I would have to disagree. One of the most spiritual persons I have ever known was a Hindu co-worker in Seattle. We had a lot of long talks on the way to work. He didn’t have a license and I taught him how to drive. He had a wonderful family and he was a dear friend.I would have answer NO. We have nothing in common them.
Hi Metzerboy: What I am saying is that anything that is observable with the senses, reasoned by the mind, and produced as the outcome or conclusion of the interplay between the two is relative. However, the sense organs and the mind are but measuring and experiential devices employed by consciousness, which is not the same thing as thought, which is the result of synapses in the mind. Consciousness, while related to sense and mind seems to be beyond them, and seems to be the ultimate causal component. Consciousness is absolute, but not observable or clearly understood by the intellect. I believe there is but one consciousness, which is transpersonal, shared and causal. That would be consistent with Hindu thought, and allowable by Christian thought, when not restricted by the secondary handlers of Christian thought, who succeeded in confining God’s manifestation among them within the context of local tradition,ingrained expectations, and perhaps social agenda.
Sufon, I have question about your quote.
It says he who is in contact with the “Supereme Lord” never hates anything. Does that include evil?
Thanks, Sufjon. I thought that was it, but for a moment I wasn’t sure. So you’re using the term “consciousness” in a Jungian sense of “collective unconscious”? It’s transpersonal and outside of our personal experience while part of our shared experience. However, how do you know this consciousness exists apart from using your own mind, senses, and cultural experience, all of which are subjective and prone to error, to interpret it? You know I’m not trying to give you a hard time, but just trying to follow your reasoning.
Great question Melzerboy! The same way that Jung did, and rishis, sages, sadhus, yogis and saints have done for many thousands of years. By repeatedly and doggedly turning the mind off day after day, year after year, with clear and concentrated effort. Over time, these people see the one consciousness clearly. I have had glimpses of it, and it is beyond all measure in it’s magnificence and radiant with unfathomable love. A Hindu would look at Jesus’ proclamation “be though of one eye” as his affirmation of the method.
Hi Martyr73340: Yes, evil can only effect that which you truly are, or harm that which you truly are if you respond to it in kind. Anger and evil are like acid. They eat away at the container. If your love is like the light from a bonfire, it will shine equally on all things, without regard to their aspect. There is no room for evil in a heart that is full of love for all things. Without room for it to take up residence, it can have no effect on you. Evil can take away the home you live in, the people you are attached to and the person you are wearing, but none of these things were ever yours anyway. Those things are not you. If you are all about love, it will not harm you. There is the potential for an infinite amount of love in each of us, but it will only be a small amount if you only give away a small amount. The more you give away, the more you will have. It will not be dependent on anyone’s love in return. It is self-generating, feeds on itself, and limitless.
Hi, Sufon. I don’t have time to answer your post on evil. I will get back to it. But I do have two other quick questions. Maybe they are too simplistic for this thread, but I think they may be “enlightening” nonetheless.
Which means that this statement is false because this is an absolute statement.
Jmartyr asked: It says he who is in contact with the “Supereme Lord” never hates anything. Does that include evil?
What you quoted was not THE Bible but part of the Bible. Not all of the Bible is to be taken literally.
As I said before, they were hypocrites. And yes, if that person is behaving badly, then indeed “ Do as he says but don’t do as he does”, providing he is not preaching what he is doing.
Teaching has to do with doctrine. Even if the Pope behaves badly, his action though lamentable still is not doctrine.
Truth has nothing to do with behaviour, but rather with doctrine. What we can determine though is whether action is in line with doctrine.
The religion as it is, rests on her doctrine. That is where the differences lie.
Nope. Some members of the Catholic Church have been hypocrites, but the Church itself has never preached untruth. The individual members of the Chruch is not the magisterium of the Church.
You are muddying the subject. We are not talking about evil acts but truths. Yes, member of the Church have performed terribly heinous acts but the Church has not taught that this is a good thing.
