Is faith based on little or no evidence reasonable? (atheism, Abraham, God)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I gave this a lot of thought before I chose Christ . . . because the mainstream Christian religions are heinous misrepresentations of Christ, His unambiguous example and His teachings. But I recognized that the central element in Christianity IS Christ . . . not the religions that have co-opted His name and corrupted His message of love and acceptance with evil "precepts and doctrines of men". . . like Eternal Torment or Annihilation. It is futile, I know . . . as they are the majority and actually believe that by following specific "precepts and doctrines of men" they are Christians.
The conundrum that presented itself to me is that the consciousness I encounter in deep meditation is unconditional love and acceptance as exemplified by Christ. So I identify as a Christian. I consider . . . as Bibleans . . . all those who do not accept His message of unconditional love and acceptance and who revere the words "written in ink" in the Bible over Christ's commands to "love God and each other." Since I know what it means to be a Christian deep down in our inner soul . . . that is all that matters to me . . . not public perceptions.
So if I understand, you identify as a Christian because you accept the concept of Christ, which to you represents love and acceptance, and not so much because of the biblical or historical depiction of Jesus.
Almost, but not quite, Christ as a metaphor.
Interesting paradigm, if I understand you correctly.
So if I understand, you identify as a Christian because you accept the concept of Christ, which to you represents love and acceptance, and not so much because of the biblical or historical depiction of Jesus.
Almost, but not quite, Christ as a metaphor.
Interesting paradigm, if I understand you correctly.
It is quite a bit more complicated than that, Box. If you want to understand it you have to ask yourself what the purpose of scripture would actually be and how our consciousness would relate to what God desires from us as a species, Box. The idea that the scriptures have a spiritual purpose . . . NOT worldy . . . is beyond important. Spiritual means within our consciousness and relates to the cognitive constructs we create within it that resonate with us. Our species spiritual development and maturity as evidenced in the evolution of the "spiritual fossil record" follows a spiritual DNA template across generations and cultures . . . culminating conceptually in Christ as Savior, IMO. This suggests that there is a cognitive pattern for acceptance of God in the human consciousness.
The cognitive concept of the Savior (as epitomized by Christ) is the most highly evolved version of its more primitive and carnal antecedents (frequently used to claim plagiarism, etc.). This validates Christ as the real deal to me. His acceptance and tenacity over millennia combined with the resonance of the Savior concept within human consciousness . . . adds credibility to the effectiveness of the cognitive template. IMO there is no more perfect expression of the Savior concept and maitri (or agape love) than Christ (not Horus, not Krishna, not Mithras, not Buddha . . . not whoever).
I appreciate your return to posting, Box. You have a brilliant, inquisitive, insightful and open mind. I hope this clarifies what is actually a far more complex theological rationale behind my selection of Christ.
It is quite a bit more complicated than that, Box. If you want to understand it you have to ask yourself what the purpose of scripture would actually be and how our consciousness would relate to what God desires from us as a species, Box. The idea that the scriptures have a spiritual purpose . . . NOT worldy . . . is beyond important. Spiritual means within our consciousness and relates to the cognitive constructs we create within it that resonate with us. Our species spiritual development and maturity as evidenced in the evolution of the "spiritual fossil record" follows a spiritual DNA template across generations and cultures . . . culminating conceptually in Christ as Savior, IMO. This suggests that there is a cognitive pattern for acceptance of God in the human consciousness.
The cognitive concept of the Savior (as epitomized by Christ) is the most highly evolved version of its more primitive and carnal antecedents (frequently used to claim plagiarism, etc.). This validates Christ as the real deal to me. His acceptance and tenacity over millennia combined with the resonance of the Savior concept within human consciousness . . . adds credibility to the effectiveness of the cognitive template. IMO there is no more perfect expression of the Savior concept and maitri (or agape love) than Christ (not Horus, not Krishna, not Mithras, not Buddha . . . not whoever).
I appreciate your return to posting, Box. You have a brilliant, inquisitive, insightful and open mind. I hope this clarifies what is actually a far more complex theological rationale behind my selection of Christ.
In what way have we spiritually evolved? What is the "fossil record" for spiritual evolution?
In what way have we spiritually evolved? What is the "fossil record" for spiritual evolution?
The "spiritual Fossil record" are the myths, legends, scriptures, oral traditions, etc. chronicling our species attempts to understand the concept of God intellectually (spiritually/cognitively) from its earliest formulations. "Spiritual" relates to our cognitive state of understanding and relating to the concept of God as it has evolved from primitive animism to today.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,163,488 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
........The cognitive concept of the Savior (as epitomized by Christ) is the most highly evolved version of its more primitive and carnal antecedents (frequently used to claim plagiarism, etc.). This validates Christ as the real deal to me. His acceptance and tenacity over millennia combined with the resonance of the Savior concept within human consciousness . . . adds credibility to the effectiveness of the cognitive template. IMO there is no more perfect expression of the Savior concept and maitri (or agape love) than Christ (not Horus, not Krishna, not Mithras, not Buddha . . . not whoever).
I appreciate your return to posting, Box. You have a brilliant, inquisitive, insightful and open mind. I hope this clarifies what is actually a far more complex theological rationale behind my selection of Christ.
Savior from what? According to the NT, it's salvation from eternal damnation in Hell - and yes, it does say that in several places, even Jesus himself said it plainly: matt 25:46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ”
That to me is not an "epitome" teaching, it seems a bit childish compared to the Buddhist version of salvation, imo.
Savior from what? According to the NT, it's salvation from eternal damnation in Hell - and yes, it does say that in several places, even Jesus himself said it plainly: matt 25:46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ”
That to me is not an "epitome" teaching, it seems a bit childish compared to the Buddhist version of salvation, imo.
The corrupt interpretation of salvation from hell or whatever is just wrong. It is salvation from permanent separation from God consciousness because no human consciousness had achieved perfect resonance. Christ DID. His human consciousness connected ALL human consciousness eliminating any separation. Our collective human consciousness now has access to Christ's perfection . . . if only in some imperfect harmonic resonance.
The "spiritual Fossil record" are the myths, legends, scriptures, oral traditions, etc. chronicling our species attempts to understand the concept of God intellectually (spiritually/cognitively) from its earliest formulations. "Spiritual" relates to our cognitive state of understanding and relating to the concept of God as it has evolved from primitive animism to today.
Ok. But who says these ideas have gotten more complex? In what exact way have they evolved? In complexity? In getting more and more accurate?
Ok. But who says these ideas have gotten more complex? In what exact way have they evolved? In complexity? In getting more and more accurate?
To take one example from the Mithraic legend:
On Black Friday (c.f. Good Friday) the taurobolium, or bull-slaying was represented. . . . Mithras, worn out by the battle, was symbolically represented by a stone image lain on a bier as a corpse. He was mourned for in liturgy, and placed in a sacred rock tomb called 'Petra,' from which he was removed after three days in a great festival of rejoicing.
Slaying the bull (or beast/animal) is a more concrete way of representing the conquering of our animal nature. The more evolved expression of the same theme is Christ enduring the scourging and crucifixion out of love by conquering the most primal of our animal drives . . . survival. It is clear that the earlier Mithras myth is at a more primitive level of symbolism - what we call a more concrete level of cognition - whereas the Jesus version is at a more evolved and abstract level of cognition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
