Dharma/Christianity

[Guest guest]

Dear Dharma,

 

Thanks for your comments on Christianity. I especially appreciate your

suggestion that some sects of Christianity look beyond authoritianism and

point to self empowerment or point to the Kingdom within. And I also

appreciate your suggestion that there are many diverse aspects to

Christianity.

> Hello Roger,

>

> >> Since you are speaking about a religion from the outside, as you say:

> >>

> >> > I know many Christians &

> >> >have read about Christianity

> >>

> >> it might be better to take statements of doctrine from sources within

the

> >> religion. You are making some serious errors here.

> >

> >If you say that I am failing to discuss this complex topic in an

impartial

> >way, I won't resist. But I'm not ready take on your label "serious

errors".

>

> Not being part of the religion, you wouldn't know. But that's not

important...

 

People not part of a particular phenomena are still potentially qualified to

comment. Sometimes comments from outside can be more objective. Regarding

Christianity however, as you've explained, the issues are very diverse &

difficult for anyone to address in a complete way.

> >Which source do you consider official for the religion?

>

> For Christianity as a whole? Only the Bible, especially the New

Testament,

> the part written after Jesus.

 

The New Testament is a collection of works apparently approved by the

Romans, many other diverse texts were rejected and destroyed, no originals

of the gospels exist, both accidental editing during transcription &

potentially devious editing have apparently occured, the gospels were

written down many decades after the death of Jesus, the meaning of Jesus'

words probably were not fully captured by those listening, the meaning

carried in the minds of men for decades before transcription probably

drifted, interpertation of Bibilical scripture vary's wildly.

 

Further, the translation from Jesus orginal Aramaic language into

latin/greek/english (however that went) seems to have lost much. Have you

seen Neil Douglas-Klotz short but interesting work "Prayers of the Cosmos,

meditations on the Aramaic words of Jesus"? I really like some of his

alternative translations of the beautitudes. More later...

 

I enjoy The Gospel of Thomas http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html which

seems in my mind to have just as much claim to authenticity as the canonical

gospels, just that it didn't find favor with the Romans because it

emphasised self empowerment or the Kingdom within over external authority.

 

What I'm trying to say is this: we really have no idea what Jesus actually

said. Perhaps going with one's expansive feeling in the heart or other

insight is preferable to holding onto the words. The words have often been

used to justify hate.

> >I can send you

> >copies of fundementalist christian brochures

>......

> > or enlist opinions from a

> >number my acquaintences to confirm my statements.

>

> Opinions from acquaintances are fairly meaningless, unless you have an

> acquaintance who happens to be an authority on something in particular...

> and then you'd have to specify that and his background and affiliation.

 

It's as if you are saying that there is this very complicated diverse nature

to Christianity and that we should look to the official sources only. I

disagree. If fact, with any extremely complicated process, the product, in

other words the views & actions of individuals, maybe a very useful comment

on the whole.

 

For example, recently "christians" (shall I preface with "fundementalists"?)

introduced and won an addition to the Colorado State constitution which

legalized discrimination against homosexuals. The amendment struck down all

other laws enforcing equality. It would have been legal to deny housing or

other services etc based on sexual preference. This amendment was struck

down by the supreme court.

 

Recently another proposal to allow/require(don't remember which) the posting

of the ten commandments in public schools failed to pass. This was in

response to the Columbine Massacre.

 

Then there are the occasional incidents like David Koresh & Waco and the

Jones Town Massacre. There are people who hassle me when I go out for lunch

here on the Mall in Denver shouting "you're all sinners, everyone of you,

Jesus died to save you..."

 

I hear your plea about the diversity of Christians, and that many receive

genuine inspiration thru Christianity. But, do we have to do a analysis of

denomination & association before speaking up about the obvious social

problems?

 

I guess you're saying that I should be really specific and point to specific

events rather than make sweeping statements that might be seen as applying

to innocent christians. I'll do my best.

> >> Paul called Jesus "the elder brother of many," and he wrote: "The

entire

> >> creation is groaning in labor with the birth of the sons of God."

 

I like this comment a lot. thanks.

> >> You will find that many Christians have spoken and written about union

> >with

> >> God.

>

> >I expect you'll find many Christians who have spoken & written about

union

> >with God who were then officially expelled from their organizations for

> >speaking heresy.

>

> Some have... and some have been called saints.

