Which is more important?

[Bandit]

some of this reminds me of sister dukes from church. when i was a kid she used to come over to our house on just about a weekly basis. her husband & her son used to beat her & beat her & beat her. she was always bruised in her face & swollen, crying & in emotional & physical pain. she would be shaking & saying 'they beat me again'. she was ashamed to go to church because of her face being messed up.
she was one of the sweetest ladies & i always felt terrible about that & i wanted to be big enough that i could go over there & stop them form beating on her & take a two by four to their back sides.

I know mom would just hold her & cry with her until she could stand up.
there are people who do not know what love is & they dont want to know & they do NOT care.
that is where i draw the line.
NO WOMAN should ever be treated that way.

that is one of the rare ones that i remember being encouraged to get a divorce & they had stripped her of all diginity & pride & i dont even think she knew who she was after awhile.
that was a hopeless case because her kid was on drugs & all kinds of things. he ended up taking his own life & her husband finally passed on.
see, i remember these things. she loved her family to the end & all she did was suffer from loving them.
i dont think that is what Jesus was talking about & people turning a blind eye to stuff like that do not have love.
but what else can you do?

[InChristAlways]

BINGO! This relates directly the Love, Faith, and Hope thread on the Christianity forum. Is giving up on someone because we think the situation is hopeless really showing love? Or do we put our faith in what Jesus said about "loving our enemies?" Some will hear the message of love and forgiveness, and turn their behaviour around, which would be a great cause of rejoicing for anyone who truly loves others.

Jesus did not give up hope on the sinners, even when faced with the scorn of the Church leaders of the time, the Pharisees. Following that example, we should not give up hope towards those who sincerely want to change.

Good point. This is the main point Jesus was striving to tell His people and though some in Christianity [some "messianics"] do not feel Paul was sent by Jesus, he did have some profound words of wisdom and this is one of my favorites.

Our goodness may not convict ones heart right away that has been "hardened" , but eventually, love will dissolve the heart of stone and lead others to follow our act of righteousness, love and compassion as God wills. Just my 2 cents worth. Peace.
Steve

Romans 12:20 I will recompense again, saith the Lord;' if, then, thine enemy doth hunger, feed him; if he doth thirst, give him drink; for this doing, coals of fire thou shalt heap upon his head;

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,





thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Vajradhara:





I do not know of Mr. Ingersol, but I came to much the same conclusion long ago.

if you are interested, you can read a bit of his writing here:





http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/ing/vol01/i0100.htm

Yes. How often in my life it seems when I went along with the crowd concerning an individual, I was later to learn just how mistaken I truly was.

i think it wise not to underestimate the power of peer pressure.. the pressure to conform to certain standards and behaviors which seem to be rather arbitrary in some cases.





it is, and you should be commended for it, a wonderful thing to break free of the bonds of mental slavery...





to quote Bob Marley: None but ourselves can free our mind.

This was most evident as a child, as we know children can be cruel, (even if that cruelty is an innocent one, of ignorance, not intent). When adults are cruel, it is much more calculated and efficient, and often well disguised. Yet, depending on our station in life, it can be a challenge to go against the crowd.

i agree.





i recall feeling very out of place in my skin when i lived in Africa. there was a time when all i wanted to do was become rich so i could get a skin

transplant and look like everyone else silly as it may seem, that was

how i felt... i cannot express how happy i am that these sorts of thoughts are no longer part of my considerations.

I apologize if I opened any old wounds, that was not my intent. I like this analogy, of being angry at the stick instead of the source.

of course not do not worry, though my situation was not pleasant, there

are many, many more beings which have it much more difficult than i.

it often seemed to me that, in the case of say holding a grudge or resentment, even though justified, did more harm to me than to the other being. for them, the deed is done and over with... for me, it lingered for years and years. at one point, i simply decided that i would no longer give that power to another being and i simply changed.

metta,

~v

(sorry.. this was composed last night but didn't get posted...)

[InLove]

Hi—Peace to All Here—

I apologize for taking so long to respond, and thanks, Paul James and others, who have sent out love and prayers for my healing. I am writing this in Word—I sure hope it transfers to this format in a fairly comprehendable way! I’ll do my best….

I am paraphrasing Juan’s original question:

Which do we value more—the individual or his actions?

