God's judgement?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tai!

Of course, I myself do not believe in a vengeful, angry, tryannical god (no matter what "the Bible says") ... because I don't have one shred of actual evidence that such exists - except in our fearful imaginations.

I'm stretching my memory for a quote from Frank Herbert's "Dune." Herbert wrote something like "Do not trouble yourself looking for wolves far afield, and lose sight of the wolf at your gate." You are quite right, Tai, we should not place inordinate emphasis worrying about what Herbert called "wolves far afield." However, as Herbert pointed out in the same passage, we should not ignore the wolf in our presence.

I want all people to be good and kind and descent, just like everybody else does. Without evidence otherwise, I must give all people the benefit of the doubt. But to presume such good intent when the people of the world clearly can, at any given moment, suddenly not be good, is not rational or realistic.

How many parents, trusting the goodness of others, have their children kidnapped or violated? How many young women, trusting the goodness of the young men in their company, have been taken advantage of at an inoppurtune moment? Some even murdered for their misplaced trust and faith in the goodness of humanity?

Everyday I encounter people who I have no doubt are well intended, yet are cause for caution on my part. People who drive down the road with their concentration on a cell phone conversation, not realizing that a moment of indiscretion can take the life of either themself or another. People in too much of a hurry to have courtesy and consideration for others. People consumed with a moment of greed making sure they get for themself and theirs, no matter the cost to another. These people are not "evil," yet a moment's action can be.

I choose to understand the historical events being discussed here, as well as the relationship between Humanity (individuals and collectively) and our Loving God, in another light entirely. And all that wrath & anger, I'm gonna punish you because you didn't worship me, and the lightning bolts shooting out of his - uhhh, head - yeah ... imo, that's just stuff to frighten small children with. I guess it works.

I am confused. You would equate the Almighty with the Hindu trinity, on the one hand admitting a "Destroyer" aspect, yet denying that aspect in the Monotheist G-d on the other hand? While I might see difference in your analogy, I am not the one who raised it.

This also shows confusion about the underlying theme. G-d was *not* ordering the destruction of various peoples with no reason. He was not ordering the wholesale genocide of thousands of poor souls in Bangladesh. He ordered the destruction of specific peoples, for a specific reason. That those people ordered destroyed are affiliated with Hermes Trimesgistus is a lesson for me to absorb, and cause for alarm to you. Nevertheless, I will not concern myself with the wolves far afield, I am concerned about the wolf at my gate.

 

[taijasi]

Christianity has nothing to do with Hinduism.

I believe I know more than a few religious scholars who would get a real kick outta that statement. I sure did!

juantoo3, I do agree with your sentiment regarding our tendency to slip up in the moment. It happens to us all. Few of us really mean it, deep down. Even those who do, the "wolves" of whom you speak, are in my book - people just like you and me. DEEPER DOWN than their errors, even if/when repeated, they are GOOD AT HEART. Either that, or St. Paul was dead wrong when he spoke of Christ in (them), the Hope of Glory.

The thing is, it doesn't take God, or even Christ, to recognize that potential. And how we respond to those around us, or in our midst, is up to us. It is not ours to judge them; that responsibility rests only with God. Amazing how we sometimes forget ...

As for Siva ... God the Destroyer ... you are correct, I did raise this - and I attempted to show a parallel with God the Father. But neither lens for understanding/interpreting the Divine has anything to do with vengeance and wrath. Justice that resorts to these human conceptions has nothing to do with Divine Balance, with the inexorable, perfect LAW of which Christ spoke.

Only if we conceive of God Almighty with the pettinesses of an overgrown, stubborn, willful human personality (pure EGO) - would me make the mistake of casting Him as a tyrant. Destruction IS Love, to Love is to Destroy. That statement is not unequivocal, or absolute - it does not represent the only way to Love, nor does it mean that ALL destruction is right, or an expression of Love. Again, we tend to apply HUMAN conceptions and understandings to Deity ...

And one further note. That wolf at the gate - does he dwell within your heart, or outside of it? If you say - outside, and that Christ abides within, then I agree ... this I was saying above. Yet at what point does our own perfection (necessary, after all, in order for Christ to abide within us eternally and without fail) break down? At what point are we willing to admit - that the wolf is part of us too? WHEN are we willing and able to accept that All Humanity is ONE?

True, we must each fight the fight, face the fears, confront the dweller - within our own lives ... and yes, in this regard, it is a personal battle, and is nobody's business except our own. THAT'S why it's not our business to go 'round judging others, much less entire nations of people. Ours is to love and to forgive, and until we have perfected this practice, we call upon God & Christ to show us again - how to go about it.

Peace,

taijasi

 

[Thomas]

Do folks here on Christianity all realize that in Hinduism, there is a Trimurti, which is - for all intents and purposes - the same as the Trinity?

To echo Quahom - not at all.

In Hindu doctrine the Trimurti are three modes of God, or rather three activities within the Godhead.

It is a form of modalism, which was rejected in the third century under the heresy of Sabellianism, although we only know what Sabellius taught from the testimony of his opponents.

The essential difference is in the idea of "person", an idea which the Asiatic religions reject, and as the Trinity are Three Persons, in which the fullness of God dwells absolutely - there can never be any meaningful correspondence beyond the superficial between the two doctrines.

An extended meditation upon the fullness of the Trinity can be found in Vol II of the Philocalia, in the Centuries on Knowledge of St Maximus the Confessor.

Likewise, I have just seen (on Wikipedia) a philosophical interpretation of Trimurti presented in very Trinitarian terms - Creator, Logos, Spirit, but I would have to read the precise sources before accepting such a generalism - and again, these are still modes of one being, not Three Persons - and the phraseology does rather suggest an 'enlightened' view of Trimurti according to Christian Revelation.