 

I don't think there is particularily any different between a Christian

saint, a hindu saint, a moslem adept, modern adepts etc... etc... The outer

trappings, that is the religions, are not the important distinction because

saints exist from many religions. Further, many get lost in the religion and

use it to reinforce intolerance. Therefore I am very wary of religion, every

though reliance on authority seems to be a stage that most pass through.

 

I applaud your insight & passion for christianity, I'm just noting some of

the draw backs. I have a deep sincere burning questions: like "who really

was Jesus? what aspects of the traditions come from Jesus and what aspects

of tradition are only the work of men?" Very little can be said about Jesus

with certainty, I believe.

> >I have no intent to offend those who find inspiration through Jesus, and

I

> >count myself among those. However, I don't see any value in denying the

dark

> >side of Christianity.

>

> You seem to be identifying fundamentalist Christian doctrine with "the

dark

> side of Christianity." I have to strongly disagree with that... I may

> disagree with them on many points, but I know there are many good and

> loving people among the fundamentalists, who have helped many people. In

> the end, doctrine is not important. Jesus said his followers would be

> known by love. To me, anyone who loves his fellow man has a place among

> the saints.

 

"many good loving people among the fundamentalists". I'd agree, yet I think

we should note that pseudo love or the love of something that places one at

odds with others is not really love. True love, constant unvarying love

comes from within and is not dependant on any outer object. Those that love

Jesus in a way that causes them to hate that which is different from Jesus

have not really heard the word.

> There are four gospels included in the canon of the New Testament. The

> fourth gospel stands alone... it is the most Gnostic of the gospels and

> has always been the favorite of mystics. We know the first three used

> common sources... much material is repeated. And we know these books

have

> been edited. So I don't think we can place too much importance on any one

> statement of his as it stands now in the gospels. Nevertheless, his

> message comes through loud and clear.

 

I haven't taken time to look up the exact words. But Jesus is asked in John:

'how do we follow you?' and he responds 'No one comes to the father but thru

me'.

 

Fundamentalists use this to crown Jesus as an ultimate authority figure.

 

Yet, in the gospel of Thomas, when Jesus is asked the same question 'how do

we follow you?' he responds 'from where ever you can reach, stand there'

> >Is there any reason to hold Jesus above other realized saints?

>

> That is a strange question. Jesus himself would not hold himself above

> others.

 

Many of his followers have put him on a pedestal and have attacked those who

differ. I appreciate & agree with your view.

> Love,

> Dharma

 

Love,

Roger

[Guest guest]

Hi Roger,

>Thanks for your comments on Christianity. I especially appreciate your

>suggestion that some sects of Christianity look beyond authoritianism and

>point to self empowerment or point to the Kingdom within.

 

Well, it's more than a suggestion. I'm saying that liberal Christianity is

not what you've been describing... you've been talking about the other end

of the spectrum. The ministers at the more liberal churches come from such

reputable schools as Harvard, Yale, Andover-Newton, Rochester.. there are

too many to name.

 

>> Not being part of the religion, you wouldn't know. But that's not

>important...

>

>People not part of a particular phenomena are still potentially qualified to

>comment. Sometimes comments from outside can be more objective.

 

If the person has studied the subject. And that means more than listening

to the neighbors. I wouldn't talk to some Moslems where I live and then

try to make statements about all of Islam.

 

>> >Which source do you consider official for the religion?

>>

>> For Christianity as a whole? Only the Bible, especially the New

>Testament,

>> the part written after Jesus.

>

>The New Testament is a collection of works apparently approved by the

>Romans,

 

Good grief, Roger!! ) What in the world makes you think the canon of the

New Testament was set by Rome? This was a religion in a little country in

the far reaches of the empire, far from Rome itself. Yes, there were

Christians in Rome pretty early, but the center of the church certainly

wasn't there. Why would those early Christians have asked Rome to choose

the books to include in their scripture? And why would Rome have cared?

> many other diverse texts were rejected and destroyed, no originals

>of the gospels exist, both accidental editing during transcription &

>potentially devious editing have apparently occured, the gospels were

>written down many decades after the death of Jesus, the meaning of Jesus'

>words probably were not fully captured by those listening, the meaning

>carried in the minds of men for decades before transcription probably

>drifted, interpertation of Bibilical scripture vary's wildly.