In order to address this properly, then one must determine what is meant by “we”? We as individuals, we as everyone, we as members on this website, we as people of certain or diverse beliefs, religions, nations, governments, etc.? Juan, you did preface by noting that you were asking from a Christian perspective with encouragement to those of other faiths and beliefs to contribute as well. This opens all the doors and makes for a fascinating exchange of ideas. It also challenges each contributor to exercise a good measure of respect and diplomacy when adding to these ideas, and that is what I will attempt to do. This should not prove too difficult a task, since I already greatly respect the opinions (and love the hearts) of each person here.

I, too, will be writing from a Christian perspective, but I do not know if it is “traditional” or not. I have a difficult time with those kind of distinctions. There are “perceived traditions” and then there is simply the “the heart of the matter”. I think Okie said something recently along the lines of the necessity to understand that churches and faiths are, indeed, made up of individuals with individual experiences and interpretations within the teachings of these institutions.

So, where to start? Perhaps with governments and societies, and how “we” in this context distinguish between the individual and his actions (I am using the male pronoun only out of convenience—I hate all those slashes it takes to be politically correct!).

It is my belief that justice systems set up by even the noblest efforts cannot completely mirror God’s Law. They are incomplete, a kind of “rough justice”. That is not to say that we do not need them. But I believe that true justice is always fair, and I believe that humans are not fully capable of implementing this true justice. As has been said over and over here in this thread, the prerequisite to righteous, full, true justice is a knowledge of the motives and intentions (the heart) of the accused. I believe only God (that which is fully Divine) knows this 100% of the time. Perhaps the best that we can individually do in this situation (and this is, I am told, easiest in a democracy) is to work toward a government wherein our representatives exhibit some understanding of this—not just in word, but (here it is!) in action.

Okay, I could go on and on about governmental systems, but I am going to attempt to move on to the personal. It will, for me, necessarily involve some aspects of religion ( I prefer the term “faith”, as I believe the two are often mutually exclusive). I like this:

Originally Posted by Ciel

…there is a balance and a time for all things.
Somethings cannot come into accord until there is a balance within the self, and the inner and the outer.

Another way of saying this might be that there can be no balance until the inner Spirit is in atonement (at one) with the outer Spirit.

Let me see if I can state this as universally as possible (language, as I know it now, is often inadequate, and I maintain that divine timing is something we do not yet fully grasp). I hesitate to use terms like “good and evil” here, but maybe the word “higher” will work. I believe in a higher Spirit than what I can totally reveal from within me at the present time. I call this High Spirit “Love”, and I do so because “He” has revealed “Himself” to me in more ways than one. One of the ways the Divine has done this is to place evidence of Himself and His Divine Love within me, living there together with my own Spirit which He created for this very purpose.

How does this relate to how I “judge” others—that is, “discern the spirit(s)” of another person? Well, as I said before, I believe that it is only this Divine Spirit that can actually look past the faults of another so as to see their needs. And so, on this Spirit I must rely for guidance, for this is the Spirit I choose, because He first chose and invited me, and proves Himself trustworthy. It is not slavery—it is what I choose and how I actually do “emancipate myself from mental slavery—none but myself can free my mind” (I admit it, I love Marley’s music, but as I told Canuck Rasta one time, I do often have to change some words around, Vaj!) You see, my Master really is inside me, and He is no dictator, and there is no “brainwashing” involved. Only His Word and His Witness. He leaves my actions up to me, but offers His guidance. When I am able to look inside myself this way, then certainly I will not “cast the first stone”. How could I?

Well, this brings me to the controversy concerning the notion that there is some kind of insurmountable chasm between the writings of James and Paul concerning faith and deeds. Vaj, you offered this paraphrase of James 2:16:

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

... to paraphrase James; faith without works is dead faith.

But can we look just a little closer at this Scripture in context, and then compare it with something that Paul wrote?

“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (James 2:14-16, NIV).

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails” (1 Corinthians13:4-8).

