The one...with no name...and various connections

wil

UNeyeR1
Veteran Member
Messages
24,467
Reaction score
3,886
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
Contemplation from a friend.

Warning: this may push buttons and even offend but that is not my intention. Just sharing my thoughts. Take it with a grain of salt.

The word "Christ" means "annointed one". It's most famously associated with Jesus of Nazareth but it is not his name. He didn't formally have a last name. "Buddha" means "awakened one" which would be a synonym for Christ and also not Siddhartha's formal name.

In New Age/New Thought teachings, Christ is associated with consciousness. Jesus is often referred to as a man who expressed his Christ Conciousness in a profound way.
He taught that all of us can tap into this consciousness regardless of our religion, status, etc. He even spoke of others doing it in an even "greater way".

Some examples of how Jesus expressed Christ-consciousness might be: uplifting others(raising their Spirits), seeing the best in people, putting God first in his life, loving himself and others, doing his personal growth work (40 day/40 night personal healing retreat), being hopefully optimistic and "BELIEVE"-ing in a better tomorrow, not being attached to the material world, devoting himself to his mission, and admitting his imperfections while acknowledging his worthiness.

Many before and after him have also expressed this Christ-consciousness. Siddhartha, Muhammed, Moses, Gandhi, Confucius and Krishna come to mind.

I think we all can aspire to living more of this. I also see the mythical character Ted Lasso as profoundly expressing this Christ-consciousness. Mr. Rogers is another for me.

Who do you feel expresses this consciousness profoundly?
 
Who do you feel expresses this consciousness profoundly?
Let me at the outset say I don't accept the concept as popularly expressed by those movements.

I know people cite 1 Corinthians 2:16 as a foundation – but it's really not. (I can get into detail, but don't want to tread on any toes.)

+++

But in the spirit of the thing, I suppose Tradition obliges me to mention Francis of Assisi as a close contender.

I think the problem here is any expression of the sublime is rendered mundane when put into words – you end up describing someone who sounds really nice.

+++

While the concept is put forward in laudable exemplars, what about the suggestion that to have 'the mind of Christ' (which we can't) I would have thought required at the very least someone who's walked the Dark Night of the Soul – and not as a self-improvement exercise.

At the very least a profound, existential crisis, and come out the other side intact.

+++

How about the Italian doctor who fortuitously happened to be in the Far East at the start of a SARS outbreak and managed to confine it to the hospital where it was identified – he and many of his staff, exposed before the catastrophic nature of the infection was realised, served the sick and the dying until they fell sick and died themselves ... ?

+++
 
the suggestion that to have 'the mind of Christ' (which we can't)
Dang you Paul!
Tradition obliges me to mention Francis of Assisi
Me thinks the unstudied but aware might mention Mother Theresa.

Yeah, this comes from a new thought friend...and Unity looks at the disciples as a lot that had traits which helped.quicken powers that Jesus utilized (Love, faith, divine judgement, etc) granted it is tough to herd all 12 cats at once...

So yeah, a Christian might have a hard time playing this game since they have elevated Jesus above all else...(you know like Jews have Moses, or Muslims Mohammed...no none of us will agree fully with that ananlogy).

I think that every single one of us has attained that consciousness one time or another. We all have our moments...just as any of us we choose to name have had their moments when they were not accessing their higher selves. I think we find times in scripture when Jesus does not appear on top of his game. We question ourcellves, take this cup from me...we make choices we know are not in our best interest but more earthly...more human.
 
Mother Theresa.
They've tried to demonize Mother Theresa and make her out to be a very wicked woman. It started with appointing Christopher Hitchens as 'devils advocate' leading up to her canonization as a saint. The devil's advocate is employed by the Vatican to dig up the dark and bad side of a person proposed for sainthood.

The fact they chose Christopher Hitchens for the job shows they were inviting a real hater to do his worst.

Hitchens went on to use Mother Theresa's statement that "suffering can be holy" to mean that she enjoyed seeing the suffering of the dying beggars whom she and her Sisters of Charity picked up from the streets of Calcutta, to die with dignity in a clean bed.

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.’

Mother Theresa ran hospices for the dying. They weren’t hospitals, although later her Sisters of Charity missions expanded to schools and hospitals and other non-government services. In line with her Catholic beliefs, she did not employ euthanasia for the terminally ill.

