Call for ecumenical throwdown!

[Jon Miller]

And neither are your hindu expereinces.. (otherwise I guarantee you a lot moe people in the world would be hindu).

Jon Miller

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Judaism, as far as I know teaches that the disciples must have stolen the body from the empty tomb. The question this raises is whether the disciples, after abandoning their master, and watching his death, would have had the presence of mind to sneak in and steal the body. Secondly, all the Jews needed to do to disprove the resurrection of Christ, is to find his body, as soon as they knew that the tomb was open. This they did not.

there really isnt an official jewish position on what happened at his tomb - is there an official christian position on what accounts for the prophecies of Apollo? Its simple that Jesus wasnt G-d cause that violates basic principle of Jewish faith - how you reconcile that with christian testimony is up to you (if it even matters to you) whether its by sharing with secularists the belief that the resurrection is a legend, or any alternatives are live options.

I really doubt that any Jews at the time had any inclination to disprove anything - I doubt they were particularly aware of claims for resurrection till years afterwards, when the gospels are written - and maybe not much concerned then, as Christianity is a pretty small sect.


Of course Franz Rosenzweig, IIUC, thinks that Christian belief in resurrection is a fine thing, since it provides the gentiles a route towards the truth about God, a route that Jews do not need. I havent gotten to that point in "The Star of Redemption" but I could even see a need from that POV for G-d to provide a miracle to make it appear to the Christians that Jesus was resurrected, since that was needed for the gentiles. (though i dont think FR was big on that sort of miracle)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yes, this is a very good question. However, what you need to see is how the different religions account for the death and resurrection of Christ. If Christ was just a man, then he could not have risen from the dead. Therefore, they need to show that Christ did not raise from the dead if they are to show that he was not a man.

How do you get this? Its an established tenet of Rabbinic Judaism, apparently derived from Phariseic thinking, that all are resurrected bodily when the messiah comes. (for generations religious Jews attempted to get buried on the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem, to be among the first to be resurrected) Dealing with the details of that resurrection has long been a preoccupation of Jewish theology.

The only question then would be why was the man JC resurrected early, before all other men? To which we can only answer that the ways of G-d are mysterious

[Jon Miller]

it was the sadduces, Ben, who did not beleive in the ressurection

the Pharisees did.. and they are the ones who founded Rabbinic Judaism

JM

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by aneeshm

Then what would the guy who has written the quote below be - a "believer" or an "understander" ( try to read the bolded sections first , if you are impatient ) ?

That was a long read!

He is clearly an understander. Very spiritual, but and understander.

There are also people who follow science, but actually are simply believers. They cannot question science, and refuse to entertain any thoughts that science can't answer - instead they ridiculously claim there is nothing science cannot answer.

[Sava]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Why do you assume God to be some external entity ?
Why can you not , for just a moment , break out of the mindset which dictates that God is some "being in the clouds , which we cannot percieve" ? What if the choice is not between positive and negative consequences , but between ignorance and understanding , which you impose on yourselves ( as you are yourselves God , you decide whether you want to understand or you want to just cover your eyes and not see yourself ) .

What if you yourself are God ? You have the ultimate free will then - no strings attached at all ( nor the possibility of any ) .

And what if there exists a religion which does not demand belief ? What if it asks you to verify for yourselves whatever it claims ?

What then ?

well, for the purposes of this discussion... I consider God to be a deity... an actual intelligent being.

Although you bring up some interesting points.

However, I am specifically addressing religions that direct their followers to believe in superstitions and myth as truth.

This other philosphical and metaphysical stuff, while interesting, is irrelevant to my points.

I don't have a problem with other religions that deal with this sort of thing... as long as they do not ignore the facts and evidence of our reality.

They are perfectly free to live their lives however they like (as is anyone else, no matter what religion)... but what I have a problem with is when people try to hijack the education system to brainwash people with their religious nonsense (intelligent design)... or when they try to use government to discriminate against gay people because of their bigotted interpretation of their religion (gay marriage).

Make sense?

[beingofone]

aneeshm:

Christianity was shaped a lot by the Roman society in which it was born . That re-shaping to suit the needs of the Church did it great harm .