Now I know that Paul says uses the word “love” and not “faith” here, but he is talking about the kind of love that flows from faith, and is he not compiling a list of good works—fruits of the Spirit? This coincides with Jesus’s answer to the Pharisees about the most important commandment: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (from Matthew 22)

The rift that took place between the apostles had to do with whether or not Gentiles should observe Jewish religious ceremonies, not whether good deeds sprang from the well of faith! James and Paul were in agreement about that. (In fact, if one compares Hebrews 11 to the rest of James 2, this agreement becomes astonishingly clear. No, what Paul got upset about, where he talks about the importance of faith over deeds, refers to Mosaic Laws, and the fact that some Christian teachers (including James) were telling the Gentiles that they must be circumcised and such in order to be under the grace of Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Juantoo3

…there is a very vocal percentage in Christianity that denies this gain by deeds, that “heaven is reached by faith and belief, alone, regardless of law and deeds (lest any should boast).” Now, I do not agree, but I do know this attitude to dominate certain denominations in the Christian faith. Is this attitude unique to certain sects of Christianity?

…in my experience, most Christians of my acquaintance tend to overlook James, in part because [his] teaching conflicts with that of Paul….In other words, to many Christians heaven is not gained by deeds. “All you’ve got to do is believe!” Whew, talk about paradox! If deeds do not gain a person entry to heaven, then why are these same Christians concerned with the petty deeds of those around them? (rhetorical question, I don’t expect an answer)

But may I answer? It is truly unfortunate if there are Christian denominations that proclaim that true faith has any other result than action. If so, then it is important that we observe the actions of these teachers, for if there are no good fruits flowing out of the Spirit they claim, then they are false teachers, for it is by our love that Christians should be known. As Jesus quoted from Isaiah when speaking to the Pharisees in Matthew 15: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men” (Isaiah 29:12-14).

Is it possible that perhaps there is a bit of misunderstanding when it comes to what you think some of these denominations are teaching? I think maybe what many are saying is that it is faith that comes first, not alone, for I know that many Christian denominations teach that only from that faith can truly good works flow. I know that for me, personally, whenever I try to do something “good” on my own, without consulting the Divine within (which I do call the Holy Spirit), then it never quite works out like it should, because I do not have that kind of wisdom without this. Paradox? Perhaps. But then I think that a good look at Jesus as Savior is the greatest, most wonderful paradox ever. It is God’s own merciful, perfect, justice at work. He looks beyond my actions, and sees my need—He may not love what I do, but he loves me. And in the life He would have us live, He instructs us to do the same.

And to Vajradhara, I say “Namaste” because it is the Divine inside you that allows you to look past the one who hurt you and be able to forgive because you saw that person’s captivity. And since I am addressing you, and running out of space here, I can tell you that while I do not agree with much of what Ingersoll has to say (he has his own criteria to preface it all with, no more nor less than me), I do like his statement concerning “Salvation through slavery is worthless. Salvation from slavery is inestimable”. What Ingersoll did not understand about what I believe is that I may be indebted, but the yoke is easy, and the burden light in comparison to those whose masters do not emancipate them from within.

Well, there is so much more I would like to address, because everyone here has made so many good points. Maybe I’ll post some more later on. But right now, gotta go get well. Don’t know if this whole thing will make it into one post, and I wish I had more time to organize it better. Here goes, anyway!

InPeace,
InLove

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards to everybody!

Thank you all very much for the responses! I am really impressed!

InLove, I believe you provided the most succinct reply, I like what you had to say in the matter. Seattlegal seems to have a pretty good grasp of the matter as well. Everyone did very well.

I suppose the only comment I have relates to something InLove had to say about:

"It is truly unfortunate if there are Christian denominations that proclaim that true faith has any other result than action. If so, then it is important that we observe the actions of these teachers, for if there are no good fruits flowing out of the Spirit they claim, then they are false teachers, for it is by our love that Christians should be known."

I like the verses you bring up to back your view. My experiences have been with "holier-than-thou" types who think they have it all and nobody else has a chance. I find it very scary how some of these folks go so far as to think they can treat anybody outside of their specific brand as anything but human and still feel they are justified and "glorified" and right in the sight of God. Now, I want to be clear, I agree wholeheartedly with you (although the verse you brought up had escaped my memory). I strongly feel that a person living their life in the proper attitude (faith and belief) will be a "doing" person, that their faith will be known by their works. But for some reason it seems that in the environment I have most often found myself in, I have been in the minority, the "common" laity takes the concept to mean "all they have to do is believe", so they can get away with all kinds of "hell" as long as it is perpetrated on those outside of their particular brand of faith. (Just ask forgiveness and stick a couple of bucks in the offering plate...) In my opinion, it is folks like these that tend to leave a sour taste in the mouths of many outside of the Christian faith, and not a few Christians besides.