Hitchens also went on to say that she abused funds, where in fact she just took whatever money she received and spent it on the care of the dying, without bothering to keep proper accounts, and so on.

Of course Hitchens' negative allegations were sensationalised by media, and Hitchens got a book out of it, titled 'Missionary Position' which gives an idea of his own position.

Anyone with an open mind will realize, as did the Church, that Hitchens and fellow devil's advocate Aroup Chatterjee -- a fiercely anti Mother Teresa Indian journalist who detested her -- were really scraping the barrel to find material against her, balanced against the huge good she did.

There are angry allegations, for instance, that she accepted funds from Haiti's Baby Doc and other bad people -- as if this woman who spent her life attending to the dying beggars whom others walked over, would not accept donations from wherever they came.

She wasn't perfect, but she was most certainly not living in luxury, spending funds on silly projects and channelling donations to the Vatican to spend on golden thrones. Even Hitchens cannot quite pull it off and his accusations come across as purely vindictive, imo.

Mother Theresa spent her whole life picking up the dying detritus of humanity, from the worst streets in the world, to bathe them and clothe them and let them die with dignity in a in a place of love and safety.

And they call her evil?

Devil's advocate indeed, imo

(edited)
 
Last edited:
Consciousness is a termporary thing, it lasts while a living being is not dead.

Teressa was a Christian evangelist (they come under various garbs).
 
... and Unity looks at the disciples as a lot that had traits which helped.quicken powers that Jesus utilized (Love, faith, divine judgement, etc) granted it is tough to herd all 12 cats at once...
You take the 'mind' as paradigm and then work everything accordingly.

I think that every single one of us has attained that consciousness one time or another.
Oh, sure – again, with the mind model, we all show compassion, empathy, self-discipline and denial etc., from time to time, and yes, I can see that if we define Christ purely as a moral exemplar then we all participate in those virtues to a greater or lesser degree – but if that's all there is to it, then you've got to look at the cross and wonder what was the point of that?
 
Oh, sure – again, with the mind model, we all show compassion, empathy, self-discipline and denial etc., from time to time, and yes, I can see that if we define Christ purely as a moral exemplar then we all participate in those virtues to a greater or lesser degree – but if that's all there is to it, then you've got to look at the cross and wonder what was the point of that?
They just never get it ...
Teressa was a Christian evangelist (they come under various garbs).
And ...?
 
I think if Jesus saw...he would ask the same!
What's your take on this passage? It's not the only one where Jesus predicts his death and resurrection ...

"For He taught His disciples and said to them, “The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will rise the third day.” But they did not understand this saying, and were afraid to ask Him." (Mark 9:30-32)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark 9&version=NKJV
 
Last edited:
I think we find times in scripture when Jesus does not appear on top of his game. We question ourcellves, take this cup from me...we make choices we know are not in our best interest but more earthly...more human.
He felt fear and sadness and other human emotions. The agony in the garden. He wavered, but still he took the cup. They say courage is not being without fear, but going on despite fear. The sacrifice on the cross would be meaningless if Jesus was above human fear and human pain? But it does not mean that Jesus was 'just a man' either?

But perhaps I misunderstand you?
 
Last edited:
I think the claim of divinity is what needs to be proven...not to you obviously.

We have literally had billions of examples of humans of all varieties. Our evidence of one being divine (differently from the rest of us) is what is in question to others (some? many? most?) What is apparent to few is not apparent to all.

What's your take on this passage? It's not the only one where Jesus predicts his death and resurrection ...
my takes on it are many, first and foremost we view the bible stories differently...you tske them as gospel...i take them at best passed down memories compiled for folk from a man who spoke in parables and allegory. I look at the stories recorded and applynthem to my life situations.

I find real interesting the next line...where Jesus asks his disciples what they thought...(as you asked me) and what did his 12 top acolytes say? (uh...dont know boss)

And then so the story goes Jesus did not lay the truth on them, or explain...them not knowing was good enough for him (and might be good enough for you?) But they continued their hike and what did his best and brightest discuss after this revelation? Not the topic Jesus asked them to entertain, but they argued amongst themselves as to who was best and brightest...aint that a hoot!


But back to your quote...let's start with a.word used twice... man

Metaphysical meaning of man from revealing word.

man--An idea in Divine Mind; the epitome of being. The apex of God's creation, created in His image and likeness.

