you are right in wanting to know and understand a religion first and knowing even other religions to have greater understanding of the one you are looking into. God even asks us to question things, because his He knows His word like seed will go out to the field, and those seeds that find good ground will not return void. So there will be those that may intellectualize their way to christianity, but it will be he spirit that tells you that Jesus is Lord--That is unique to christianity.I think that it takes a long time to understand a religion completely, and if one disregards a few aspects of it it can skew ones understanding of the tradition as a whole. In this way I don't think one can pick and choose parts of a religion.
But. I choosing one religion over another, adopting it completely is still valid. It might even be necessary for different reasons. Studying another religion, aside from ones own is also valid and might bring greater understanding about a great many things, but one must understand it from the traditions own perspective, not through the words of any other religion.
I use 'one' too many times here, I sound like a fortune-cookie.
Yes I think you got me pegged here, I'm slightly envious of your (all of you) spiritual experience. It is impossible to imagine and it's very likely that I'll never feel it. I wonder very much how it would change the way I look at things. But only slightly, I'm very comfortable with the way I see things and I have my way, as you noted, of observing the universe.Ah, ACOT, very perceptive. If one understands spirituality one is spiritual (JMHO). I do not know what a rational or empirical knowledge of spiritual would be. I must take time to think on that. So we are kind of "different" sides here. You see the outside (the objective) of spirituality and believe this understanding. I experience what I believe to be the inside and say I do not know anything about it.
I think you formulated it well here, and it is what I have read in your previous comments. It's oh so slightly outside my comprehension but I understand YOU.Whitehead, Spinoza, Laotzu, Roshi Ueshiba. The point is not "you must understand all of them". It is that their g!d, like mine, is not in our image. The truth is there is no image of H!r... just H!s presence. Some thing worthy of faith and awe and worship and love and veneration doe not have to be us-like in form or content. On our best days and best behavior we are Divine in our content. And if (as the Rishis teach us) we can ever become the Mind of Chr!st, perhaps our form will take on !ts nebulousness. I do not claim that kind of knowledge. I claim only my experience of g!d.
Not on my account, I don't feel like I have anything more to ad, but I would gladly listen to other comments on this.If you want we can start a thread on this particular point: "God Does Not Have to be Anthropomorphized".
You may choose to think so, but it's not the case.I said God (singular, & referring to the Christian one; though admittedly I did not make that latter part clear) was created in man's image.
It's in Rome. What about it?There is some chapel ceiling....where is that...??