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Do folks here on Christianity all realize that in Hinduism, there is a Trimurti, which is - for all intents and purposes - the same as the Trinity?

To echo Quahom - not at all.

In Hindu doctrine the Trimurti are three modes of God, or rather three activities within the Godhead.

It is a form of modalism, which was rejected in the third century under the heresy of Sabellianism, although we only know what Sabellius taught from the testimony of his opponents.

The essential difference is in the idea of "person", an idea which the Asiatic religions reject, and as the Trinity are Three Persons, in which the fullness of God dwells absolutely - there can never be any meaningful correspondence beyond the superficial between the two doctrines.

I believe you have this backwards. The "Asiatic religions" do not reject the idea of "person" - any more so than does modern psychology. It is a question, rather, of the significance (read interpretation) of the word. We may safely say that the average Hindu affords his own conception and understanding of Lord Siva every bit as much grandeur, magnificence, and Power-for-Good as you do the Christian Father God. Likewise, most Hindus recognize in Lord Vishnu ALL of what you will ascribe to the second "Person," Christ ... yet in this case, it is Sri Krishna whom he actually visualizes, rather than Jesus of Nazareth. And once again, Lord Brahma may be understood as a "Person" in exactly the same way the Holy Spirit is, equally revered, and equally sought in prayer & meditation.

The Hindu differs from the Christian in that his monotheism allows for a recognition of Divinity (literally, Deity in form) in more than just these "three Persons," while never losing sight of the fact that God is non-dual (a recognition not belonging solely to Buddhists). The Trimurti exists, just as the Trinity, but the statement that "the fullness of God dwells absolutely " within each "Person" is - preposterous. A bit of simple logic shows that. If that were the case, they would be identical. Ahhh, wiggle time.

We either posit and admit (of the absurdity of) THREE "Absolutes" - thus, three `Gods' ... a true polytheism ... OR we admit that in some sense each Person of the Trinity/Trimurti differs from the other two.

An extended meditation upon the fullness of the Trinity can be found in Vol II of the Philocalia, in the Centuries on Knowledge of St Maximus the Confessor.

Perhaps a short summary would suffice.

Likewise, I have just seen (on Wikipedia) a philosophical interpretation of Trimurti presented in very Trinitarian terms - Creator, Logos, Spirit, but I would have to read the precise sources before accepting such a generalism - and again, these are still modes of one being, not Three Persons - and the phraseology does rather suggest an 'enlightened' view of Trimurti according to Christian Revelation.

Thomas

The correspondence is Siva-God the Father, Liberator ... Vishnu-Cosmic Christ, thus also Christ focused in man (any man) ... and Brahma-The Creative Powers of Spiritus Sancti.

I believe it is Light that recognizes Light, Love that recognizes Love, and Will that recognizes Will. And we must trust that even when we ourselves fail to fully answer to any one or more of these within us (and Transcendent), more than likely things are well in hand ... God "has the situation under control," to be quaint (and invoke the personal conception). Thus, my point was - we need not judge, or puzzle ourselves over who, why, how, how long, how much or how little suffering, far let alone the precise goings-on after death ... past the reassurances of "we move into the Light" (and toward greater Love). To quote from Iron Butterfly (`In the Time of Our Lives'):

"How you doing people that passed on yesterday?
Did you meet with justice on your judgment day?

These are the things that we hear in our world,
And these are the things that we hear in the time of our lives,
In the time of our lives.

And to us they are real,
And for us they're ideal.

Yes, to us,
Without a doubt they're real.
Without a doubt they're real.
Without a doubt they're real!"
​

And theirs is an "us" I can relate to ...

Cheers!

taijasi

 

[AletheiaRivers]

Likewise, I have just seen (on Wikipedia) a philosophical interpretation of Trimurti presented in very Trinitarian terms - Creator, Logos, Spirit, but I would have to read the precise sources before accepting such a generalism - and again, these are still modes of one being, not Three Persons - and the phraseology does rather suggest an 'enlightened' view of Trimurti according to Christian Revelation.

This is gonna be controversial, but ... perhaps that (what you said above) is 'the point?'

What I mean is, perhaps Hinduism glimpsed the truth about the Godhead being triune, even though they conceive of it in modalistic terms. The trinity shows up everywhere. The yin/yang is triune. Paganism has many trinities.

The following is mostly me thinking out loud ...

There are so many instances of Christian ideas and symbols being around prior to Christianity. We have a couple of choices. We can believe that Christianity stole or incorporated these ideas in order to mollify the pagans. Or we believe that God revealed certain truths to various cultures to hint at and prepare the world for the incarnation.

Would that be synchretism? Perennial philosophy?

 

[Thomas]

Perhaps a short summary would suffice.

No, I'm afraid it wouldn't, as is evident from your well-informed response to my post. Full as it may be, it still misses the essential point. The Trimurti is a relation of God to the world - it speaks of the Divine Energies, as our Orthodox bretheren might say, not the Divine Essence, and as such is accessible to the light of human reason. The Trinity is utterly other, a disclosure of the Selfhood of God.

but the statement that "the fullness of God dwells absolutely" within each "Person" is - preposterous.

It may seem so, but then it is a Mystery:
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." [1Cr 3:19].

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Oh phoey! I think I got off on the wrong track entirely. My point was really that I think that over the course of human history, entire nations have brought about their own necessary destruction, just as have individuals. This is the LAW of Cause and Effect, which Christ taught, emphasizing its inexorable operation as have other Teachers before and since.