Man appears unlike God because he, through disobedience, fell into sin. Through accepting race thoughts, man has adopted wrong ideas about himself and his relation to his Source. He has believed that he is unlike God and separate from Him, and these concepts have, by the law of thought, become manifest.

Ideal man is the perfect man, the Christ, the offspring of Divine Mind. Manifest man should be as perfect as the ideal, and he will be when the individual identifies himself with the Christ. When he is identified with anything less than perfection he manifests some degree of imperfection.
Man makes his world through the activity of ideas in his consciousness--ideas of wisdom, power, intelligence. The real man is the embodiment of God, and all the God-substance and the power to make it active is inherent within him.

When we are quickened to spiritual understanding and fully realize the true character of God and our own nature as the image, or idea, of God we will begin to live as Jesus lived in order that we may bring forth the likeness. To perceive the true character of God and His attributes and then to grasp our relationship to Him is to realize that His attributes are our attributes, His power is our power; His character is our character.
 
my takes on it are many, first and foremost we view the bible stories differently...you tske them as gospel...i take them at best passed down memories compiled for folk from a man who spoke in parables and allegory. I look at the stories recorded and applynthem to my life situations.
Well, the gospels... are seen as gospel
I have the same question at times though
The word gospel is supposed to mean good news
But it's come to mean truth to many

When I read the bible thru as a teen, I got to the end and thought "This was hard to read, and hard to understand, and much of it very interesting, but I'm not sure I'd take it as gospel" and then I realized the word and it WAS the gospel and I'm like, oh darn.

I wish I had known more people when I was growing up, who understood about myth, metaphor, and bible scholarship
My mom, who didn't like religion, told me that the bible was "all pretty much symbolic", and " a storybook", and "All just one big beautiful story, but for 2000 years go go by and no help? Come on. Not a chance every detail is true"
But to try to be more religiously inclined that she was... where to go? Grandpa? For all his heterodoxy, he was pretty literalistic as far as I could tell.

I wish I had known people who took the bible stories as parable, poetry, symbolic, mythical, metaphysical, esoteric, something other than literalist.
 
But back to your quote...let's start with a word used twice... man
I don't think that whether or not the Christ foretold his death and resurrection depends on what he meant by the word 'man'?
 
Last edited:
I wish I had known people who took the bible stories as parable, poetry, symbolic, mythical, metaphysical, esoteric, something other than literalist.
There's two immediate points here.

To view the Bible as entirely 'literally true' – as some would have it, every word dictated by God – is, in the mind of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican (at least), an error.

On the other hand though, to declare the whole thing as myth and parable is equally and effectively the same error.

+++

In the Kaballah, there is the 'Pardes' method of Biblical exegesis. PaRDeS, is an Hebrew abbreviation formed from the initials of the four types of reading:
Peshat – the literal or direct meaning.
Remez – the allegoric (hidden or symbolic) beyond just the literal sense.
Derash – the comparative (midrashic) meaning.
Sod – the esoteric/mystical meaning.

A given rule is the three 'deeper' meanings never contradict the direct meaning.

This system has its parallels in Christian exegesis:
The literal meaning.
The allegorical message.
The moral meaning.
The anagogical or eschatalogical message.

+++

An example is the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10).
Generally, the homily on this parable poses the question: 'What would you do?' – Will we step up like the Samaritan, or will we pass by? The moral meaning.

The allegorical and the anagogical is a different homily – in this, 'we' are the beaten man by the roadside and the story takes on a different aspect:
"But a certain Samaritan (Jesus) being on his journey (Mission), came near him (me); and seeing him, was moved with compassion. And going up to him, bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine: and setting him upon his own beast (lifting him up), brought him to an inn (ark/church), and took care of him. And the next day he took out two pence (the two coins are Baptism and Eucharist), and gave to the 'host', and said: Take care of him; and whatsoever thou shalt spend over and above, I, at my return, will repay thee."

So the Church and its role in Salvation is brought into play.

Of course, not everyone possesses a 'symbolic sensibility'. Origen was a great one for the interpretation of symbol, and one disgruntled critic claimed something to the effect of 'according to him, every bloomin' pebble by the roadside has its meaning!'
 
I think the claim of divinity is what needs to be proven...
To which one might reply, who are you to decide He needs to prove Himself to you?