Needless to say, it is things like this that have led me to take my walk with God away from a lot of the mainstream churches I have had experience with. Until I found this place, I really did think I was the "lone ranger," that too much of my understanding was outside of the norm, and as such "unacceptable." It is nice to see there are others who do see things in ways similar to the way I do. That tells me there are others out there who actually do (or at least did) read sacred texts for themselves. It is encouraging. It gladdens my heart! Thank you all!

[Vajradhara]

Namaste inLove,

thank you for the post and the kind words.

Originally Posted by InLove

But can we look just a little closer at this Scripture in context,

not to denigrate the rest of your response however, i'll just snip the bits to help craft a cogent response... we'll see how that goes

sure. i like James quite a bit, from what i've read about him.

and then compare it with something that Paul wrote?

have you read the article hosted here called "The Pauline Conspiracy"? if you do, you will find a very good understanding of my view of Paul. it is not favorable and i am particuarly reluctant to conflate James and Paul in this particular instance. most of the "why" is explained in the article.

Now I know that Paul says uses the word “love” and not “faith” here, but he is talking about the kind of love that flows from faith, and is he not compiling a list of good works—fruits of the Spirit?

i am familiar with the Christian idea of four types of love... though, to be frank, i do not agree with Paul in this regard.. his observations do not seem to be grounded in reality, in my opinion.

The rift that took place between the apostles had to do with whether or not Gentiles should observe Jewish religious ceremonies, not whether good deeds sprang from the well of faith!

there were several rifts with the Apostles... in fact, it was so severe that they compelled Paul to return and undergo the Ritual of Purification!

that didn't seem to stop Paul, however. not that i'm all that keen to go off on a tangent about Pauline Christianity.. suffice it to say that my view, like James, is if ones lips flap about alot that does not mean that they are a changed being, irrespective of what they are flapping about

James and Paul were in agreement about that. (In fact, if one compares Hebrews 11 to the rest of James 2, this agreement becomes astonishingly clear. No, what Paul got upset about, where he talks about the importance of faith over deeds, refers to Mosaic Laws, and the fact that some Christian teachers (including James) were telling the Gentiles that they must be circumcised and such in order to be under the grace of Jesus Christ.

and well they should be upset for James is spot on. it is interesting, of course, to see what is upheld and what is set aside. to paraphrase Jesus "not one jot or tittle will pass from the law." jots and tittles are the little diacritical marks used to help pronounciation of the Hewbrew texts which were written without vowles. this claim indicates that not even a pronunciation mark would be removed from the Law. Paul just removed what he saw fit to remove to appeal to the Gentiles that he was preaching to.

the article, the Pauline Conspiracy explains this in a far more cogent and thoughtout manner than i. i am indebted to Victor for the time and effort that was put into it.

But may I answer? It is truly unfortunate if there are Christian denominations that proclaim that true faith has any other result than action. If so, then it is important that we observe the actions of these teachers, for if there are no good fruits flowing out of the Spirit they claim, then they are false teachers, for it is by our love that Christians should be known.

indeed... Christian love can be a very harsh mistress

Is it possible that perhaps there is a bit of misunderstanding when it comes to what you think some of these denominations are teaching?

we can never rule out my inability to understand

I think maybe what many are saying is that it is faith that comes first, not alone, for I know that many Christian denominations teach that only from that faith can truly good works flow.

naturally, i find this statement to be inaccurate for i am aware of many beings who are engaged in skillful actions which do not ascribe to the Christian paradigm.

And to Vajradhara, I say “Namaste” because it is the Divine inside you that allows you to look past the one who hurt you and be able to forgive because you saw that person’s captivity.

well... i think that it has very little to do with that aspect of being and more to do with a consciousness which was able, though training, to see the interconnectedness between action, being and emotional states. from there, it was not hard to see, in my own life, examples of my actions which were driven from a purely emotional orientation. once i realized that i, too, engaged in that behavior, i thought about the ramifications of this in relation to those which have harmed me.

i forgive since the opposite of this is to continue to bear anger and emnity towards the other being. that state does not harm anyone other than me. i will not permit that being to harm me further so, selfishly, i forgive and try to realize that they, too, were driven by emotions which they could not control.