Now sometimes, we may precipitate our own untimely end ... before its set or intended time. Death comes to all, individuals, nations, planets. And God's Judgment is something that is carried out every minute, of every day, throughout Eternity. It is not some kind of one-time deal, as if this moment doesn't count ... this moment doesn't count .... this moment doesn't count - and then SUDDENLY, this moment COUNTS!

Sometimes, destruction occurs when and as it should. Everyone dies. Nations die. History is full of examples, greater & lesser, known & forgotten, of aborted evolutions. As we look around, we may well wonder if we are not still somewhat dangerously close to precipitating one on this planet! But I do not personally believe that that will be necessary. We may yet learn our lessons ... and pass the crisis. It is us to us, however, whether we cause additional human (and other) suffering, seek to alleviate that suffering, or waste the day entirely. The choice remains.

Nations can and do choose each of these paths, but as the cycles unfold, a trend begins to make itself felt & known. Crises come about, and sometimes there are lesser failures, yet there can also be major breakthroughs or examples of leaping ahead, where unforseen progress occurs - and tends to balance these earlier failures.

It is mistake, however, to think only dualistically, in terms of succeed or fail, which often occurs when considering the subject of "Divine Judgment" ... as if God knew only one right course of action in any given situation. We must also remember that where one individual is concerned, we are looking at a span of perhaps 100 years, while in the case of Nations, this span is certain many 1000s, if not 10s of thousands in terms of gradual changes & transformations.

Additionally ... we know that from Destruction, can arise the greatest of Beauty. The butterfly emerges from the cocoon only after the caterpillar dies to its former self. No nation is meant to rule the stage for the entire history of a planet ... or at least, not in the current stage of our planetary evolution. Only after the so-called "Final Judgment" might this come to pass.

But as for baby-killin' and plunder, rape & pillage ... yeah, war is a bloody mess. Carnage is no fun, usually, even for those with the upper hand - because every cause ... meets with an effect, and one cannot cheat the Law! Fortunately, God doesn't run the Universe like a poker game.

Seems to me like the OP is really about the familiar problem of "why do bad things happen to good people - or, in this case, the `innocents'?" And for me, that brings us squarely to John 9:2! The Law applies to groups and nations, just as to individuals. So long as we don't forget that this is a God of Love we're talkin' about ... I think we're on the right track.

taijasi

 

[taijasi]

The Trimurti is a relation of God to the world - it speaks of the Divine Energies, as our Orthodox bretheren might say, not the Divine Essence, and as such is accessible to the light of human reason. The Trinity is utterly other, a disclosure of the Selfhood of God.

With all due respect, this is nothing more than wordplay, imho. It amounts to me saying, Only MY way of thinking about God's TRIUNE Manifestation is valid ... and yours isn't! I am saying they both are. Just two different ways for conceiving one reality.

My understanding of what allows us to relate to the 2nd Aspect of the Trinity (or Trimurti) is the very presence of that 2nd Aspect within ourselves. Same with the 1st Aspect, and same with the 3rd. While some would deny the God Immanent, Christ specifically taught it, in all three Persons. He showed us our true relationship to it - that which is already present, or innate, that which is gradually developing - through various degrees or Epiphanies (becoming through the increased manifestation of the Christ within), and finally, that which can be (because it already is, the Covenant, the GLORY of which Christ within us is the HOPE). A Mystery, yes - that Christ could at one & the same time represent two, even all three Aspects of this Trinity, Trimurti, whatever you wanna call it.

but the statement that "the fullness of God dwells absolutely" within each "Person" is - preposterous.

I do not think that God defies logic. He may transcend it, inform it, be it ... but He will never defy it. Nor is Love ... illogical. Star-Trek wise, Mr. Spock always came across to me as Loving. So did Commander Data, an android!!!

taijasi

 

[Thomas]

Hello AletheiaRivers -

What I mean is, perhaps Hinduism glimpsed the truth about the Godhead being triune, even though they conceive of it in modalistic terms. The trinity shows up everywhere. The yin/yang is triune. Paganism has many trinities.

One of the things that usually annoys others is the Christian view that God 'always and everywhere' tries to communicate His being to humanity, and so 'vestiges' (to quote Bonaventure) or traces of the Divine are discernable in all genuine religion aspiration.

St Clement spoke of 'Christians before Christ' in this regard.

It is also a fact that in the Catholic view such aspirations are valid and sufficient as a means of salvation, in the absence of Revelation.

It is also a fact that in the Catholic view nothing quite matches the totality of Revelation as manifest in the Incarnation and the Trinity - and each implies the other implicitly and explicitly.

Swami Sivananda, in his book, All about Hinduism, noted that "Brahma represents the creative aspect; Vishnu, the preservative aspect; and Shiva, the destructive aspect of Paramatman. These functions are akin to wearing different garbs on different occasions. Even so, the Lord does the function of creation when He is associated with Rajas Guna, and He is called Brahma. He preserves the world when He is associated with Sattva Guna, and He is called Vishnu. He destroys the world when He is associated with Tamas Guna, and He is called Shiva or Rudra."

Thus we have not a Trinitarian Godhead, but a triune modality of three aspects of the one deity Paramatman - moreover a pantheistic doctrine, and a purely cosmological representation.

+++

Nothing, in my mind, matches the idea of God's solidarity with His creation as does the actuality of the Incarnation, of a God choosing to empty Himself of His divinity to partake of our humanity; and nothing, in my mind, quite matches the idea of God's limitless love for creation as does the Sacrifice of the Cross.

Having for many years followed Hermeticism and Perennialism, the point remains, that it is the fullness of disclosure within the Christian Revelation, that man's groping towards the Divine is revealed as a kind of primitive, or perhaps better, nascent recognition of the Divinity ... and no religion, except Catholicism, preserves and accords man the dignity of recognising humanity's efforts to get to come to know and understand God ...

