Will Rogers said that “Christians would be better off if they paid more attention to what Jesus said and did and less about how he came and went”.
Jab:
In the context I have been using it, I would define it this way: Love is Perfect Goodness that is made manifest.
Freyr:
As you wish.
and…
Well, see, I never identified the caller as Buddhist. For this purpose, he could have been a worshipper of the Invisible Pink Unicorn who arbitrarily called Buddha his savior.
But since these matters have become a stumbling block to you, it behooves me to seek out at least something for you. In the Gospel of Buddha, we find this:
“Blessed is he who has attained the sacred state of Buddhahood, for he is fit to work out the salvation of his fellow beings. The truth has taken its abode in him. Perfect wisdom illumines his understanding, and righteousness ensouls the purpose of all his actions. The truth is a living power for good, indestructible and invincible! Work the truth out in your mind, and spread it among mankind, for truth alone is the savior from evil and misery. The Buddha has found the truth and the truth has been proclaimed by the Buddha! Blessed be the Buddha!”
Of course, Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” Therefore, I suppose one could say that Buddha found Jesus. They are One, after all.
In focusing on the minutia of what I had said, you fell into what Jesus calls “straining gnats and swallowing camels.” You missed the greater point for the sake of the trival one. There was nothing at all significant about the syllables “Bud-dha” any more than there is any significance about the syllables “Je-sus”.
If you review, you will see that the point was that whatever sounds a man utters with his mouth and tongue — Jesus, Buddha, Unicorn, Satan — these tell nothing about whom the man is calling. If his heart is filled with love, he calls out to God. Otherwise, he calls out to Death.
I am saying that Love is Love. God did not come down through the ages to rule an anthill for a day. There is no “religion” that owns God. I am not saying that the difference between Christianity and Buddhism is trivial. I am saying that Christianity and Buddhism themselves (and all other religions) are trivial.
Only God, the Love Everlasting, matters.
That wasn’t a question really, but I thought you might appreciate a comment nonetheless.
By now, perhaps you have discerned that I am not saying anything at all about “religions”. Religion sucks. Religion is piddly shit. Infested with petty politicians, it is the enemy of God.
Here is what Jesus said of religion politicians: “They are like whitewashed tombs, all clean and white on the outside, but inside, full of dead mens’ bones and decay… They search the ends of the earth to find one convert, and having found him, turn him into twice the son of hell they are themselves.”
While the religions squabble over their territory of souls, God does His work in spite of them.
I have no idea what god any man follows, but this I know: If you have Love in your heart, then you follow the Living God. Buddha never died. Only his body died when he ate some rotten pork. It was a trivial event.
The Buddha said, “Just as a mother would give her life to protect her only child, in the same way let him develop an unlimited mind of loving-kindness towards all beings.” His heart, therefore, was filled with Love. By this, I know that he is Alive, and that he, like all others whose hearts are filled with Love, is God.
Now that I have answered your questions, I call upon you once again to answer mine: What did Jesus mean by this? “Before Abraham was, I am.” It is not about religion, nor is it about Christians. It is about God.
Try. Buddha knows what it means.
Since online sites seem important for your point:
From this site
And if that site is not good enough is the
Encyclopedia Britannica good enough?
Perhaps burning their work and exiling heretics is not violent enough for your definition. However, you are quibbling over a peripheral issue. The original point remains. The question of whether Jesus was God incarnate or not was settled for the Church almost 300 years after he died. Notice I state that it was settled for the Church - not for everyone.
I find this curious. You stated in the earlier thread that you find some of the RCC’s theology flawed. I, and I believe **Libertarian
** agree with you on this. Yet you continually assert that the Catholic Church’s theology is correct.
What I’ve tried to demonstrate is that there is a multitude of ways to interpret the scriptures and that some of the interpretations conflict internally and with Jesus’ (and Buddha’s) simple message of Love Everyone.
The fact that Jesus’ disciples and even later followers have made up a theology that warps his message does not detract from his message. But it does mean that it is incumbent upon those who seek truth to separate the wisdom from the folly in the scriptures.
{fixed code --Gaudere}
[Edited by Gaudere on 03-29-2001 at 11:05 AM]
I seem ever to be wandering into esoteric philosophical examinations and indulging my passion and joy. Why stop now.?
To those to whom the absence of logical rigor, or political palatability, or reproducible experimental verification of the prime tenet of Christian faith is an insurmountable barrier I ask this consideration:
Perhaps you might consider the philosophy that you should love each soul you meet in the world as if you, yourself were the only source of love that there would ever be in the world. Not because you, or any other person was God, or Savior, but because you believed that love was a good thing, and you wanted it to be. Not because you could make love triumph in the world, but because you believe that a world where love was overwhelmed was somehow better than a world where love had never been. Not for religion, or even for faith, nor even with hope, but love, for the sake of love alone. Not with perfection, for you are not perfect, but with perseverance, to stand again, each time you have fallen, because you want to continue to love, so that while you live, love also lives.