 

You know, Roger, on matters of opinion, your opinion is just as valid as

anyone else's. But on matters of fact, an opinion that conflicts with the

facts is pretty meaningless. In matters where a great deal of study and

scholarship has been done, but not everything is known, you need to

familiarize yourself with what IS known already before forming an opinion

about that which is not yet known. I love you, Roger, but I don't think

you have the foggiest idea who wrote the gospels or when... or when and by

whom the canon of the New Testament was established.

>Further, the translation from Jesus orginal Aramaic language into

>latin/greek/english (however that went) seems to have lost much.

 

In Jesus' day, the Jews spoke Aramaic among themselves. But the land(s)

had been conquered... it was part of the Roman Empire, with a Roman

governor and Roman soldiers stationed there. It was an outpost of Rome.

And the language of the Empire was Greek.

 

For the Jews, that meant that you could speak Aramaic at home and when you

were with other Jews. But any official business that involved Roman

officials or soldiers had to be conducted in Greek. And there were Jews

who couldn't speak Aramaic. There were Jews living in many other

countries, and there were always a good number of them who had returned for

business or religious reasons. Wherever there was a crowd that included

Roman officials and/or soldiers, and maybe Jews from the Diaspora, Greek

would have been used so that everyone could understand.

 

So Jesus probably spoke Aramaic when he was alone with the disciples. But

the scripture tells us that he sometimes spoke to large crowds that

included Romans... and then he would have spoken Greek.

 

So what language would a man use to write a gospel, a book about Jesus'

life and teachings? Maybe some were first written in Aramaic, but it seems

more likely to me that a man would use Greek so that his book would be

readable by many more people. Either way, he had to translate at least

some of what Jesus said... because he didn't speak just one language!

 

Most of the rest of the New Testament is letters, most written to church in

other countries. They certainly wouldn't have been written in Aramaic.

You wouldn't write a letter to the church at Rome in Aramaic! The apostle

Paul, who wrote the bulk of those letters, was not himself a native of

Jesus' country. He came from Tarsus; he was a Jew and also a Roman

citizen. He may not even have spoken Aramaic. He would have written in

Greek.

 

The New Testament is in koine Greek, the "common Greek" of the empire. It

is also found in Aramaic very early. It may be that some gospels were

first written in Aramaic. And the first three gospels were written by men

who had other such books in front of them as they worked... they used

common sources. Some of those sources may have been in Greek, some in

Aramaic.

 

So on the whole, I think it makes sense to use the Greek New Testament, but

I agree that it is often helpful to read the translation from the Aramaic.

>Have you

>seen Neil Douglas-Klotz short but interesting work "Prayers of the Cosmos,

>meditations on the Aramaic words of Jesus"? I really like some of his

>alternative translations of the beautitudes.

 

No, I haven't seen that. I use George M. Lamsa's translation of the Bible

from Aramaic.

>I enjoy The Gospel of Thomas http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html which

>seems in my mind to have just as much claim to authenticity as the canonical

>gospels, just that it didn't find favor with the Romans because it

>emphasised self empowerment or the Kingdom within over external authority.

 

Well, "favor with the Romans" had nothing at all to do with it. The Gospel

of Thomas is a Gnostic gospel, and it may have been left out of the canon

for just that reason. It's wonderful that we are finding some Gnostic

gospels now, because it looks like Gnostic material may have been edited

out of the gospels we have in the Bible. Actually, the Gnostic Christians

were declared heretics at a fairly early date, and Gnostic Christianity

went underground where it survived. The Gospel of John is the most Gnostic

of the ones in the Bible... perhaps it was harder to exclude that or edit

it more because it was believed to be the work of "the beloved disciple."

>What I'm trying to say is this: we really have no idea what Jesus actually

>said.

 

Maybe you don't. ) But we do have books reporting his words, and they do

show substantial agreement.

> Perhaps going with one's expansive feeling in the heart or other

>insight is preferable to holding onto the words.

 

If you prefer to trust in your expansive feelings from the heart or your

insight, over books that exist and reputable scholarship on them, that's

your choice. But weren't you just criticizing Tony for doing just that?

 

>> Opinions from acquaintances are fairly meaningless, unless you have an

>> acquaintance who happens to be an authority on something in particular...

>> and then you'd have to specify that and his background and affiliation.

>

>It's as if you are saying that there is this very complicated diverse nature

>to Christianity and that we should look to the official sources only.