+++

There are so many instances of Christian ideas and symbols being around prior to Christianity. We have a couple of choices. We can believe that Christianity stole or incorporated these ideas in order to mollify the pagans. Or we believe that God revealed certain truths to various cultures to hint at and prepare the world for the incarnation.

You have it. Our deiform nature is written in our souls - man could not seek for God, a God utterly unknowable, utterly beyond our puny comprehensions, if not for the seed of God implanted within us - if not for the call of that 'still, small voice,' that says 'come unto me...' and such knowledge would be impossible, were not God to make Himself known in us.

"Triads of divinities, no doubt, occur in nearly all polytheistic religions, formed under very various influences. Sometimes as in the Egyptian triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus, it is the analogy of the human family with its father, mother and son which lies at their basis. Sometimes they are the effect of mere syncretism, three deities worshipped in different localities being brought together in the common worship of all. Sometimes, as in the Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, they represent the cyclic movement of a pantheistic evolution, and symbolize the three stages of Being, Becoming and Dissolution. Sometimes they are the result apparently of nothing more than an odd human tendency to think in threes, which has given the number three widespread standing as a sacred number (so H. Usener). It is no more than was to be anticipated, that one or another of these triads should now and again be pointed to as the replica (or even the original) of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Gladstone found the Trinity in the Homeric mythology, the trident of Poseidon being its symbol. Hegel very naturally found it in the Hindu Trimurti, which indeed is very like his pantheizing notion of what the Trinity is. Others have perceived it in the Buddhist Triratna (Soderblom); or (despite their crass dualism) in some speculations of Parseeism; or, more frequently, in the notional triad of Platonism (e. g., Knapp); while Jules Martin is quite sure that it is present in Philo's neo-Stoical doctrine of the "powers," especially when applied to the explanation of Abraham's three visitors. Of late years, eyes have been turned rather to Babylonia; and H. Zimmern finds a possible forerunner of the Trinity in a Father, Son, and Intercessor, which he discovers in its mythology. It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the notion of "threeness," and beyond their "threeness" these triads have nothing in common with it.
http://www.semper-reformanda.org/warfield.html

Would that be synchretism? Perennial philosophy?

It becomes syncretism when human minds bend them all to fit into a single schema, necessarily ignoring fundamental differences, and interpreting texts freely to suit.

Perennialism as espoused by Guénon, Schuon, Pallis, Coomarrasawamy et al, insists that such truths can only be attained under the cover of a revealed tradition. As such it acknowledges and explores doctrinal difference, rather than glossing over them.

If I were pushed to provide a Hindu near-equivalence, I would rather the triune 'sit-chat-ananda' - 'being - consciousness - bliss' - but such is a personal opinion only, and 'a long mile' short of the Trinity.

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Perennialism as espoused by Guénon, Schuon, Pallis, Coomarrasawamy et al, insists that such truths can only be attained under the cover of a revealed tradition. As such it acknowledges and explores doctrinal difference, rather than glossing over them.

This is certainly an important part of the discussion, but at the end of the day, which note receives the focus - the commonalities, or the differences? Indeed, does the God-in-us tend toward greater Unity, or toward greater division?

If I were pushed to provide a Hindu near-equivalence, I would rather the triune 'sit-chat-ananda' - 'being - consciousness - bliss' - but such is a personal opinion only, and 'a long mile' short of the Trinity.

This deviates slightly from the OP, but still ... I am curious, how would you fit the untimely destruction of nations into this framework? Or more to the point, the death of women and babies, as Dondi put it.

taijasi

 

[Thomas]

Hi Taijasi

I do not think that God defies logic. He may transcend it, inform it, be it ... but He will never defy it. Nor is Love ... illogical.

In fact the Catechism of the Catholic Church says the very same.

But that does not mean that because someone doesn't understand something, it is illogical.

My understanding of what allows us to relate to the 2nd Aspect of the Trinity (or Trimurti) is the very presence of that 2nd Aspect within ourselves.

Catholicism would say all Three in co-operation, and then the Trinity in co-operation with each one of us. This is what sets the Catholic apart from the Protestant, that in our doctrine, God allows man the dignity of co-operating in his own salvation, even though, in reality, our salvation lies in the hands of God alone.

While some would deny the God Immanent, Christ specifically taught it, in all three Persons. He showed us our true relationship to it - that which is already present, or innate,

The Abrahamic Traditions are founded on a God both Immanent and Transcendant, and One, and one with humanity - Genesis 2:7 and St John's Gospel, 'the light that lighteth every man'.

Christ said 'I am not of this world' but the fact is, that He who said it was right there, flesh and blood, food and drink! Look, touch my hands, touch my side. Look I eat fish, just like you do. He is more 'of this world' than any other deity in any other tradition! Such sweet Mystery!

But we need to tread carefully here. I would say that deity is not 'innate' in the sense that we are by nature divine, for were that so we would be coequal and coeternal with God, we would be omniscient and omnipotent - but it is innate in the sense that it is implanted in us from the very foundation of our being. It is an addition to our nature, or rather our nature is so shaped that there is a longing, a calling, and a receptivity.

A fine point, but crucial. The former understanding is pantheistic and not in any sense Abrahamic.

There is something in us that recognises God when we hear Him speak. Something too easily overshadowed by the babble of our own voice ... and oh, how we love to listen to ourselves!

As an aside, it calls into question the meaning of 'transcendance' - if deity is innate to human nature, then we have no need of transcendance, we have no need to transcend that which we are.

In that sense our divinisation - theosis - is not 'ours' by nature, nor even by right, but by invitation. Our nature is shaped towards it.

