No challenge, just an observation.
IOW, if you work hard enough, you can make a scriptural contradiction palatable?
Tentative:
[b]To beat a dead horse for the fun of it: the quoted post was very well put. And the reason we have no understanding of reality beyond our constructs is…our constructs are themselves nothing but the first-person subjective experience of a single being. The first-person subjective experience of a single, conscious being is the only thing known with absolute certainty to exist (if one counts the fact that one experiences an absolute certainty). And if there is an external world that, for whatever reason (absurdly) mimics the content of visual perception…
[as there is no external world counterpart for any other aspect of sensory perception: one can believe that there are external world-trees and external world-cars, for instance, but external world smells (Who or what’s doing the smelling)? Whatever exists in the external world, presumably, must continue to exist even if all consciousness were to cease to exist. All non-visual experiences or perceptions, it seems, need consciousness in order to exist.]]
…then the very notion that there is an external world that mimics the content of our visual perception and would continue to mimic it even if there was a sudden, abrupt disappearance of all consciousness in the universe conceptually proves that our “constructs”—our consciousness—is ultimately just a virtual reality of the external world, not the external world itself.
But this, to me, is all tongue in cheek, as I deny the physical (that which is not conscious experience) exists. Preliminary evidence for this: the experiential nature of my construct, and the inability to imagine that which consciousness is not.
Apologies for the off-the-subject interruption (Felix’s accusation against PT above comes to mind). On with the show. 
J.[/b]
No, we were castigating Bob for re-writing the Bible because his re-write involved making shit up and twisting the words to suit his personal heresies, not because ‘we didn’t like it’. The world in which interpretation is just a matter of preference is YOURS, don’t bother mapping it onto me.
Of course I didn’t read three pages of conversation between you and some guy who wasn’t talking to me. Would you?
You mean, explain that orthodox Christians don’t follow the rules and punishments outlines in Leviticus because that was, in large part, the entire point of Christ’s message. while going on to point out that He re-affirms and even strengthens teachings on sexual restraint? Then I should go on to explain that the whole homosexuality/Leviticus point is moot because a stronger condemnation of it occurs in Corinthians anyway?
Why the hell would I explain something so damned simple to somebody who never tires of telling me he knows all about Christian theology? Jesus H Christ, you’re such an open-minded and well-read guy on the matter, pointing all of that out SHOULD HAVE BEEN YOUR JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE, but instead all you could think of to do was pass around high-fives.
That’s the point here. The original post in this thread is criticizing Christianity on grounds that any child who’d attended Sunday school for a year or so would be able to see through, and you skeptics DON’T GIVE A SHIT how foolish you look, because there’s nobody here to criticize you. You’re spoiled, you’re weak, and you would benefit enormously from going to a school for a few years where the people deciding your fate disagree with you about everything. It tempers the will.
This thread is the intellectual equivalent of fussing over Jesus being born on December 25th, or the Bible claiming bats are birds (look it up!)
Ussicore:
God, man…that was just…beautiful. I have to do this:
=D>
J.
No, just something of the past which has been superseded by the present …
Take Care
The problem that Suzuki was pointing out to in the quote I made points out that religion is only to a small degree the teaching of the central figure and to a vastly larger degree what people have made out of it. Interpretation is everything, hence the fact that even conservative Christians find themselves at variance with an orthodoxy that Jesus would have found acceptable.
What is today customary or conventional would have found little acceptance then, so what are we going to do? Declare everything that is unconventional as heretic? Then you find yourselves exactly in the position of the Pharisees and Scribes of Jesus’ time, because Jesus and his followers were extremely unconventional as well. However, I believe I have told you in the past, I believe that conservative Christians are exactly in that role, unable themselves to enter the “Kingdom” and preventing others to as well.
Take Care
God superseded it?
Yes, just as Christ superseded the Temple sacrifice …
Religion is a process. Those who hold it up are usually doomed to be the bad guys later on … (see the Pharisees etc.)
Take Care
Then it’s reasonable to presume that Christianity will be superseded? Ah, yes, the Second Coming and the New Jerusalem. Looks like they’ve thought of everything.