 

Hey Roger, what did you ask me? Here it is:

>> >Which source do you consider official for the religion?

>For example, recently "christians" (shall I preface with "fundementalists"?)

>introduced and won an addition to the Colorado State constitution which

>legalized discrimination against homosexuals. The amendment struck down all

 

Well, Roger, any time you get a discussion going on that, you'll also have

some Christians on the other side. There are many gay Christians,

including gay ministers.

>Recently another proposal to allow/require(don't remember which) the posting

>of the ten commandments in public schools failed to pass. This was in

>response to the Columbine Massacre.

 

I can't tell whether you're glad or sorry that it failed to pass. )))

Who were the good guys there?

>Then there are the occasional incidents like David Koresh & Waco and the

>Jones Town Massacre.

 

If either one of those groups were Christian, I haven't heard about it.

What's your point?

> There are people who hassle me when I go out for lunch

>here on the Mall in Denver shouting "you're all sinners, everyone of you,

>Jesus died to save you..."

 

That's too bad, Roger, but surely you don't assume that all Christians are

like that?

 

>> >> Paul called Jesus "the elder brother of many," and he wrote: "The

>entire

>> >> creation is groaning in labor with the birth of the sons of God."

>

>I like this comment a lot. thanks.

 

Not my comment, but I like it too. I like a lot of what Paul wrote...

though when I was reading Paul in the Greek, my little old professor would

frequently smile and say, "You know, you have to remember that St. Paul was

a bachelor." ))

 

>> >I expect you'll find many Christians who have spoken & written about

>union

>> >with God who were then officially expelled from their organizations for

>> >speaking heresy.

>>

>> Some have... and some have been called saints.

>

>I don't think there is particularily any different between a Christian

>saint, a hindu saint,

 

Of course not.

>a moslem adept, modern adepts etc... etc...

 

Depends on what you mean by that word. I'd say an adept is not necessarily

a saint.

> The outer

>trappings, that is the religions, are not the important distinction because

>saints exist from many religions. Further, many get lost in the religion and

>use it to reinforce intolerance. Therefore I am very wary of religion,

 

Now we're getting at something important. You are very wary of all

religions, not just Christianity.

> every

>though reliance on authority seems to be a stage that most pass through.

 

Are you saying that anyone who operates within the context of a religion is

at a stage of reliance on authority?

>I applaud your insight & passion for christianity,

 

I'm also passionate about other religions and traditions. What I teach is

not just from one religion.

>I have a deep sincere burning questions: like "who really

>was Jesus? what aspects of the traditions come from Jesus and what aspects

>of tradition are only the work of men?" Very little can be said about Jesus

>with certainty, I believe.

 

Ah, you want certainty. Well, if you really trust in intuition and the

expansive feeling in the heart, I have a suggestion for you. Christianity

in general has always said that Jesus the Christ is still living. Why

don't you ask him?

 

>> >I have no intent to offend those who find inspiration through Jesus, and

>I

>> >count myself among those. However, I don't see any value in denying the

>dark

>> >side of Christianity.

>>

>> You seem to be identifying fundamentalist Christian doctrine with "the

>dark

>> side of Christianity." I have to strongly disagree with that... I may

>> disagree with them on many points, but I know there are many good and

>> loving people among the fundamentalists, who have helped many people. In

>> the end, doctrine is not important. Jesus said his followers would be

>> known by love. To me, anyone who loves his fellow man has a place among

>> the saints.

>

>"many good loving people among the fundamentalists". I'd agree, yet I think

>we should note that pseudo love or the love of something that places one at

>odds with others is not really love. True love, constant unvarying love

>comes from within and is not dependant on any outer object. Those that love

>Jesus in a way that causes them to hate that which is different from Jesus

>have not really heard the word.

 

Why twist my words? I said "good and loving people..., who have helped

many people."

>> There are four gospels included in the canon of the New Testament. The

>> fourth gospel stands alone... it is the most Gnostic of the gospels and

>> has always been the favorite of mystics. We know the first three used

>> common sources... much material is repeated. And we know these books

>have

>> been edited. So I don't think we can place too much importance on any one

>> statement of his as it stands now in the gospels. Nevertheless, his

>> message comes through loud and clear.

>

>I haven't taken time to look up the exact words. But Jesus is asked in John:

>'how do we follow you?' and he responds 'No one comes to the father but thru

>me'.