We were made to know God, but we were not made Gods - and we were made to know God in love, that is the meaning of Christian gnosis, for love is a well deeper than knowing ... love trusts where knowing gropes in the dark ... love just ... loves ... it is the child that jumps into the pareental arms with never a shadow of doubt that we might drop them!

And as we grow older, and wiser, we come to learn how it feels to be dropped, and we learn of ourselves, and we fear to throw ourselves into the arms of God, for fear He will reject us - even though the Word says, more than anything else - fear not!

(Note: Tradition holds that Lucifer fell because he refused to accord to humanity the dignity that God said belongs to man - the angel could not see how such a grossly fallible being could follow the same calling as he, and be so loved by God. Having defied his Creator, he fell, and continues to try and lure man away from God, as if to somehow prove himself right.)

that which is gradually developing - through various degrees or Epiphanies (becoming through the increased manifestation of the Christ within), and finally, that which can be (because it already is, the Covenant, the GLORY of which Christ within us is the HOPE). A Mystery, yes - that Christ could at one & the same time represent two, even all three Aspects of this Trinity, Trimurti, whatever you wanna call it.

Another distinction - 'Christ within' is a universal - it is the same Christ in all, everywhere, so Christ transcends the individual being - and thus, is 'Christ within' part of our nature, or is it a gift? If a part of our nature, how did we ever fall, and having realised we fell, why cannot we simply put ourselves right?

The Christian would say not 'Christ in me' but 'me in Christ' - not the universal in the particular, but the particular in the universal - the real transcendance, which Christianity witnessed in the Ascension, and which Catholicism celebreates in the Assumption.

Again a subtle point, but one on which, I think, all our disputes turn.

And again, a point on which we differ, Christ is not a universal principle, a logos, made manifest, but the Universal Principle - the Logos of all that was, is and ever shall be.

To quote St Paul, 'In him we live and move and have our being', not him living, and moving, and having his being in me.

This, to me, is the Union not only of self with Self, but of all humanity, as one, in God, for 'no man is an island, complete unto himself' which all traditions recognise, to a greater or lesser degree.

Thomas

 

[Quahom1]

I believe I know more than a few religious scholars who would get a real kick outta that statement. I sure did!

But that is the point. I don't care about "scholars" opinions. I'm only concerned for me and mine (collectively).

"Scholars" tried to advise Job...for the lot of good that did them.

There is a point where intellect fails, and faith excels...

Hope you find that point (as you previously implied).

v/r

Q

 

[taijasi]

Another distinction - 'Christ within' is a universal - it is the same Christ in all, everywhere, so Christ transcends the individual being - and thus, is 'Christ within' part of our nature, or is it a gift? If a part of our nature, how did we ever fall, and having realised we fell, why cannot we simply put ourselves right?

The Christian would say not 'Christ in me' but 'me in Christ' - not the universal in the particular, but the particular in the universal - the real transcendance, which Christianity witnessed in the Ascension, and which Catholicism celebreates in the Assumption.

Again a subtle point, but one on which, I think, all our disputes turn.

I do not feel a need to choose between these, as if they were not compatible ... as if it has to be "either, or." There is verily a "Christ in me," a "Christ in you," a Christ in my brother's heart - every heart. This I do not depend upon dogma or doctrine to tell me. Nor is my knowledge soemthing intellectual only, or even primarily. This ... just is.

The us in Christ, however, points to our wholeness in Christ, which certainly cannot, and could not, be recognized - or actualized without "Him." For me, that Him is something so Universal ... that God would like each and every one of us to share in it (and not some preordained, limited NUMBER). And so the Christ in us grows and matures, and the Omega of this process is made clear in Ephesians 4:13.

The Christ within of which I speak is part of our inherent makeup and is God-given (let me be clear: God-provided, "GOD-GIFTED" if you prefer). I do not walk around and feel that this is missing from some, present within others. I experience (communing with) people for whom Christ is a slumbering presence ... quite literally, asleep. Within others, this same "Spirit" has begun to awaken ... and these people - the many millions, have begun to come to their Wholeness in Christ, a wholeness which each of us can come to, as did Christ Jesus.

As for why we fell ... we did so because God sent us forth. Christ within is a dormant Christ, and awakens through the slow, natural process of evocation in our human relationships, through our coming to terms with the world around us, and through the increasingly conscious choice to live to benefit others, rather than for self alone. We can begin to awaken spiritually by turning to Father God, or to Christ the Son ... yet for us to begin our spiritual pilgrimage already fully conscious of our Union with Deity - would be to deny us Free Will, the choice to return to the Father with the fruits of our Journey.

We would be as the Angels in this case, and we would not be man. `Man' comes from Manas, Sanskrit for Mind. This sets us apart from the animals, and we are also distinguished from the angels in that for us, mind is the crux (key word) of our evolution. I believe that truly, we only come to our completion in Christ ... as you point out. Yet first, we must face and overcome those elements - both internal & external - which separate and divide us from God ... within or upon the several battlegrounds of our mortal, human consciousness. This is true both collectively and individually, accomplished not in one defining moment, but in all moments ... and only makes proper sense in Light of the words, "I die daily."

So the fall is God's GIFT, whereby we may come to develop and exercise (sic) the power and potential of the Christ within, and of the Divine Spark of Godhood (which always seeks to Identify with what is Holy and Pure, to make Whole rather than to cleave, save where ignorance & illusion veil the Truth). And so the material world itself, the very flesh and blood in which Spirit has been clothed, our emotional and rational principles, our Intellectual Soul, and our every human relationship ... all these are God's Gifts. Adversity itself, is one of God's Greatest Gifts, for were it not for this challenge and this opportunity, our Free Will would never be tested, the meterstick of our progress could not exist, and Ephesians 4:13 would be empty, unnecessary words.

