusion of its potential effect/contribution to and determination of 'the future' may be just as if not more Life betraying and/or derailing as making 'the future' the central focus (concern) of one's theories and calculations.

IMO. 'wisdom' (i.e. optimal decision-making) requires 'balance' in this regard. Why? Because past-present-and-future are all dynamically connected.

IMO, 'dharma practice' requires the sensibility to confront both what is means to be a human (i.e, physically 'mortal') as well as an 'angelic' (i,e. spiritually 'immortal') Being.

My recommended 'corrective' here is based on my observation/assessment of what folk's here generally talk about and what they don't that there is an 'imbalance' (presumably resulting from an ignorance-based lack of appreciation and understanding of Jesus's saying and teachings) in this regard.

Which 'imbalance strikes me as being quite un'Christian', given Jesus and Paul's (who I regard as the co-founders of 'Christianty') clear emphasis on the importance and value of things like 'life-after-death', 'eternal life', etc.

To wit:

"I am the resurrection, and the life:  he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:  26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." (John Ch.11)

"The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." (Romans Ch.8)

ETC, ETC. ETC.

What do folks hear think.believe will 'happen' to them after the physical bodies they are ensconced in 'die', I wonder. That they will cease to exist as souls? that they will sit around forever in a bubble of Pure Love in some 'heavenly' place? Do we (souls) have only one 'earthly life' in which to make-or-break the way to ''eternal' afterlife actualization.? Are all of Jesus's and Paul's many many references in such regard nothing more than a Pied Piper offering kids a taste of candy 'con'?

I am totally non-plussed that I m getting such push-back (derision even!) from 'leading'(?) voices/members here in relation to my proposing and wanting to discuss 'reincarnation' as a phenomenon, knowledge of which may make greater sense of be facilitate successfully one's 'navigating' one's way though our present 'existential 'field' of 'earthly' actualization.

As I am said, I find such ';blind' (?), to the point of even being callus sometimes, rejection of the ideas I have shared here quite un'Christian'.

Where do you stand in relation to all this PaulS, I would really like to know if there's any chance of my effecting some kind of positive change here in the above regard.

Edited December 13, 2022 by David Sundaram

[David Sundaram]

10 hours ago, romansh said:

For me, dissenting opinions and clarification is where the fun is.

Likewise, romansh. I hope, despite evidence to the contrary, that you 'get' the significance of my dissenting opinion regarding your assertions, and clarifications regarding mine.

[romansh]

8 hours ago, tariki said:

Agnosticism is no excuse for indecision.

I like Stephen Batchelor. I find I am much more aligned with him than other lines with Buddhist thought. Mrs rom is fine. Thanks. There's some weight to her bossiness now, the cast and moral black mail work fine.

Edited December 13, 2022 by romansh

[tariki]

David, I have engaged with the various sayings of Jesus in the past, over many years. I am now a Pure Land Buddhist. Here, it is not "salvation by faith". Putting it simply, faith (shinjin) IS salvation. Trust. Letting go. Not identifying with any particular belief. 

It is a way of no-calculation (Japanese "hakarai") where things are made to become so of themselves. The "training ground" is life. All life. 

I no longer seek to relate to particular "sayings" of anyone. It is more relating to each moment, as mindfully as possible. 

That is as clear as I can make it. 

Thank you

 

[David Sundaram]

10 hours ago, romansh said:

Well, @David SundaramI do have to thank you for providing a little mirth on an otherwise mirthless day.

[David Sundaram]

1 minute ago, tariki said:

David, I have engaged with the various sayings of Jesus in the past, over many years. I am now a Pure Land Buddhist. Here, it is not "salvation by faith". Putting it simply, faith (shinjin) IS salvation. Trust. Letting go. Not identifying with any particular belief. 

It is a way of no-calculation (Japanese "hakarai") where things are made to become so of themselves. The "training ground" is life. All life. 

I no longer seek to relate to particular "sayings" of anyone. It is more relating to each moment, as mindfully as possible. 

That is as clear as I can make it. 

Thank you

That's great and very clear - I 'get' the reason and personal benefits of such choice and have absolutely no 'objection' to you (or anyone else!) doing so.

I have chosen and am advocating something that (IMO) is much more transpersonal, along the lines chosen, practiced and advocated by Jesus (IMO) and not  Gautama (again, IMO) - for those who may be 'drawn' to exploring this option, obviously not 'you'.

I hope you can and so choose to fully respect such choice on my part and not 'intrude' as though I was speaking to 'you' (obviously, I am speaking to 'you' here - but that is just in an attempt to induce you to desist from 'interfering' with the actualization of such choice and purpose).

 

[romansh]

34 minutes ago, David Sundaram said:

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

54 minutes ago, David Sundaram said:

significance of my dissenting opinion regarding your assertions

If indeed I do have assertions they would go along lines like these:

• If cause and effect are true, then any opinions/beliefs we have are a product of our evolution and environment.
• If cause and effect are not true then our opinions/beliefs have just popped into existence. (I must admit this seems far-fetched to me).
• If it is some combination of the two we are no further ahead.

Take your Brené for example. She managed to shake her addiction to a combination of alcohol, smoking, emotional eating and an addiction to control. But she never managed to let go of Christianity, wavering between the Catholic and Episcopalian.

Now if any of my three ifs are true, it takes courage to think about them and go where our thoughts lead us.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by romansh

[David Sundaram]

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!