And since I am addressing you, and running out of space here, I can tell you that while I do not agree with much of what Ingersoll has to say (he has his own criteria to preface it all with, no more nor less than me), I do like his statement concerning “Salvation through slavery is worthless. Salvation from slavery is inestimable”. What Ingersoll did not understand about what I believe is that I may be indebted, but the yoke is easy, and the burden light in comparison to those whose masters do not emancipate them from within.

he seems to have a fair grasp of the Christian paradigm so i would venture to say that he is aware of the nature of some beings experience of their relationship to God.

however, not to put too fine a point on it, i think that both you and i are well aware of beings who profess the Christian faith and, at the same time, proclaim that it is only due to their fear of hell and damnation that they believe. they accept the tradition not due to an ecstatic feeling or religous relevation, they do so out of fear and terror. i would tend to suspect that these are the sorts of beings that Ingersoll was addressing for their actions are very sycophantic.

Well, there is so much more I would like to address, because everyone here has made so many good points. Maybe I’ll post some more later on. But right now, gotta go get well. Don’t know if this whole thing will make it into one post, and I wish I had more time to organize it better. Here goes, anyway!

InPeace,
InLove

i didn't know you were ill!

i hope that you are feeling better now! and, if not, that you are well on your way to recovery!

metta,

~v

[InLove]

Namaste and Peace, Vaj—

Thanks for your thoughtful post, as well as your encouragement regarding my health. This is the first time in my adult life that I have been on this side of physical illness. I have, in the past, always been in the role of caregiver, so this is a bit different for me. At least, because of past experiences, I am able to guess what those around me are going through. Everything for a reason—just so hard to know what those reasons are until we see why later. I have learned to live knowing this, and it helps me to “ride with the tide and roll with the flow” wherever and whenever it does not compromise my witness or grieve the Spirit.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

have you read the article hosted here called "The Pauline Conspiracy"? if you do, you will find a very good understanding of my view of Paul. it is not favorable and i am particuarly reluctant to conflate James and Paul in this particular instance. most of the "why" is explained in the article.

I need to read this. I think I have read parts of it before. I tried to find it again the other day before I made my last post, but for some reason, I did not find it. I will look for it again—my reading is going quite slowly right now, which is frustrating—I did not expect it, but it has to do with my illness. However, I do know some about the controversy; it is, after all, an issue that has been addressed over centuries by a number of people with varying opinions, passions, concerns, hopes and beliefs. I can find the article on my own, I am sure, but if you want to provide me with that page link, it might be helpful—forgive me if I overlooked the link somewhere already.


In the meantime, just let me say that I totally understand why James, Barnabas, and some others were so upset with Paul’s “fraternization” with the Gentiles. And even though neither Paul nor James were among the original twelve Apostles, James was there with Jesus, interacting with him as his very own brother (or cousin, if you prefer—that is another controversy, and will only detract from the conversation at hand). Both James and Jesus were brought up in strict observance of Mosaic Law, as was Paul. At one time, both Paul and James were, to say the least, angered by Jesus’s “fraternization” with even the Samaritans, much less any attempts to speak with full-fledged Gentiles, such as the Greeks and Romans! And James had the added vested interest of deep concern, most likely, for the life of his loved one, and the honor and salvation of his family. It must have been very difficult for James to watch his brother challenged by the Jewish authorities for things like picking wheat on the Sabbath or skipping a ceremonial handwashing. He surely knew that the motive for charges such as this ran much deeper than what was obvious on the surface.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

there were several rifts with the Apostles... in fact, it was so severe that they compelled Paul to return and undergo the Ritual of Purification!


that didn't seem to stop Paul, however. not that i'm all that keen to go off on a tangent about Pauline Christianity.. suffice it to say that my view, like James, is if ones lips flap about alot that does not mean that they are a changed being, irrespective of what they are flapping about

I think it was totally righteous that Paul did agree to continue to abide by the Jewish rituals. After all, he was Jewish, and in order to have any chance of being taken seriously by Jewish elders, he would need to do this. But I do not believe that his reason for doing it was because he felt “dirty”. His specific commission was to take the message of Christ to all the world—this meant that he had to do whatever it took, within the guidance of that message, to offend as little as possible (not an easy thing in the presence of either the Jews or the Gentiles, I am sure!).