 

It would be better to look up the words. That question does not appear in

that book.

>Yet, in the gospel of Thomas, when Jesus is asked the same question 'how do

>we follow you?' he responds 'from where ever you can reach, stand there'

 

Nice. I like it.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Hi Dharma,

 

Did you study religion/Christianity academically? You were reading Paul in

the Greek, and mentioned a professor... I never studied religion but did

study philosophy in grad school. Many years ago, I had a conversion

experience and joined a fundamentalist/pentacostal denomination. I was a

member for 6 years, a deacon for the last 3 years. I was a

dyed-in-the-wool intellectual, but this experience was a particularly

un-intellectual approach to religion. It seemed just what I needed at the

time. In that denomination (Church of God in Christ), the culture is

largely African American, southern and anti-intellectual. There was an

unofficial pressure, sort of like peer pressure, not to read any books

other than the Bible, not to go to movie theaters, not to go to seminary,

etc. I didn't obey all these social mores, having been in grad school at

the time, and writing film reviews for a local newspaper. On the other

hand, in such a church, the emotional/spiritual/mystical elements were

preponderant. Including such things as (using Christian descriptive

language here): seeing demons cast out, speaking in tongues, dancing in

the spirit, and even seeing the Holy Ghost visually.

 

Later, when I explored the world mystical traditions, I encountered many

other ways to describe/explain these same phenomena.

 

Nice to have you and Roger here!

 

With love,

 

--Greg

 

At 08:33 AM 4/20/00 -0500, Dharma wrote:

 

 

(lots of snipping) ....

>Not my comment, but I like it too. I like a lot of what Paul wrote...

>though when I was reading Paul in the Greek, my little old professor would

>frequently smile and say, "You know, you have to remember that St. Paul was

>a bachelor." ))

[Guest guest]

Hello everyone, I just joined the list, a short comment...

> I haven't taken time to look up the exact words. But Jesus is

> asked in John: 'how do we follow you?' and he responds

> 'No one comes to the father but thru me'.

> Fundamentalists use this to crown Jesus as an ultimate authority

> figure.

 

This reminds me of an obscure and heretic Finnish text

I remember having read. It may be just a play with words

in the Finnish language, but the words we have for 'me' and

'self' in the inflection used in that biblical sentence differ

just by one letter. So see how the meaning meaning changes

when you replace 'me' with 'self'... makes me just wonder

whether the two words maybe were alike in some of the original

languages the bible was written in and just got mistranslated

at some point. Or if the writers of the gospels just couldn't

understand the more abstract concept of 'self' and thus ended

up in the current form of 'I'/'me' meaning Jesus himself.

 

Well, this just as an interesting curiosity, I really have

absolutely no linquistic or other expertise to judge the

reliability of this statement. Interesting thought anyway.

 

-- Jani Mattsson <jpm @ iki . fi> --

[Guest guest]

At 06:46 PM 4/20/00 -0000, you wrote:

>Hello everyone, I just joined the list, a short comment...

>

>> I haven't taken time to look up the exact words. But Jesus is

>> asked in John: 'how do we follow you?' and he responds

>> 'No one comes to the father but thru me'.

>> Fundamentalists use this to crown Jesus as an ultimate authority

>> figure.

>

 

My children attend a fundamentalist church and this text comes up fairly

regularly for discussion. As they are still young, 12, 10 and 7, I have

offered them this idea:

 

Who is Christ?

they say: the Son of God

 

What did he teach?

love, compassion,

 

Maybe it means the only way you can feel God is to see the Son of God with

love and compassion.

 

Who are you?

they answer with their names

 

Who are you to God?

His children

 

Oh, so you are the children of God. And when you feel gentle or loving to

your brothers and sisters maybe you are feeling the presence of God. So, one

way to "get" to God is through the love and good feelings you feel in the

presence of your brothers.

 

They ask:

 

Well, what are we close to when we are angry?

But, that's another conversation.

[Guest guest]

Hi Kristie,

>My children attend a fundamentalist church and this text comes up fairly

>regularly for discussion. As they are still young, 12, 10 and 7, I have

>offered them this idea:

>

>Who is Christ?

>they say: the Son of God

>

>What did he teach?

>love, compassion,

>

>Maybe it means the only way you can feel God is to see the Son of God with

>love and compassion.