And again, a point on which we differ, Christ is not a universal principle, a logos, made manifest, but the Universal Principle - the Logos of all that was, is and ever shall be.

To quote St Paul, 'In him we live and move and have our being', not him living, and moving, and having his being in me.

This, to me, is the Union not only of self with Self, but of all humanity, as one, in God, for 'no man is an island, complete unto himself' which all traditions recognise, to a greater or lesser degree.

I believe we've said the same thing here. If not, the problem is with the barriers created by intellect, which can only ever divide, while Christ alone is capable of resolving ... producing Harmony from notes which might otherwise be disparate.

The intellect would divide this very aspect of our Being from the Greater Whole of which both are parts. The Spirit in `Essence' - as you say (from Latin esse, `to be') - knows not these divisions ... or, knowing them, it recognizes the illusion. If you would define man's essential being as penetrating no deeper into Divinity, into Godhead/Godhood than manas (mind), then I will indeed disagree. This is the illusion. You have just said so yourself, directly above!

But while mind, emotions and body are but the reflection in the world of our fullest potential in Christ (Ephesians 4:13) ... even that, even the fullness of which Paul speaks, is yet itself a reflection, an extension of the Nous, the Esse, the Transcendent Spark ... Liebniz' Monad. Since we know that Almighty God is a living FIRE, we may picture this as sparks (60 billion of them, in fact), dancing within a flame. They seem to wink in and wink out in but a fraction of a second, yes, the winking of an eye. A thousand years? Far, far longer. But not for God.

The spark cannot exist without the Parent Flame. Only from it's own point of view, immersed in matter, does the separation from God seem complete, or overwhelming - as also spark from spark. And that is the Mystery (as you say) of things ... that we can both know and not know, both contain (sic) a Spark of the Divine, yet recognize & accept it not (even deny it, dispute it, wrangle with words). None of this ... changes things as they are.

And it still doesn't get to the OP and real topic at hand, Divine Judgment - and how this factors in for women and children.

taijasi

 

[taijasi]

There is a point where intellect fails, and faith excels...

Hope you find that point (as you previously implied).

For me, faith and intellect are the twin effects of shining the Lamp, revealing the Way. What remains - is to become this Way. The becoming is in the treading. I am not asked to leap, just to cross the Bridge which was revealed ... to walk across it to the other shore.

Somewhere along the way, as the Mystic, I would happily lose my self, and find my Self - and enter into Peace.

Love & LIght,

taijasi

 

[Thomas]

hi taijasi -

The us in Christ, however, points to our wholeness in Christ, which certainly cannot, and could not, be recognized - or actualized without "Him." For me, that Him is something so Universal ... that God would like each and every one of us to share in it..."
Agreed. I have never said other than this, and nor does the Catholic Faith.

(and not some preordained, limited NUMBER).
Not our doctrine.

And so the Christ in us grows and matures, and the Omega of this process is made clear in Ephesians 4:13.
Subtle, and seductive, but wrong - you are confusing, or confounding, or seeking to possess, Christ as yourself. It is not the Christ in us that grows, it is we who grow in Him who is before all ... which had you studied the text a little closer, you would understand:

"But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ ... And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;... "

(and some, as the poet said, 'also serve, who only stand and wait' although, in truth, no-one is a passenger in Christ ... we might not see the service, but that does not mean none is offered.)

"... For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ ..."
This talks of the different charisms given to the Church, for the work it is tasked to do in the world, and is a point often missed. God is available to all, as all who love do so in God, for God is love, and I have stated again and again, quoting doctrine to the effect that no-one is excluded but at his own will - but there are those who are called are called to serve, and that service is to witness and to be witnessed in the world ... and that is what the Church is ... does it ever occur to the Christian that to be reviled by the world is to fulfill the prophecy of Christ - John 7:7; 15:18 ... (and, my dear friend, you cannot deny you have reviled his church loudly, and often)?

Answer: Yes. It has been observed often, in this world of Political Correctness, that the only remaining group one is allowed to insult with impunity would appear to be the Catholics - somehow we are exempt from the protection of the PC view. Which bothers me not a jot.

"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:"

It is not Christ who grows in us, it is we who grow in Him. Furthermore this unity is not 'me in him' but 'we in him' and until my every brother and sister is united in Him, then the work is not yet done. It is my fervent hope and prayer that not a single one be lost ...

"That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ."

If you believe anything of Ephesians, believe this:

"[There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all."

That is why I love the Church, because all her faults, which the world is oh, so quick and so gleeful to point out, are my faults ...

Thomas

 

[lunamoth]

If you believe anything of Ephesians, believe this:

"[There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all."

That is why I love the Church, because all her faults, which the world is oh, so quick and so gleeful to point out, are my faults ...

Thomas

Thomas this post is so beautiful that it almost brings me to tears. Thank you!

lunamoth

 

[AletheiaRivers]

One of the things that usually annoys others is the Christian view that God 'always and everywhere' tries to communicate His being to humanity ...

I certainly don't mean it to be annoying to non-Christians (which most might consider me anyway).

Thus we have not a Trinitarian Godhead, but a triune modality of three aspects of the one deity Paramatman - moreover a pantheistic doctrine, and a purely cosmological representation.

I understand that there is a difference between modalism and social trinitarianism. However, I sometimes wonder if we (humans) over-emphasize the differences. I dunno. I find myself thinking in modalist terms (cosmologically) from time to time. Neo-Platonic emanationist cosmology fascinates me. The Trinity is a mystery. Why do we try so hard to explain it and to tell other cultures that intuit it (however incompletely) that they are wrong?

You have it. Our deiform nature is written in our souls ... and such knowledge would be impossible, were not God to make Himself known in us.