As far as one’s heart being changed, I cannot think of any example more compelling than that of Saul of Tarsus/Paul. As far as action and deeds go, who did more? Yes, he was human, and his lips surely flapped—sometimes to his own detriment, and maybe even sometimes to the detriment of the message! He actually recanted some things along the way, and to this day, many still would tar and feather him! (I do not believe James would be among them, however.) His task was not easy. And he was not even willing, at first.


Saul was “a man with a plan”—to kill Christians. His plans changed. James was also “a man with a plan”—to follow the Jewish Laws, and limit redemption under the the God of Abraham and Moses to those who did the same. But he had to have known the parable that Jesus spoke about, recorded in Matthew 20, wherein the landowner hired some workers. These workers did everything they were supposed to do, all day long. Then the landowner hired more workers, who didn’t do exactly the same—they came on later, but they got paid the same. This really upset the people who had done everything to a tee! But the landowner said, basically, “Well, it is my land, my money, my prerogitive—I do what I do for my own reasons, and perhaps you don’t understand, but this is how it is.”.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

indeed... Christian love can be a very harsh mistress

Christian love is, to me, never harsh. Misunderstood, maybe. And much maligned, both from many who claim to know “her”, as well as from those who view her from afar. And, you are correct—it is by far those who falsely claim her that do her the most harm. The irony (or paradox) is that she only loves them more, mixing the dust into a salve to offer them for their blindness.


Vajradhara, I’d like you to know that I am honored to be speaking with you like this. I have often admired your posts, and never really gotten to talk with you much. I know that our views are different, but that is what makes things interesting. Now, it seems I have some reading to do….Lemmee see…where is Ingersoll, again, and then there is the Pauline Conspiracy stuff….hmmmm…


InPeace,
InLove

[InLove]

Hi Again--

I do apologize for forgetting to address this, but after I logged out, it occured to me that I wanted to say something about it.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

and well they should be upset for James is spot on. it is interesting, of course, to see what is upheld and what is set aside. to paraphrase Jesus "not one jot or tittle will pass from the law." jots and tittles are the little diacritical marks used to help pronounciation of the Hewbrew texts which were written without vowles. this claim indicates that not even a pronunciation mark would be removed from the Law. Paul just removed what he saw fit to remove to appeal to the Gentiles that he was preaching to.

But the Law was given to the Hebrews. Jesus did not take anything away from that, and certainly Paul could not, and I don't believe he had any desire to do so. The original contract belonged to the Jewish people--a pact between them and God. It did not, however, apply to anyone else. It was not Paul who decided that. It was God. Well, two more of my thought pennies there.... Back to my reading....

InPeace,
InLove

[lunamoth]

pauline conspiracy

lunamoth

[InLove]

Thanks, luna--don't know what's up with me and my searches these days! Perhaps it was font-sensitive or something. I knew it couldn't be that hard!

Anyway, now reading, albeit rather slowly.

I want to thank you once again, juan, for starting this thread. It truly is one of the more interesting ones I have been involved in--so much depth of thought here from everyone.

Having now delved into the article, The Pauline Conspiracy, I think it is very safe to assume that I must and will address it in a point-by-point manner, for I can do no other thing. I already see this. But here on this thread is probably not the place, so when I finish my first response (of many, I am sure), I will create a new thread just for this purpose. Unless, of course, someone here knows of another thread that already serves this purpose? But I may want to try my own, anyway....

Later--

InPeace,
InLove

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by InLove

Having now delved into the article, The Pauline Conspiracy, I think it is very safe to assume that I must and will address it in a point-by-point manner, for I can do no other thing.

More power to you, InLove! This challenge has been laid down since I first started posting here two years ago, and you are the first to rise to it.

cheers,
lunamoth

[Vajradhara]

Namaste InLove,



thank you for the thoughtful post.

i just wanted to let you know that i'll have to respond to this when i have a bit more time, though i have read and appreciate the points you are making

metta,

~v

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards to all!