The same could be said for all religious beliefs but I do agree with you. The limb of the Bo tree where Gautama sat is still alive after being replanted and more energy and time is spent keeping the tree alive than his teachings.

the way of faith ( which is not very suited to today's circumstances , where other paths may be better )

You cannot attain understanding without this tool of faith. Who would ever start on the path without it?

There are many ways to the one truth of understanding and it is the one truth of what never changes.

or the way of Raja Yoga , which is the most direct way , but which is also very demanding - it is the path which takes you , step by step , through the same thing which the other enlightened ones went through , by direct personal experience .

I would say that truth can be tested by and through experience but not found there. And yes I am familiar with the path of the gods verses the path of the sage.
The method of meditation is what I have practiced for years.
We Christians call it prayer but I do understand the calming centerdness of what you speak.

But unless experience is repeatable in controlled circumstances , what can you build upon ? Where is it's value as a foundation for building a religion if it is accessible only to those who are already believers ?

And here is where experience alone falls short. You cannot ever, under any cicumstances, repeat an experience.
You have never had the same day, meal, conversation, or stimulation. They are all one of a kind and unique.
Your experience is in a state of nonending flux and change.

What does not change (and never will) is the observer of experience and in this realization is where Jesus was and is tantamount. The observer that is you is the one seeing your continued never ending state of changing experience.

The great I AM THAT I AM

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by beingofone

aneeshm:

You cannot attain understanding without this tool of faith. Who would ever start on the path without it?

There are many ways to the one truth of understanding and it is the one truth of what never changes.

The one who wants to actually understand , instead of blindly follow ? As I said earlier , Raja Yoga demands discipline and curiosity , not faith .

Originally posted by beingofone

I would say that truth can be tested by and through experience but not found there. And yes I am familiar with the path of the gods verses the path of the sage.
The method of meditation is what I have practiced for years.
We Christians call it prayer but I do understand the calming centerdness of what you speak.

But how can you call something the truth unless you have experienced it first ?

Originally posted by beingofone

And here is where experience alone falls short. You cannot ever, under any cicumstances, repeat an experience.
You have never had the same day, meal, conversation, or stimulation. They are all one of a kind and unique.
Your experience is in a state of nonending flux and change.

But you can repeat a specific perception - which is what this is really all about .

Originally posted by beingofone

What does not change (and never will) is the observer of experience and in this realization is where Jesus was and is tantamount. The observer that is you is the one seeing your continued never ending state of changing experience.

The great I AM THAT I AM

How does the realisation that the observer is the constant make Jesus tanamount ? There are many others who have gone through the same process of realisation .











And anyway , this whole thing is irrelevant , because there are some people , even now , who would rather follow the path of faith . Let them do so . It is just another way . For a mind more curious and questioning , however , that path is not suitable , hence my statement .

[beingofone]

aneeshm:

The one who wants to actually understand , instead of blindly follow ? As I said earlier , Raja Yoga demands discipline and curiosity , not faith .

Faith is not about blindness, this is a common misperception. Faith is the idea that I can gain understanding and allieviate ignorance.

But how can you call something the truth unless you have experienced it first ?

It is not about my experience and I have had many nonordinary experiences. It is about the observer of the experience. Who is the one having the experience?

But you can repeat a specific perception - which is what this is really all about .

Your perception is in an equal state of flux as it is integrated with your experience. Your beliefs shape your experience as well as your perception.
There is one called the Ascendant or God that never changes. He is the one observing that is the reality of all of what and who you are.

How does the realisation that the observer is the constant make Jesus tanamount ? There are many others who have gone through the same process of realisation .

Because Jesus demonstrated in a very unique way that even through death the observer is a constant. There is one that is beyond life and death.

And anyway , this whole thing is irrelevant , because there are some people , even now , who would rather follow the path of faith . Let them do so . It is just another way . For a mind more curious and questioning , however , that path is not suitable , hence my statement .

If it is irrelevant, why did you bring it up?
I do not think any experience I have is irrelevent.

You assume you did not begin in faith? Then please tell me how your path to understanding began?