Please?
I know you have no faith, nor can I give it to you. But I have faith, for both of us that there is a God, and when you meet Him, if you have done this, He will know you. And if I am wrong, you will still be right, and the world a better place that there has been love.
So, destroying a few books and asking Arius and two of his followers to leave isn’t what I got out of your original implication. Arius had already been excommunicated not once, but twice, before he showed up at the Council of Nicea with his suggestions. Besides, Eusebius, a high muckity-muck of the Church, did manange to convince Constantine to change his mind about the writ of exile, even though Eusebius strongly disagreed with Arius, although it took six years. Constantine not only welcomed him back but ordered the another church leader to reconcile his teachings with those of the church – but the order was refused. You know how grumpy those emperors get – suddenly it was the Catholics who were under his ire. Then Constantine decided on his own that Arius was orthodox after all. History could have gone rather differently, except Arius suddenly died.
Anyway – Constantine is clearly the elephant in the living room here. I don’t know how I would have handled it – but when the emperor shows up one day, says he’s a Christian, and decides he wants to help – it isn’t easy to tell him go away, no you aren’t, and thanks anyway.
But the idea is there in the scriptures. I’ll admit I’ve seen people (especially atheists and fundies) take the idea to ridiculous extremes. Jesus was completely at one with the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is completely at one with God. Thus, Jesus was wholly at one with God, and thus is God, although God become man in human form.
As opposed to the Protestant and Gnostic heresies? Yes. The enemy of your enemy is your friend while he opposes your enemy. Furthermore, when someone says “tradional Christianity believes” or “the majority of Christians believe” I can generally point to the teachings of the Catholics as a reference as to whether what follows is a true statement.
Agreed, but there is still a danger of being misled even if you go solely by the scriptures for those who have not yet attained wisdom, FWIW.
Funny! Do you not believe Hell exists and that once there, you’re stuck for eternity? Hell is mentioned in the Bible and it doesn’t sound like a happy place.
And aren’t “those people” who worship a “teensy and insignificant god” actually called Christians?
It’s all well and good to concentrate on the Goodness and Love and such-like, but the God of the Bible (especially in the OT) is a God of vengence and wrath when he’s not happy with a person or group of people.
DrMatrix:
I discern that you prefer a discussion framed in a more familiar epistemology. Kindly correct me if I’m heading the wrong way here.
In the spiritual epistemology, there is a simple sort of twin particle dichotomy. There is the Kingdom of God (Heaven), and there is the Kingdom of Death (Hell). There is Goodness (God), and there is Evil (Satan).
In whatever metaphysical context we exist, we’re “stuck for eternity”. Heaven and Hell are not places. Rather, they are the condition of our spirit. When asked where “this Kingdom of God you keep talking about” is by an incredulous inquisitor, Jesus replied, “You cannot say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘See, there it is!’… for the Kingdom of God is within you.”
The universe (or the atoms) is merely a mis-en-scene, intended to produce a reality context from something that is not real. But the morality that we enact within that context is very real indeed.
You mean the “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” the “lake of fire,” that sort of thing, right? Have you seen Orgasmo? For the mormon fellow, the porn scene was a weeping, gnashing, lake o’ fire kind of condition. He was disgusted by it, but soon acclimated and found among the filth good things and good people.
Likewise, God discernedly harvests (has harvested, will harvest) whatever goodness He finds. The dead do not know they are dead. They know only they are not fulfilled. They choose (chose, will choose) death because they believe that death is comforting. Life is of as much interest to them as exercise is to a couch potato.
Hell is not a happy “place” to those who Love, but it is the only place those who don’t choose. After all, that is the choice: to love or not. That is how Heaven and Hell are chosen.
There are people of every religion who worship futility. The Christian one is no exception. It is one of those labels like Objectivist. I label myself a Libertarian Objectivist Christian, and even hosted a thread once to answer peoples’ questions with respect to this admittedly unusual ethics set.
I mean, I guess I have to be called something. I believe that Jesus is God, and that He saved (is saving, will save) me from death. Christian seems as good a term as any.
Certainly, the mainstream Christians disdain the label for me, just as the Ayn Rand worshippers disdain my use of the term Objectivist. Only the Libertarians allow me to call myself by their name. (Hence, my pseudonym…)
Satan cannot hide behind a book. And God cannot be bounded by one.