Just a quick note to let all of you know I have not forgotten you or this thread. I am appreciating the conversation, and learning a bit as well.

I appreciate the link to the Paul / James controversy, certainly that is the best meme model for me to use in developing my thoughts on this subject. I appreciate that at least in this context the Pauline detractors at least have an opportunity to present the case in an practical application situation. (I haven't taken the time yet to read "Pauline Conspiracy," so I am going by the context of other conversations elsewhere in this forum.)

I do hope though, that the original idea of "works" from multi-faith contributors is not lost or forgotten. I would very much like to see contributions from other faith walks regarding what "works" are encouraged for the sake of "salvation" (elevation, transmigration, karmic regeneration, etc.).

I appreciate everybody's contributions so far. Thank you all, very much!

[Vajradhara]

Namaste InLove,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by InLove

Thanks for your thoughtful post, as well as your encouragement regarding my health. This is the first time in my adult life that I have been on this side of physical illness. I have, in the past, always been in the role of caregiver, so this is a bit different for me. At least, because of past experiences, I am able to guess what those around me are going through. Everything for a reason—just so hard to know what those reasons are until we see why later. I have learned to live knowing this, and it helps me to “ride with the tide and roll with the flow” wherever and whenever it does not compromise my witness or grieve the Spirit.

indeed, seeing things from another perspective is quite illuminating, in my view. it is hard to really put oneself into anothers perspective, in my view, unless we undergo the same sort of experience. even then, each of us experience the same phenomena differently, predicated on our mental and emotional capacities, heck, sometimes even our physical capacities.

i took a vision test once and they determined that i was color blind, red/green. of course, to me, red things look red and green things look green.. but, apparently, this is not the case!

i, honestly, have no idea what they look like! however, people seem to agree with me when i point out something and say it is green or red... so, perhaps, that silly test was wrong... though, in truth, i couldn't see the numbers or letters in the blot pattern.

Both James and Jesus were brought up in strict observance of Mosaic Law, as was Paul.

i can find no substantiation to Paul being raised to observe the Torah, which is also covered in the article

it's an excellent article, really.

I think it was totally righteous that Paul did agree to continue to abide by the Jewish rituals.

the only issue with this is that he went right on doing what he had been doing all along. he didn't respect the Jerusalem Church and didn't feel that they had much authority over him, he that was specially chosen by God, Himself, to spread the Gospel to the Gentile. quite the opposite of Jesus' claims that he was here for the lost sheep of Israel, in my view.

heck, Paul even claims the title of Nazarite for himself. the only being that this term is applied to in the Christian Testament is Jesus.

After all, he was Jewish, and in order to have any chance of being taken seriously by Jewish elders, he would need to do this. But I do not believe that his reason for doing it was because he felt “dirty”. His specific commission was to take the message of Christ to all the world—this meant that he had to do whatever it took, within the guidance of that message, to offend as little as possible (not an easy thing in the presence of either the Jews or the Gentiles, I am sure!).

there is much about Sauls so called conversion that doesnt' line up and, not least of which his claim to being healed and then his laments, later on, that he hasn't been healed. the various beings that were supposed to have been a witness to this event on the road to Damascus is different in every account.. sometimes they see the light, other times they don't.. heck, at one point Paul claims that nobody saw it but him.

As far as one’s heart being changed, I cannot think of any example more compelling than that of Saul of Tarsus/Paul.

we have very different views on this. it is my view that Saul is a 5th Column in the Christian tradition.

http://www.answers.com/topic/fifth-column

As far as action and deeds go, who did more?

in which tradition, the Christian one? well, i'd put Peter and James higher up on this list than i would Saul, but that is just my opinion based on my own study.

in regards to other traditions, there is a long line of beings whose works seem to exemplify the changed nature of their being, to wit: the Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr, Angulia Mura and more.