>

>Who are you?

>they answer with their names

>

>Who are you to God?

>His children

>

>Oh, so you are the children of God. And when you feel gentle or loving to

>your brothers and sisters maybe you are feeling the presence of God. So, one

>way to "get" to God is through the love and good feelings you feel in the

>presence of your brothers.

>

>They ask:

>

>Well, what are we close to when we are angry?

>But, that's another conversation.

 

))) Wonderful!

 

And you're doing a wonderful job of teaching them. When my mother talked

about what I had heard at Sunday school, I think the most valuable thing I

gained was the understanding that there could be more than one way to look

at something... another interpretation... a deeper understanding.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Hi Jani,

 

Welcome to the satsangha!

>Hello everyone, I just joined the list, a short comment...

>

>> 'No one comes to the father but thru me'.

>

>This reminds me of an obscure and heretic Finnish text

>I remember having read. It may be just a play with words

>in the Finnish language, but the words we have for 'me' and

>'self' in the inflection used in that biblical sentence differ

>just by one letter. So see how the meaning meaning changes

>when you replace 'me' with 'self'... makes me just wonder

>whether the two words maybe were alike in some of the original

>languages the bible was written in and just got mistranslated

>at some point. Or if the writers of the gospels just couldn't

>understand the more abstract concept of 'self' and thus ended

>up in the current form of 'I'/'me' meaning Jesus himself.

 

There may be something to this! But it would take a real Greek scholar to

tell us...

 

The Greek New Testament I have (revised by Westcott & Hort, Macmillan

Company, 1956) gives, "No one comes to the father if not through me (di'

emou)." This word "emou" is a form of the personal pronoun "ego," meaning

I, me, etc.

 

But there is a footnote to that line, giving the word "auton." It shows

that there is at least one alternative text that includes that word;

unfortunately, it doesn't tell us exactly where in the line the word would

be. My guess would be that the alternative reading is "di' emou auton" or

"di' auton." But I don't _know_ that..

 

"Auton" is a form of the word "autos." My Greek lexicon says,"Pron.

[pronoun] of 3rd pers., _self_."

The first meaning given is "I. self, myself, thyself: 1. oneself, i.e.

the part properly called self, as the soul, opp. to the body; or oneself,

as opp. to others..." It mentions that the word can be "6. also joined

with the personal Pron., ego autos, se auton, etc.... sometimes the

personal Pron. is omitted, as, auton ..., for eme auton."

 

It goes on to discuss many meanings and ways to use the word... there must

be half a page on this one word. So it's not a simple matter to decide how

it's used.

 

It's possible that this word is used in that sentence and that it means the

self, "as the soul." But we'd need a real scholar in New Testament Greek

to tell us for sure.

 

Something interesting... I happened to see the word "autme, (*ao, auo, to

blow) breath: the blast of a bellows. II. a scent, odour." A word for

breath! I wonder if there could be any connection...

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

>Did you study religion/Christianity academically? You were reading Paul in

>the Greek, and mentioned a professor... I never studied religion but did

>study philosophy in grad school.

 

Well, after switching several times, I majored in philosophy at the

under-grad level. It provided a good general outline kind of knowledge of

the field, and I think it was a big help when I went to seminary. We were

tossed right into a Philosophy of Religion course with Nels Ferre, who

began by synopsizing the history of philosophy in three days (Hume was the

guy who went outside and looked in the window and found no one there!).

The guys who hadn't studied philosophy found it incredibly difficult...

seemed like it was a way of thinking they hadn't learned.

 

When I learned Spanish in high school, I found out that no translation is

ever really adequate to express the original, so I wanted to read the Bible

in the original languages. I took two years of Greek in college, one year

of classic grammar etc., and a year of reading the New Testament.

 

I married another pre-theo, and we went to Andover-Newton on a joint

scholarship. We did our freshman fieldwork as co-Youth Ministers of the

Washington Street Baptist Church in Lynn, Mass., and I was licensed to the

ministry by that church. We took a semester of Hebrew, but the professor

was a lovely man and a terrible language teacher. We weren't learning the

language... I still remember "yiktol, tiktol, tiktol, ektoli," but I

haven't the slightest idea what it means... so we dropped it.