It depends if in Buddhist teaching there is something that says it is okay to kill others. If not, all it shows is they did not live according to their belief.
Nope, most have but not Christianity. That we have behaved badly does not mean that the Church has taught what we have done. Some of her members may have taught it but not the Church.
That depends on what Matthew meant by “generation”. That we cannot understand what some passages in the Bible mean does not make it false.
However, that part of the Bible was taken literally in Europe for hundreds of years. Can you show me an official statement from the Catholic Church during all that time that witches were not to be killed? A sin of omission by the Church perhaps.
Excellent. We are agreed.
The Church has allowed untruth to be preached by omission. Where are all the statements from the Magisterium that heretics should not be burned coming from the time before, and for many years after, Hus was burned? There is a gross failure by omission on the part of the Church here.
But the Church has failed to teach that it is a bad thing until after those acts have been going on for hundreds of years.
You might wish to look at Dum Diversas (1452) and Romanus Pontifex (1455), both issued by Pope Nicholas V, on the subject of slavery.
The gospel said “make disciples of all nations”.
Well guess what, they were teaching way before even the Gospels were written. As a matter of fact, how the books that will make the canon were determined was based on the tradition that was handed down by the apostles
In some ways yes, the Holy Spirit does move other people, but the promise to be led into all truth was given only to the Church.
But that is all beside the point because Constantine was not part of the magisterium of the Church.
Scripture and Tradition. You have to base it on these
Broader does not mean true. All it is broader. Which means allowing for untruth and therefore being unable to determine which is and which is not true. Therefore fuzzy.
Your interpretation is false. Just because yo have not seen anything compelling enough to change that view does not make it true. People have gone to their graves believing the earth is flat.
Considering they were blind they therefore did not see. They made conclusions based on their blindness.
And that limited conclusion happened to be false. The elephant is not a fan, a wall or a sword.
No, we give the whole the truth. What you give is the opposite of it. Although there are some true bits interspersed in it, you won’t be able to tell which one unless you have a something to measure it by, and you can only measure that against something that is always true.
Nope, what I said was all three gave false conclusions and that only the one who can see can give the correct conclusion.
What is difficult to understand about γενεὰ? The translators do not seem to have had any problem with it. Every English translation I have looked at has “generation” in this verse. The only problem is that its obvious meaning is uncomfortable for some Christians so they look for ways to avoid the obvious.
Can you show me one that says they should be?
No a sin of hypocrisy by some of her members
No, there is no such thing as preaching by omission. Sinning by omission yes. When the Church is silent when she should not be, that is not preaching by omission because she is not preaching at all. This is a sin of expedience and cowardice and perhaps self-interest.
Yes, there is the sin of omission there. But what we are discussing here is not sin but truth.
Nope, the Church did teach only what is right, but some of her members nonetheless lived otherwise.
Here is some reading for you
Yes it translates to “generation”, but Matthew may have been referring to humanity at large or to the Jews.
Hi JMartyr: I’m not sure that I’m following your line of thought there.
I wouldn’t say that one is better. It isn’t more beneficial to be one thing than another. Each is a stage in development, and no stage is less important than the other. The point is that whatever you are - be what you are fully, be that here and be that now.
You’re being silly. If all truth in the physical world is relative, then so is the statement I made, which means it is not absolute.
Hello Bendedictus: At first I kind of laughed and thought you were just arguing for the sake of arguing, but after 8 or 9 months in this forum, it occurred to me that you were probably serious. In that case, no, it doesn’t mean that you participate in evil. There are extensive texts on the subject which explain that in detail, however, it’s easier for me to let you see it as you will. This assumption would be supported by the fact that you didn’t read the scripture you were asking about very carefully in the first place. It said all living entities. I don’t believe that evil is a living entity or being, however I do understand that some people do have a rather Miltonian view that would allow for it to be such.