That was my main thought. Thanks for summing it up so beautifully.

It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the notion of "threeness," and beyond their "threeness" these triads have nothing in common with it.

Perhaps I'm just too synchrestic in my thought processes. Comparative religion and mythology is in my blood. I just can't agree with the above statement at this point in time. Even if all other triads do nothing but imperfectly point towards the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, then they do in fact have something to do with it. They could be thought of as a finger pointing at the finger that points at the moon.

If I were pushed to provide a Hindu near-equivalence, I would rather the triune 'sit-chat-ananda' - 'being - consciousness - bliss' - but such is a personal opinion only, and 'a long mile' short of the Trinity.

A long mile short, possibly, but not completely off the map.

I told you I have reservations and hesitations about becoming Catholic. My insistence on free thinking is one of them.

 

[taijasi]

does it ever occur to the Christian that to be reviled by the world is to fulfill the prophecy of Christ - John 7:7; 15:18 ... (and, my dear friend, you cannot deny you have reviled his church loudly, and often)?

Well now, when the shoe is on the other foot ... it seems to bother you after all. You would scorn a Prophet in recent history - directly (HPB) ... yet if I suggest that Christ spoke truth regarding His "other folds" which He sought to make one - it is I who am told, "There is but ONE, mother Church." And I am told that I have somehow misconstrued His teachings!

Failed to apply them, to the best of my ability, I would gladly admit. Wait a sec, WHAT was the subject of this thread again? God's judgment? Ahhh, why bother ... you have handled it for him. NO Thomas, however well respected you may be by various folks at CR, however well praised, however often ... you have attacked specific persons - where I only suggest that doctrine is in error. You charge fraudulence, then return to here to speak grandiloquently and paternalistically ... quick to tell me where I ERR by failing to match my mind to yours.

Yet, I do not even seek to BLAST you, or those who would insist on a narrow interpretation ... instead, I attempt to draw parallels, to suggest that there IS as yet more than one fold, and that - while indeed, Mother Church (Roman Catholicism) may be sacred to you, & to many, there are still other interpretations of Christ's words. But you leave NO room for differences of opinion. You mistake your OWN path, and your own calling - for that of every other man. You do, I admit, force me to fall back upon my own inner certainty and conviction in accepting that Christ in you differs not from Christ in me.

I do not think you are really interested in discussing the possibilities at all. And I have no hestitation in saying, that while I, too, do wish you well on your journey in days and weeks ahead ... I will not miss your repeated, constant insistence that Mother Church is perfect, unassailable, and the only consecrated vessel for Christ's ministry and expression in the world today. Because Thomas, this is just dead wrong on ALL THREE COUNTS.

If our friend Dan Brown's "fictitious" novel were just that (borrowed or otherwise from another popular work) ... if his ideas - about Opus Dei, about the Catholic Church, and Christianity itself - were pure fluff ... if all this was no more than a passing fancy ... then I must ask, why so much sweating, why the gnashing of teeth, why the rush to defend the institution? Why not simply smile, and watch it all fade away?

I do not want to see Christianity wither and fail, I do not want to find myself saying, 50 years from now, that G. K. Chesterton's words are still true ... and that Her Spirit of Brotherly Love is still too difficult for the masses to make practical. If that comes to pass, then I'm afraid that the Thief shall be forgotten ever sooner than before.

What I would like to see is the differences of Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy reconciled ... and a Union of the Churches formed, wherein every faith, every sect or denomination is willing to make sacrifices, acquiesences and agreements. Perhaps this Ecumenism may spread to various branches of the other Abrahamic Traditions, and even to the so, so-different Hinduism, Buddhism, Janism, Sikhism, etc. From out of the many points of commonality, I DO THINK Christ's religion can and will emerge. It does not necessarily have to be other than Christianity. But that is up to us. Not to a papal bull, not to s/he who can scripture-pick the fastest, loudest, or most cunning.

Wherever the Spirit of Christ is enthroned in human hearts, NO MATTER WHAT the outer creeds might be, wherever this occurs ... there is to be found Christ, and there is Christ's Religion. Him who cannot see this, knows neither Christ, nor religion.

I have nothing more to say ...

Taijasi

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest regards, Tai!

I am pleased to see a thread wherein we share some agreement.

juantoo3, I do agree with your sentiment regarding our tendency to slip up in the moment. It happens to us all. Few of us really mean it, deep down. Even those who do, the "wolves" of whom you speak, are in my book - people just like you and me. DEEPER DOWN than their errors, even if/when repeated, they are GOOD AT HEART. Either that, or St. Paul was dead wrong when he spoke of Christ in (them), the Hope of Glory.

In some way, (an esoteric way, perhaps?) I can agree with you in your application. But there is an alternative interpretation, quite plain on its face, that is being grossly overlooked. This is why I suggested the quote from Herbert’s “Dune.” The wolf was also a very real adversary, not just a struggle inside the mind. Baron Harkonnen was a very real opponent to Paul Atreides. I bring this up to make my point, the plain interpretation of these epic struggles is not of men against other men. It is quite literally the clash of the Titans, the epic struggle of good against evil. Christ, in spirit or fact, was not present in the progeny of Lucifer, that is the point. And even Paul was aware of this.

Now, the problem remains of whether or not the struggles of the historical texts of the Old Testament are factual in any extent, that much I can grant, although I do lean towards them being, for the most part, accurate. Even if these stories can be shown definitively to be mythos, we know from example that mythos does not necessarily equate with falsehood. To wit; Troy. Further, mythos serves the purpose of conveying a lesson. The lesson clearly conveyed is the battle of good over evil, that good is intended to dominate. All is lost, all effort futile, if evil prevails.