 

The seminary renewed Bob's scholarship and dropped mine... the reason:

"One year is enough for a woman to understand her husband's work." There

might have been another reason too... there were only two women in the

freshman class, and some of the faculty and admin may have been a tad upset

by the fact that I was pregnant the whole year. And I just got bigger and

bigger and BIGGER. ) My daughter was born during study week before final

exams in the spring... some of my buddies sent me a card that said,

"Congratulations to the only woman ever to finish two terms at once!" ))

Well, in those days sex discrimination wasn't illegal, and there was

nothing to be done about it. So the church didn't ordain me... but

following the thinking of St. Peter, I have always figured that my

ordination is from God, and if the church doesn't want to recognize it,

that's their tough luck. ))

 

When I was able to go back to school, we weren't living near a seminary, so

I had to do something else. My graduate field is communication, and my

specialty is in symbol and myth. I was able to include some relevant

philosophy courses: aesthetics, philosophy of language, and philosophy of

symbolism.

 

Is philosophy your field? What have you done with it... do you teach?

>Many years ago, I had a conversion

>experience and joined a fundamentalist/pentacostal denomination. I was a

>member for 6 years, a deacon for the last 3 years. I was a

>dyed-in-the-wool intellectual, but this experience was a particularly

>un-intellectual approach to religion. It seemed just what I needed at the

>time. In that denomination (Church of God in Christ), the culture is

>largely African American, southern and anti-intellectual. There was an

>unofficial pressure, sort of like peer pressure, not to read any books

>other than the Bible, not to go to movie theaters, not to go to seminary,

>etc. I didn't obey all these social mores, having been in grad school at

>the time, and writing film reviews for a local newspaper. On the other

>hand, in such a church, the emotional/spiritual/mystical elements were

>preponderant. Including such things as (using Christian descriptive

>language here): seeing demons cast out, speaking in tongues, dancing in

>the spirit, and even seeing the Holy Ghost visually.

>

>Later, when I explored the world mystical traditions, I encountered many

>other ways to describe/explain these same phenomena.

 

Sure, but it was good experience, wasn't it? Those people have a wonderful

enthusiasm and freedom of expression! When I was a kid in Florida for the

winter and in school there, a local church had a week-long revival, and I

got permission to go. Every day after school we walked down a country road

to this little church where they were having a youth service. I completely

enjoyed it... mostly I remember singing a lot of great songs and getting a

little gift every day. ) On the last day, I think, the minister called

for us to come down to the front, so I went. Don't think I ever did

figure out what that was all about. ))

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

> >My children attend a fundamentalist church and this text comes up fairly

> >regularly for discussion. As they are still young, 12, 10 and 7, I have

> >offered them this idea:

> >

> >Who is Christ?

> >they say: the Son of God

> >

> >What did he teach?

> >love, compassion,

> >

> >Maybe it means the only way you can feel God is to see the Son of God

with

> >love and compassion.

> >

> >Who are you?

> >they answer with their names

> >

> >Who are you to God?

> >His children

> >

> >Oh, so you are the children of God. And when you feel gentle or loving to

> >your brothers and sisters maybe you are feeling the presence of God. So,

one

> >way to "get" to God is through the love and good feelings you feel in the

> >presence of your brothers.

> >

> >They ask:

> >

> >Well, what are we close to when we are angry?

> >But, that's another conversation.

 

If Jesus is the "son of God" and the children are the "children of God",

that would place Jesus & the children on the same footing? That is: the

children are the sons/daughters of God, just as Jesus?

 

 

Roger

[Guest guest]

At 10:51 AM 4/24/00 -0600, Roger Isaacs wrote:

>If Jesus is the "son of God" and the children are the "children of God",

>that would place Jesus & the children on the same footing? That is: the

>children are the sons/daughters of God, just as Jesus?

 

That's right. It's like the I AM THAT I AM, not only as God's name, but

also as the name equally of anyone who utters the words.

 

But then there's orthodox Christianity's Trinitarian analysis. The

mysterious identity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Humans are

to treat all members of the Trinity as God, and we stand in slightly

different relation to each member. The notion of a trinity of these three,

and the idea that Jesus is truly one of this trinity, "of the same

substance" as God, doesn't leap out from the pages of the Bible. It was an

issue voted upon later in one of the Councils. Trent or Nicea, maybe you

or Dharma can fill that detail in.