I’ve often wondered if the Second Coming isn’t that point when humanity finally understands the First Coming. 
I’m still of the opinion that Christianity hasn’t failed, it’s just that no one has tried it yet.
Jesus tried it, but God didn’t show when Jesus thought He would after he’d cleansed the Temple. Then it was supposed to happen within Jesus’ generation. (It’s been 2000 years and the universe was created in only 7000. ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
) The Jews are still waiting for one or two messiahs. Now the Christians are waiting for Parousia. I think the Muslims have some sort of eschatological event scheduled when some certain thing happens or other. Then there’s 2012 as the latest in a long list of Ends of the World. When are we gonna recognize that it’s all BS? I feel stupid for just saying it.
Truth is the only process. But instead of pursuing it, we keep making stuff up that sells the most tickets and/or a substitute for Mary Jane or booze etc.
But you see, you’re speaking of the failings of religion which is all most people find capability. Jesus was looking at something beyond religion even as he expressed it in religious terms for the few that could understand. His message was of spirituality, not religion. He spoke to how and how not to live, not by letters of the law, but by the spirit within us. So you’re right, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. I was making a tongue in cheek joke, but is it? If mankind were to ever come to grips with themselves and listen to the message, would we not see the metaphorical second coming? Wouldn’t such understanding begin the transformation of the world? Of course, this is only musing on my part and I could be (probably) wrong, but I like to think in those terms. I want to believe that we can be better than religion, that we can be what Jesus asked of us. I want to believe we wouldn’t kill him again and in the process, kill ourselves - again.
If all Christianity is, is what Jesus taught, even though I’d disagree with some of it, I wouldn’t object to it. But Christianity as it was modified by Paul has a divine Jesus dying for our sins and being resurrected bodily from death. That’s the core tenet of Christianity from Paul’s time until today.
Metaphorical second coming?
We can be better than religion, particularly the church, but to do that we need to worship Truth as God. That way, if we find errors or contradictions, we can change our philosophy and move on in the the same direction we were headed before–the Truth.
PT,
Yes. The second Coming as awakening. It’s an “interpretation”, but it’s just as plausible as the other dozen possible scenarios.
We might never find agreement on the term truth. I find no immutable constant I would call truth. We can construct any version of truth we like, and we all do, but an external truth? I’d rather search for the holy grail or look for bigfoot. I’d have better odds…
The one that’s most plausible, after 2000 years, is it ain’t happening–literally or figuratively. To use some Biblical imagery, the bride should have figured out that the groom stood her up long ago. Her extended denial is just making her look pitiful, particularly given all we’ve learned since then.
That puts you in the 99.99% group at this point. It may take 2 or 100 generations, but Truth as God will eventually sink in, thanks no doubt, to someone with more powers of persuasion than me. And given that at least Gandhi preceded me, along with however many unknown others, I’d be in good company.
Truth itself is immutable, even the aspects of it that are unconstant and subjective, like beauty. Yin and yang.
I personally believe that the complete Truth, in this universe, is unattainable like the speed of light; and I for one am grateful for that. Infinite pieces of it are strewn throughout the universe, under the headings of knowledge, justice, love and beauty, that we can all pursue and find–or create–depending on our talents, interests, and luck. I think my proposed archetype for Truth is such a find, and I must say it’s very much more profound and satisfying than an ancient cup or mythical beast–or even a second coming.
I believe that tentative’s original statement, “I’ve often wondered if the Second Coming isn’t that point when humanity finally understands the First Coming” is true. I believe that the “second coming” or parousia is this moment when he is “seen” to be what he is, the perfect brother, killed out of jealousy because of the compassion that God showed towards him. Only when Kajin is reconciled with Hebel, will humanity have reached its destiny – the overcoming of the conflict that is in Adam and symbolically played out in his sons. It is an archetype of the conflict in all of us.