The thing is, it doesn't take God, or even Christ, to recognize that potential. And how we respond to those around us, or in our midst, is up to us. It is not ours to judge them; that responsibility rests only with God. Amazing how we sometimes forget ...

IF we were speaking of mere men doing battle against mere men, there is validity to what you have to say. But we are not speaking of the Axis powers versus the Allied powers, nor are we speaking of Rome doing battle with Carthage. We are speaking of G-d doing battle with Shitan, of the heavenly host doing battle with the fallen angels. True, ours is not to judge other men. But we are also called to heed G-d, and do what He commands of us. How can we judge Satan, when he is already condemned? To second-guess G-d, is to inadvertently side with our own enemy, and as the stories unfold in the later chapters it is made apparent that this does in fact occur to Israel’s detriment.

As for Siva ... God the Destroyer ... you are correct, I did raise this - and I attempted to show a parallel with God the Father. But neither lens for understanding/interpreting the Divine has anything to do with vengeance and wrath. Justice that resorts to these human conceptions has nothing to do with Divine Balance, with the inexorable, perfect LAW of which Christ spoke.

I agree this has nothing to do with vengeance and wrath, that is the inordinate focus placed here by others who do not see or understand. Again, it is the battle between good and evil, of powers and principalities beyond our vision and understanding.

Only if we conceive of God Almighty with the pettinesses of an overgrown, stubborn, willful human personality (pure EGO) - would me make the mistake of casting Him as a tyrant.

Agreed. Yet, does not a loving Father desire to protect His own?

Destruction IS Love, to Love is to Destroy. That statement is not unequivocal, or absolute - it does not represent the only way to Love, nor does it mean that ALL destruction is right, or an expression of Love. Again, we tend to apply HUMAN conceptions and understandings to Deity ...

While I am not sure I understand or follow, surely then you must admit that destroying those that have harmful intent toward your creation is fitting in this light?

And one further note. That wolf at the gate - does he dwell within your heart, or outside of it? If you say - outside, and that Christ abides within, then I agree ... this I was saying above. Yet at what point does our own perfection (necessary, after all, in order for Christ to abide within us eternally and without fail) break down? At what point are we willing to admit - that the wolf is part of us too? WHEN are we willing and able to accept that All Humanity is ONE?

Again, I can agree if we are speaking of mere humans towards mere humans. The scale is tipped radically when we are speaking of heavenly forces doing battle over Creation. This too leads into our choices, which side do we choose to side with? Good, or Evil? Do we side with the Heavenly Father who created us, or do we side with the interloper who has designs on usurping Creation? To blur the lines and make the choice more difficult raises interesting questions of its own. For who would attempt such a thing, to cast the Creator as a tyrant? Shall we give Satan and his equal due? Shall we befriend our destroyer, our adversary, because of a heart that does not understand? Shall we let our emotions override our common sense?

True, we must each fight the fight, face the fears, confront the dweller - within our own lives ... and yes, in this regard, it is a personal battle, and is nobody's business except our own. THAT'S why it's not our business to go 'round judging others, much less entire nations of people. Ours is to love and to forgive, and until we have perfected this practice, we call upon God & Christ to show us again - how to go about it.

Agreed, towards other humans. Shall we love the Devil? Shall we forgive Shitan? Shall we have compassion for Evil? Shall we tolerate the Fallen Ones? Shall we invite them into our lives, wholesale and without concession, to co-rule with G-d and His? All persons should rightly be treated with the dignity and respect accorded all humans. When it comes to spirit, and the battle of good and evil, there is a line. I have chosen which side I wish to stand on. I can forgive a moment of evil, perhaps even a gross moment of evil, from another human, as you are correct, we all make mistakes.

But to forgive evil (spirit) personified, is not only impossible, it will invite disaster into one’s life.

THAT is the lesson of the epic battles of the Old Testament. Any other lesson learned is in addition, and certainly the Bible is rich enough to hold multiple meanings. But first and foremost is overcome against the wicked one.

Shalom.

 

[Thomas]

I told you I have reservations and hesitations about becoming Catholic. My insistence on free thinking is one of them.

Then stay away from the other denominations! Have you seen the range of thought in Catholic theology? (Okay, I'm being light-hearted.)

I don't see it as telling other cultures that they're wrong, but rather illuminating the treasures they have, revealing to them the truth of themselves as that truth was revealed to us ... that is the mission of the Church. Trinitarian Doctrine is not a 'bolt-on' to Christian Revelation, it is implicitly and explicitly stated.

If I see Christian Doctrine as fuller, or more complete, or more detailed, or more whatever than other doctrines, I make no apology for that... I had it once, and lost it, and now I've got it back, I'll not lose it again.

I'm not saying the other triunes do not have a correspondence with the Trinity, simply that they are not the equal of it. Trinitarian Doctrine tries to fathom the mystery of God in his Godness. The Principle from which everything flows, and towards which we grow in the fullness of our humanity, not in escaping it.

Theology has not stopped. In the text of Vatican II and later pronouncements, the Magisterium has raised issues it asks theologians to address. We are invited to think freely, but that does not open the door to invention or fantasy, nor to contradiction or subversion - but that what we say must be firmly founded in the Tradition that was handed down by God to His chosen apostles, and to them alone the power and authority of its transmission on to His children in the Spirit - that is the meaning of Pentecost that we celebrate next week.

I offer a homily of Fr Connelly, he says it better than I:
http://torch.op.org/preaching/sermon/960

Or as John Paul II said in Fides et Ratio ... in fact do take a look:

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves...

.. Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j.../hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

We seek no more than to shed a light upon each person's journey ... but at times that calls for a firm discrimination between what is true, and what is false, for wherever one stands, one cannot ignore that error abounds...

Thomas