I don’t believe the Church is infallible. And even if I did, I would ultimately be the one who determines that, because I am the one who is ultimately responsible for what I believe as you are the one who is ultimately responsible for what you believe. Right?
I don’t believe it is reasonable to believe that any book is inerrant.
Yeah, totally. And I think the Bible and the teachings of the Church must be free from all error.
Do you believe the Bible is God’s Word? Do you believe Jesus was God and started a Church to teach with His authority?
Sorry, but that is simply false. Utterly false.
Okay. But my point is that you are ultimately the authority on what you will accept as authoritative. There is no way of getting around that. (You seem to be taking issue with my position because you believe I have placed myself as the ultimate authority on what I believe. I am simply pointing that you are doing exactly the same thing.)
No. I think a more relevant question is whether or not I find any of the Bible inspirational. (I have already explained my view on “inspiration” in another thread.)
I do not believe that Jesus is the exclusive “son of God” or “God-incarnate.” Furthermore, I do not believe he teaches in Bible that he is (assuming that the Bible adequately reflects his teachings). As to whether he started a “church,” I really don’t know. I think it is reasonable to assume that he had a following who started a church because Christianity is a major religion in the world.
You are obviously completely ignorant on the subject matter.
If I am, please explain.
That is fine, but most of those raised Catholic have been poorly catechised. Or they have tried to live their Catholic faith based on childhood catechesis and that is not sufficient.
I guess that doesn’t say much for the Church. Right?
Well, it would appear that the CCC actually supports a version of “infinitarianism.” But I am not sure whether it is monotheistic or polytheistic. You tell me.
Define pantheism.
Well, I didn’t try to. Only I can make up my own mind. But I’ll try to make it accord with the data that is most sure.
What about John 10:7-9, John 14:6-7, and Matthew 16:13-20?
I believe the Bible to be a basically a combination of history and mythology.
I don’t believe Catholicism’s track-record is much better than Islam. But we are really digressing here.
I don’t see it. Jesus does not claim to be EXCLUSIVELY God-incarnate. In fact, he explicitly denies it in John 10:33-36
I think you already did an excellent job of that: “Every mind contains all minds, for every mind is one. Such is the truth”
I consider that to be panentheistic, not pantheistic. But even if I grant you that it is pantheistic, so what? What exactly is your point?
I agree that in our ordinary state of ego-consciousness our separation appears to be very real. But with spiritual practice, we have the potential to experience a different state of consciousness where we will see through the appearances.
I have absolutely no idea of what you are referring to. It would appear that you are completely ignorant on the subject matter.
Then you are a Spinozist.
Counterpoint
Hi, and thanks for your response. However, I am puzzled by your answer. Do you deny that the course has done a 180 with the original belief in pantheism in Hinduism and later Buddhism?
No, I do not subscribe to Spinoism, but I probably do share in some aspects of his philosophy (e.g. his panpsychism). I do believe that God is both tanscendent and immanent.
This has nothing to do with it. If you believe in one God, then you are monotheistic. If you believe there are more than one god, then you are polytheistic. How you arrive at your belief is irrelevant as to how it is categorized.
Yes, I deny it. Of course, I have no idea what you mean by a “180” in this context. But if you are going to make allegations, then I think you should back it up by specifically citing those Course passages which support your allegations.
I have not made any argument for Buddhism here. (That being said, I don’t you have even a rudimentary understanding of Buddhism.)
No, this is a completely false allegation. To reiterate: If you are going to make allegations, then it is incumbent upon you to back it up by specifically citing those Course passages which support your allegations.
You are ignorant on the subject matter. And since you are the one who is making these allegations, then the onus is upon you to provide us with evidence that supports such allegations. Thus far, nothing has been forthcoming.
Answer: It’s pagan.
The account of Jesus’ resurrection – which category would you put that into?
I was kind of talking about the New Testament era…I think it was my brother who once made the argument that the Apostles had a lot of incentive for making up the New Testament because of all the benefits you get as the leader of a mass movement. Like, tithes and stuff. I think that makes sense in the case of Islam, where the leader made all sorts of moral exceptions for himself and really constructed a morality that allows for a lot of immoral stuff. But that’s not what you get with the New Testament, and that tells me that the authors weren’t doing this for self-seeking purposes. I think that’s evidence that they really believed in what they were teaching, they weren’t making up the stories they told about Jesus but believed them. Do you agree?
In John 10:7-9 He says that all who came before Him were thieves and robbers. I think that’s incompatible with the view that they were prior incarnations of God. What do you think?
Why are you evading the question I posed in the OP?