Angulia Mura had a necklance made of finger bones from his victims. he went to a Shaman (well, we don't call them that, but that seems to be a close enough English equilivent) who told him that if he killed 1,000 people, he would have great worldly wealth and power. one day he was in the forest and saw the back of a monk walking along the path. he generated the thought of killing this monk to get the last bone for his necklace that had 999 bones. as he got close enough to strike and withdrew his weapon, the monk turned around and looked at him. Angulia exlaimed to him "what is it that is coming from you which makes my hand stay its course?" the monk replied "compassion." Angulia asked, why are you not afraid that i will kill you and add your bones to my necklace, don't you know who i am? the monk relplied; "yes, i know who you are. Wisdom is why i do not fear." Angulia was so overcome by the monks serenity and compassion that he asked how it was that this monk had these qualities, at which point the monk explained the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold path and asked Angulia if he would accompany him to the monestary to hear a teaching. Angulia say yes and off they went.

the monk was the Buddha Shakyamuni and Angulia repented of his actions and took up the practice of the Dharma, eventually removing all the negative karma from his actions and attaining liberation.

Saul was “a man with a plan”—to kill Christians.

as far as i can tell, Saul would have no authority to kill anyone, let alone Jews. that aspect was reserved for the Roman Governer of the area. my reading of it is such that Saul appears to be someone that was going around and helping to prosecute the beings that were following Jesus' teachings.

nevertheless, as we are sort of talking about works v. faith, perhaps this part of the discussion is more of a distraction than on point?

i tend, as you may have noticed, to ramble on about all manner of things which are often unrelated to the topic at hand

Christian love is, to me, never harsh.

i suspect you are not a homosexual, however, many so-called Christians would "love" these beings to death, if they could.... and, unfortunately, some do.

i suppose that, all things being equal, i would rather Christians be compassionate towards me rather than love me. love is the flipside of hate, and we all (i think) know how easy it can be to go from loving something to hating them, with as much or more passion than before.

Misunderstood, maybe. And much maligned, both from many who claim to know “her”, as well as from those who view her from afar. And, you are correct—it is by far those who falsely claim her that do her the most harm. The irony (or paradox) is that she only loves them more, mixing the dust into a salve to offer them for their blindness.

i'm not sure i'm following. are you saying that love is a sentient being?

Vajradhara, I’d like you to know that I am honored to be speaking with you like this. I have often admired your posts, and never really gotten to talk with you much.

thank you for the kind words i am enjoying our coversation as well

I know that our views are different, but that is what makes things interesting. Now, it seems I have some reading to do….Lemmee see…where is Ingersoll, again, and then there is the Pauline Conspiracy stuff….hmmmm…


InPeace,
InLove

indeed... i've got a backlog of books to read that should keep me occuppied for a while... yet... funnily enough, that doesn't seem to prevent me from acquiring more of them

metta,

~v

[InLove]

Hi--Peace All,

The kind and interested responses are so appreciated here. Vaj, I am so missing being able to delve into that perpetual backlog of reading you and I have in common! I, too, have some vision problems that were in place before this present illness and its accompanying medications made it even more difficult for me to read. But I have dealt with these ongoing problems all my life, and I am banking that this one is only temporary. It is just that I figured if I was going to be "down" for a while, I was really going to catch up on my reading and writing! Ughh!!

By the way, I thought you might relate to a story I was told about my step-granddad--he could not tell red from green either! According to the account from many years ago, he moved out of his home state for a while, and when he returned, there were all kinds of "newfangled devices" there called "traffic lights" Well, he had seen them before in the other state, and had memorized the order of the red and green lights, but apparently either his home state did not set them up correctly, or just did them differently! As you can imagine, he had more than a little trouble until he got that all figured out...poor guy.

You have some good points I want to address eventually, one of which is that I think perhaps I thought you were also referring to Love as a sentient being when you stated that Christian Love was a harsh mistress. Hmmm....well, as you know, I do not feel that way; however, now that you mention it, yes--I definitely see Love as a sentient being, the Original, even! It is a good question.

I want to write more, but what I am doing early this morning is mainly posting to just keep in touch briefly on this thread and then maybe if I can manage, to make a couple of short posts maybe in the lounge and on another board, explaining a little about why I probably won't be around much for the next few weeks. I know I have sort of touched on it before, but I really did not know how things were going to go. If they continue the way they are right now, I will be here less and less for a while.

But I won't forget these good talks, and not to worry, Luna--I won't forget the other either!

Love you all--please lift me up in your own ways. I miss my time here, and I do think of you and lift you up as well.

InPeace,
InLove