 

For example, in very orthodox Church of God in Christ where I was a deacon

many years ago (I think Dharma is familiar with this denomination), it is

said that Christ went back to heaven, and the Holy Ghost is the only member

of the Trinity that is still on earth with us. They sort of treat the Holy

Ghost as the aspect of God that is omnipresent, though it can still

manifest as a rushing wind, as it has done in some of the very spirited

services I've seen.

 

Regardless of these stories told in the orthodox approach, once we approach

the teachings esoterically or symbolically, we can still use the Trinity to

show that we stand in the same relation to things as does Jesus, and that

our I AM is the consciousness/Holy Ghost principle.

 

Nice discussion!

 

Love/agape,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Dear Roger:

 

In a nutshell, yes.

 

If Christ is seen as the embodiment of Awareness and we all retain the

capacity for Awareness then we are different from him only in the fact of

recognition, not in essence. If Christ is seen as the symbolic

representation of wholeness and reminds us to turn to our wholeness and the

wholeness in others, rather than the worldly forms our body beings take and

make and act upon and through, then we are the same in our wholeness.....

 

But that is a bit much to ask children to understood....simpler for them to

know that they are the just as beloved of God as his Chosen Son, a stepping

stone, perhaps, to the understanding that God is within them and is revealed

in them, and through the forms of others, through love and understanding,

patience and forgiveness, kindness and gentleness...imo

 

Love, Kristi

 

At 10:51 AM 4/24/00 -0600, you wrote:

>> >My children attend a fundamentalist church and this text comes up fairly

>> >regularly for discussion. As they are still young, 12, 10 and 7, I have

>> >offered them this idea:

>> >

>> >Who is Christ?

>> >they say: the Son of God

>> >

>> >What did he teach?

>> >love, compassion,

>> >

>> >Maybe it means the only way you can feel God is to see the Son of God

>with

>> >love and compassion.

>> >

>> >Who are you?

>> >they answer with their names

>> >

>> >Who are you to God?

>> >His children

>> >

>> >Oh, so you are the children of God. And when you feel gentle or loving to

>> >your brothers and sisters maybe you are feeling the presence of God. So,

>one

>> >way to "get" to God is through the love and good feelings you feel in the

>> >presence of your brothers.

>> >

>> >They ask:

>> >

>> >Well, what are we close to when we are angry?

>> >But, that's another conversation.

>

>If Jesus is the "son of God" and the children are the "children of God",

>that would place Jesus & the children on the same footing? That is: the

>children are the sons/daughters of God, just as Jesus?

>

>

>Roger

>

>

>------

>Good friends, school spirit, hair-dos you'd like to forget.

>Classmates.com has them all. And with 4.4 million alumni already

>registered, there's a good chance you'll find your friends here:

>http://click./1/2885/5/_/520931/_/956595556/

>------

>

>//

>

>All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside

back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than

the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness.

Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is

where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal

Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously

arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.

>

>To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at

> www., and select the User Center link from

the menu bar

> on the left. This menu will also let you change your

subscription

> between digest and normal mode.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> ----------

> Roger Isaacs[sMTP:RIsaacs]

> Monday, April 24, 2000 11:51 PM

>

> Re: Re: Dharma/Christianity

>

> > >My children attend a fundamentalist church and this text comes up

> fairly

> > >regularly for discussion. As they are still young, 12, 10 and 7, I have

> > >offered them this idea:

> > >

> > >Who is Christ?

> > >they say: the Son of God

> > >

> > >What did he teach?

> > >love, compassion,

> > >

> > >Maybe it means the only way you can feel God is to see the Son of God

> with

> > >love and compassion.

> > >

> > >Who are you?

> > >they answer with their names

> > >

> > >Who are you to God?

> > >His children

> > >

> > >Oh, so you are the children of God. And when you feel gentle or loving

> to

> > >your brothers and sisters maybe you are feeling the presence of God.

> So,

> one

> > >way to "get" to God is through the love and good feelings you feel in

> the

> > >presence of your brothers.

> > >

> > >They ask:

> > >

> > >Well, what are we close to when we are angry?

> > >But, that's another conversation.

>

> If Jesus is the "son of God" and the children are the "children of God",

> that would place Jesus & the children on the same footing? That is: the

> children are the sons/daughters of God, just as Jesus?

>

Sure, Jesus (son of God) is not different with the children of God.

And we are the children of God, since God never says "You are son of the

b*tch". :-) Don't let Him say that will we?

 

Love,

Nasir