The other is that should He do so, then life would be so much easier, but we've surrendered our essential dignity and freedom. From then on, we'd be foolish to do other than what we're told.

first and foremost we view the bible stories differently... you take them as gospel... i take them at best passed down memories compiled for folk from a man who spoke in parables and allegory.
Well the Gospels themselves discern between when He is speaking in parables and allegory, and when He is not, but it appears you don't.

Nor is a truth wrapped in parable or analogy any less true. Less immediate, perhaps, and in need of commentary, for sure, but the authors of the Gospels went to some lengths to explain the parables and allegories.

I find real interesting the next line...where Jesus asks his disciples what they thought...(as you asked me) and what did his 12 top acolytes say? (uh...dont know boss)
No. You need to pay closer attention to the text.

And then so the story goes Jesus did not lay the truth on them, or explain...
Sorry, old friend, but that's just incorrect.

He asked who do they say that I am? (cf Mark 8:28)
Answers various
He asks who do you say that I am?
Answers one. Peter: Thou art the Christ (cf Mark 8:29)

Mark 8: 31 And he began to teach them..." (8:31) about His mission, His death and His resurrection.

I don't think your interpretation accurately relates to the text.

+++

But back to your quote...let's start with a.word used twice... man
Metaphysical meaning of man from revealing word."

Unity's definition is somewhat questionable when one considers the Fall was brought about by man's desire to be equal to God?
 
On the other hand though, to declare the whole thing as myth and parable is equally and effectively the same error.
I don't know ANYONE who considers the whole.thing to be myth or parable.

It is 66.different books, different authors different purposes. I consider it full of myths and parable. Full of metaphors and allegory. But obviously Paul's letters supporting his struggling believers contain the least in that regard...the first book and the last book possibly the most.
Unity's definition is somewhat questionable
Lol...of course it is!

Hint : most the world thinks blood and body is more than just questionable..

Amazing folks have differing beliefs eh?

If we didn't you would all be earing peanut butter, onions, jalapeño jam and sharp cheddar on rye...
 
Hint : most the world thinks blood and body is more than just questionable..
One-third of Christians are Roman Catholics, others are Orthodox, who also honour the Sacraments including the Eucharist. And obviously most 'Christians' obviously think 'Unity's definition is somewhat questionable' -- if you're going to play a numbers game, lol ...

 
Last edited:
I don't know ANYONE who considers the whole.thing to be myth or parable.
Oh, there are, believe me. There are those who dismiss those elements they find difficult as myth, parable, etc. as a means of dismissing them and thus asserting their own ideas.

It is 66.different books, different authors different purposes.
Different narratives, different genres.

I consider it full of myths and parable. Full of metaphors and allegory. But obviously Paul's letters supporting his struggling believers contain the least in that regard...the first book and the last book possibly the most.
Generally, so do I.

So then we're talking context, and you have often declared the gospel to by myth and parable, when I say, 'what if they're not?'

Lol...of course it is!
Please don't be so glib.

There's a very real issue here. I'm just picking over the implication of the metaphysical text you offered ...

I can detail if you like, but that's not Christian nor a Biblical-based metaphysics.

From the text you posted:
"Man appears unlike God because he, through disobedience, fell into sin."
No, He was unlike God to begin with – God is not a created nature, man is a created nature.

"The real man is the embodiment of God, and all the God-substance and the power to make it active is inherent within him."
No. Again, not what the Bible teaches. The Divine substance and power is not inherent to human nature, but can indwell by grace – a massive and all-important distinction with does not fit the paradigm – human nature is not inherently divine ... again, that's the illusiuon our Primordial Parents fell prey to.

"To perceive the true character of God and His attributes and then to grasp our relationship to Him is to realize that His attributes are our attributes, His power is our power; His character is our character."
No. This is projecting God as being the best human nature can be ... God is more than that.

If there are divine attributes they are gifts, not obligations according to our nature.
 
No. Again, not what the Bible teaches
With respect in the belief and spirituality corral is "I don't care" too straight forward? I mean it is not a requirement.

While the Bible is my main book, it is not my only one.

Just as I consider Jesus my elder brother and wayshower he ain't the only teacher or guru I aspire.

Unity thought, New Thought, considered blasphemous by more orthodox sects? Say it ain't so!

Transcendentalism has its origins in New England of the early 1800s and the birth of Unitarianism. It was born from a debate between “New Light” theologians, who believed that religion should focus on an emotional experience, and “Old Light” opponents, who valued reason in their religious approach.

Different strokes for different folks is what we are about eh?
 
Back
Top