Lib, these platitudes, lovely as they are, are starting to give me a headache. You are quite obviously Not Your Average Christian, and I applaud and welcome that, but the reason you put the OP up in the first place is because of just that - to the vast majority of Christians out there, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, Hell and Heaven exist, and unrepentant sinners will be punished (I’ll choose Friendofgod as the worst possible example). If more people thought as you do, there’d be a lot more UU churches, that’s for sure… 
Esprix
[Slight Hijack]
Lib, does Jesus have any sort of “special” status for you? I mean, yes, Jesus is God in your theology. But so are you God. And you say Buddha is God as well. So could you just as accurately say you believe you are God, and you will save yourself? Or say that you believe Buddha was God, and he will save you? Is there any particular reason why you choose to say “I follow Jesus(God)” rather than “I follow myself(God)” or “I follow Buddha(God)”?
[/Slight Hijack]
Esprix:
I’ve told my Christian bretheren before that the Bible is not the Word of God; Jesus is. Thanks for your kind indulgences. God go with you always.
Gaudere:
Yes indeed, Jesus has a most special status. He is the very least among us. The very highest.
But lest I leave a misunderstanding, let me reiterate that the spiritual consciousness, unlike the physical one, is an open set. Spirit is not like flesh. God is at once everywhere and always. The most special thing, I suppose, about Jesus is that you can trust Him. He is fully God. That part of me that is Love is miniscule. Don’t trust me, but do trust Him.
(Has Gibran’s Jesus the Son of Man bubbled its way near the top of your reading list yet?)
Ok, so Jesus is all God, and you are part God and part not-God? Is He the only one who is/was/will be 100% God? What is the part of you that is not God–is it active evil, or simply not-love (indifference)? I assume then that the “God” part of people is “saved” and the not-God part is not, so if Hitler loved animals but hated the Jews, the animal-loving part would be in heaven but the Jew-hating part would not.
Hm…I have trouble seeing my personality surviving entirely intact in an “afterlife” if only the wholly good parts stay. Some of my faults are rather charming, and I am loath to see them go. Dunno if I’d go for an evil-ectomy even if one were offered–the whole point of living is the struggle to better oneself, IMHO, not just have all your badness shedded without effort like a snake’s skin. Once you’re perfect, what is there to reach for?
I read Jesus, Son of Man back in late fall. Wonderful prose; I was thinking of getting some of his other books, though nowadays I’m insanely busy and I have some other books waiting to be read. Thanks for the recommendation. 
This is confusing me, though: “God is at once everywhere and always…That part of me that is Love is miniscule.”
How do we hide ourselves from Someone Who is everywhere?
One cannot have both faith in God’s existence and true nature and intimate knowledge of same at the same time. Knowledge makes religious faith unnecessary.
Gaudere,
You seem to grasp so bravely at just how Libertarian can have his gentle, loving, spirituality, without condemnation, without authoritarianism, without scripturalism, and even without the bible as a club with which to bludgeon the unbelievers.
But it is obviously the case that Libertarian does believe that there is a Spirit of Love, a personage, a living ensoulment of what is good. He names that person as Jesus. He has confidently proclaimed that Jesus is Lord. But he is not confident that everyone who speaks of Jesus, and especially not all those who speak of His opinions and purposes is speaking for him (him, Libertarian, and Him, Jesus as well, I imagine). Libertarian is perhaps not typical, but he certainly is not unique in this regard.
Your personality is not (in my humble opinion) threatened by the Love of God. I believe that He loves you, and that it is a personal matter. He will not obliterate some part of you, out of love. The endless reaches of time might well change who you are, after you have left all this behind. But that is your soul, changing, and growing in the endless glory of eternity, as it must, because you are not yet infinite, and have not become all that you might be. Your charming little quirks will be preserved in loving memory, yours, and His, and all those many others who have loved you, and will love you still.
And if you will not be loved, it might well be that that unique and precious being that you are shall wither, and pass away, and have no other being but the memories that God and we shall treasure. That would be Hell.
This is the equivalent to Bill Gates paying my recent 20-cent library fine for me. I’d probably be grateful before I realize that his sacrifice was microscopic in comparison to his vast wealth.
Now, if he were to donate a kidney, that would be different.
Have you read “The Little Princess”?
If you want poor people to follow you, tell them that poor people will be rewarded after death but that the rich will suffer. The poor have hated the rich ever since there was such a dichotomy. Jesus exploited this enmity with this story, IMHO.
Good grief! You do realize this passage implies that the Resurrection was pointless, don’t you? It implies that even the Resurrection was just “preaching to the choir.”
Lemme tell you what else He says: “Believe I exist; THEN I will prove that I do.”
Sorry, God, but I think you have it backwards.
Obviously, God isn’t everywhere, otherwise everyone would know he existed. Or, he isn’t anywhere. But you should have learned by now that the idea of a God who is omnipresent in a way you are conceiving is an immediate fallacy.
Having finally learned this, you might go on to make a more interesting argument. If you wish to postulate that there is a God, as a means of showing that the idea is absurd, surely you can do better than this.
One might have intimate knowledge of a god through a spirit. One must still have faith that that spirit and hence that god is true.