We got home with our puppy today! We had fantastic overnight trip to a beautiful part of Maine
Lakey, the first time I used "Lake" as an endearmnet was a long while back! I often give friendly nicknames to my close irl friends, but would never be so casual with an acquaintance. I do talk to close friends about the topics we cover on ESMB, but would never discuss religion or philosophy with an acquaintance. That's an interesting snapshot of Internet sociology. So, while we're really only acquainted, I'm happy to consider it a rather friendly acquaintance!
Judaism/Christianity:
Lake wrote,
Saint Augustine believed this and he was no slouch as a Christian!
Enlightenment Christians, including most of the founding fathers basically shared this view. For them, God was the great clockmaker who set things in motion and then stepped out of the picture. Many rejected Jesus' divinity and those who maintained belief in the trinity considered Christ's actions something that happened way in the past. They were seen as part of God's clock-making apparatus. Few to none thought of Jesus as immediately available, the way evangelicals do today. Jesus was the savior, because he fulfilled the clock-making, he was not considered a personal friend to be called upon.
But more to your point, the gnostic impulse you describe had enormous prominence in Christianity at various times. To the extent that Jesus was viewed as a second Buddha. These gnostic elements were the reason for the Inquistion. Heretical ideas had become so prominent in the monastic orders that the Catholic church felt the need to root them out. And this, of course, gave rise to Martin Luther.
My point is that these speculative impulses have always figured prominently in Christianity and still do. They arise out of man's attempt to understand his universe and probably can't be segregated as "Eastern" or "Western."
Currently, the most prevalent conception of Christianity that encompasses Jesus in a manger, God as an old man with a white beard, the trinity, etc. is simply ONE very homogenized portrayal. This evangelical conception of Christianity is widely known because of modern media, but it's NOT the most widely recognized or historically influential.
I'm not qualified to debate the finer points of Eastern ideas vs Christian gnosticism. However, the Jesuit professors I trained under could go a full ten rounds on the subject and not break a sweat. Still, I'm not trying to say one thing is "better" than another. My only point is that the things westerners seek in eastern thought exists in western religion.
As an academic interest, I've also studied Jewish intellectual thought and particularly kabala. Again, I'm far from expert here, but the rabbis I've learned from are pretty much agreed that:
Kabala can (and has) been used to justify any and every mystical notion within man's conception. I'm pretty certain that even Xenu is covered somewhere in the enigmatic writings encompassing Kabala.
Kabala is a fascinating subject and I don't mean to slight it in the least. But it is the original, "what's true is true for you." I guess that means LRH must have memorized and used it. It's certainly no surprise to me that Kabala would appeal to celebrities. Whatever Madonna says about Kabala is true. And everything she doesn't say about Kabala, is also true.
Taking Kabala as the extreme example, my only point is that the mystical interests of someone pursuing eastern ideas are well covered in Judaism.
And really, what is Christianity but the work of eastern mystics? Jesus was a rabbi, so were his disciples. They were drawn to the gnostic influences of the Essenes and the teachings of John the Baptist.
I deeply admire the spiritual and intellectual forces in all these religions and sincerely hope nothing I've written sounds offending. In truth, I'm the one who is offended by the ignorant remarks I see on message boards. Not here at ESMB, but my home-base WWP is often particularly caustic. Anyone who describes the Christian Eucharist as representative of a "cannibalistic space-cult" simply doesn't know what their talking about. It's not my religion that's offended, it's my intellectual integrity.
Lake, I did read your other categories, but I'll save commenting for later.
fisherman
Lakey, the first time I used "Lake" as an endearmnet was a long while back! I often give friendly nicknames to my close irl friends, but would never be so casual with an acquaintance. I do talk to close friends about the topics we cover on ESMB, but would never discuss religion or philosophy with an acquaintance. That's an interesting snapshot of Internet sociology. So, while we're really only acquainted, I'm happy to consider it a rather friendly acquaintance!
Judaism/Christianity:
Lake wrote,
In Buddhism for instance, there is no person such as a personal God. You are encouraged to meditate, quite yourself down and look within yourself to recover answers. There is a concept of a cosmic linkage where all living things are connected in the manner of a large net or a very large box spring mattress.
Saint Augustine believed this and he was no slouch as a Christian!
Enlightenment Christians, including most of the founding fathers basically shared this view. For them, God was the great clockmaker who set things in motion and then stepped out of the picture. Many rejected Jesus' divinity and those who maintained belief in the trinity considered Christ's actions something that happened way in the past. They were seen as part of God's clock-making apparatus. Few to none thought of Jesus as immediately available, the way evangelicals do today. Jesus was the savior, because he fulfilled the clock-making, he was not considered a personal friend to be called upon.
But more to your point, the gnostic impulse you describe had enormous prominence in Christianity at various times. To the extent that Jesus was viewed as a second Buddha. These gnostic elements were the reason for the Inquistion. Heretical ideas had become so prominent in the monastic orders that the Catholic church felt the need to root them out. And this, of course, gave rise to Martin Luther.
My point is that these speculative impulses have always figured prominently in Christianity and still do. They arise out of man's attempt to understand his universe and probably can't be segregated as "Eastern" or "Western."
Currently, the most prevalent conception of Christianity that encompasses Jesus in a manger, God as an old man with a white beard, the trinity, etc. is simply ONE very homogenized portrayal. This evangelical conception of Christianity is widely known because of modern media, but it's NOT the most widely recognized or historically influential.
I'm not qualified to debate the finer points of Eastern ideas vs Christian gnosticism. However, the Jesuit professors I trained under could go a full ten rounds on the subject and not break a sweat. Still, I'm not trying to say one thing is "better" than another. My only point is that the things westerners seek in eastern thought exists in western religion.
As an academic interest, I've also studied Jewish intellectual thought and particularly kabala. Again, I'm far from expert here, but the rabbis I've learned from are pretty much agreed that:
Kabala can (and has) been used to justify any and every mystical notion within man's conception. I'm pretty certain that even Xenu is covered somewhere in the enigmatic writings encompassing Kabala.
Kabala is a fascinating subject and I don't mean to slight it in the least. But it is the original, "what's true is true for you." I guess that means LRH must have memorized and used it. It's certainly no surprise to me that Kabala would appeal to celebrities. Whatever Madonna says about Kabala is true. And everything she doesn't say about Kabala, is also true.
Taking Kabala as the extreme example, my only point is that the mystical interests of someone pursuing eastern ideas are well covered in Judaism.
And really, what is Christianity but the work of eastern mystics? Jesus was a rabbi, so were his disciples. They were drawn to the gnostic influences of the Essenes and the teachings of John the Baptist.
I deeply admire the spiritual and intellectual forces in all these religions and sincerely hope nothing I've written sounds offending. In truth, I'm the one who is offended by the ignorant remarks I see on message boards. Not here at ESMB, but my home-base WWP is often particularly caustic. Anyone who describes the Christian Eucharist as representative of a "cannibalistic space-cult" simply doesn't know what their talking about. It's not my religion that's offended, it's my intellectual integrity.
Lake, I did read your other categories, but I'll save commenting for later.
fisherman