The radical reconciliation of Jesus is to take place wherever it is welcomed in. If it is not made welcome Christians are called to move on to the next house. What we find is that those who claim to be Christians tend to stand outside and heckle those who do not accept their message and in so doing, disqualify themselves. God says, “Why have you angrily glowed, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, is there not exaltation? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is toward you; but you should rule over it.”
An eternal conflict?
Take Care
I don’t see that “they” – presuming “they” are either Buddhists or Christians – generally know that at all. While it’s true that some persons who consider themselves followers of Buddha make him the central figure of their spiritual journey, this is considered by others as contradictory to what he taught. It wasn’t about the Buddha himself, it was his realization, upon which are founded his four basic truths and the teachings that arise from them. But the idea is that any human can also have that same realization that Gautama did, can have the exact same experience. He was an example, but he, Gautama, the historical Buddha, wasn’t the “way” to salvation, as Jesus is purported to be. The fundamentals of the Christian religion require that the particular figure, Jesus Christ, be placed at the center. What underpins the religion are the circumstances of his birth, his teachings, his ability to perform miracles, and his death. As their text says, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” The guy is giving directions to his father’s abode. He’s asserting that there is a path to the perfection of an (or ‘the’) afterlife and that the way there is a psychologically-based act: the acceptance of him as lord and savior. I’ve never met a Christian who believes that Christianity is a human-based phenomenon (unlike Buddhism). Their belief is that people, at least those of the Christian variety, bear witness to what a supreme, eternal, omniscient deity did for humans starting a couple thousand years ago with his implementation of the tour on earth by his ‘son’, Jesus. Humans picked up the mantle afterwards to create a distinct religion around all of it, of course, but without the actual presence of the central figure understood as possessing a particular sort of history characterized by his divinity, it doesn’t work. Whereas Buddhas come and go, or so they say.
Ingenium,
I think it is questionable that Jesus of Nazareth really considered himself THE son of god. That was planted on him later after his death. A great deal of the mythology surrounding Jesus isn’t much different than much of the legend surrounding Gautama. Granted, religion has obscured and twisted the message, but Jesus the man (not deity) and Guatama would have shared much in common despite their cultural differences and language. As I read both men, they weren’t about the personification, but the message. It’s much too easy to read into the writings of the followers who distorted the message of both men and find our idols. Some of us get past that, some don’t.
Which isn’t the point … Suzuki is talking about an accumulation of teaching about Buddha or Christ as against the teaching of these people, which are interwoven by followers and not distinguished from another. There are Christian scholars who will tell you that Christ taught a Way which he expected people to follow, not that he would be put on a pedestal or transported to the heavens and be regarded all-knowing in his lifetime. He didn’t start a new Religion but his followers did and made him the central figure.
The interesting thing about Suzuki is that, when asked whether one could be a Buddhist best in the far east, he answered that Buddhism has as many nominal followers there as Christianity does in the west. I believe that he had a deep insight into both Buddhism and Christianity which made him an ideal bridge between the two, helping both sides understand the similarities and differences they have – and, to some degree, where they came from.
Could the story told of Buddha about his teaching being the raft that helps us cross a river, which can then be discarded on the other side, also apply to Christ. I believe that Christ would have said yes to that.
That is what many Christians would have you believe because they have grasped the rather simplistic formula rather than the transformation which Jesus and Paul spoke of. Rather than seeing the Way of Christ as the spiritual journey that we all (should) take on our way to “salvation” they tell you that the act of belief is transforming – but, as many critics say, we believe many things. What is salvation anyway?
Well, you have managed to ignore me then. The question that you have to ask yourself is whether “God” can be any-thing without being an idol. The fact that nobody should try to make an image to represent God, nor should they take the name in vain – a name (JHVH) which is as elusive as it comes, does indicate that there is an inherent aversion in original Judeo-Christian idea of God to what we have today.
How Jesus attained his “divinity” is comparable to the stories of Buddha teaching the Gods, so we shouldn’t pretend that Buddhism of the west is the same as in the east – especially in the past. There is a large list of deities and spirits in Buddhism, which are largely ignored in the west, but they are there. The difference is perhaps that Christianity wasn’t able to overcome them as well as Buddhism was.
Take Care