Is Christianity a Negative Religion?

[Nick the Pilot]

lunamoth.

You said,

"I think one goal of our spiritual path should be to 'get over ourselves,' and not worry so much about just our own life. Part of religious practice for me is to look outside myself and not be so self-centered."

--> Looking inward (in the Buddhist and Theosophical sense) is the exact opposite of being self-centered.

"...the thing about such symbols and rituals...."

--> Your use of the word implies Theosophy uses such rituals. Is this what you mean?

"...most Satanists I've talked to actually value themselves and their abilities in a rather humanistic fashion."

--> This goes off-topic, and would be good for another thread.

"New religions co-opt symbols and language from existing religions all the time, and this is a great cause of bad feelings and confusion a lot of the time."

--> You are getting into something I am unfamiliar with. Please give example.

"But it's not the symbol or ritual that is important, but what the symbol/ritual points to, right?"

--> Correct.

"I would submit that every Christian who prays is involved in mysticism."

--> I am sure glad my sister did not hear you say that (ha).

"I don't see a whole lot of value in the question "Did this literally happen."

--> That is the value of any religious scripture — it can be interpreted on many levels.

"The Roman Catholic Church does not condemn to hell all outside Her walls as some flavors of Protestanism do."

--> I have always assumed it does. (The fact that I do may surprise you, but again, we non-Christians watch all of the comdemming and un-condemmming and re-comdemming going on in the name of Christianity as humorous, and we just look the other way.)

"The main point, though (at the risk of repeating myself), is that He is unfair. --> I don't see it that way."

--> On this point we agree to differ.

"Even using the term He and thinking of God as a supernatural being is an artificial limitation."

--> Which is one of the reasons Theosophy avoids the word God altogether. Such anthropomorphization is forbidden in Theosophy.

"I am looking forward to the day when you spend all your time as a Guardian Angel — the time is closer than you think. --> What does that mean?"

--> What do you think... (oops, gotta rephrase that) ...what does the average Christian think they will do in Heaven for, say, the next trillion years? When I get to Nirvana (not Heaven, although I believe in both, and I see no conflict between the two) I will immediately get to work for the next 22 million years non-stop. (Yes, that is a fairly exact number in Theosophy.) As soon as I get there, I will immediately get to work being a Guardian Angel. (I heard a story not too long ago about a woman who finally made it to the next level, and has been working non-stop 24/7 for the last 400 years as a Guardian Angel.) I am very much looking forward to it. I know I will see you there. See you there!

 

[earl]

So Luna you're asking me to explain metaphysically the existence of evil in the world? I concur with some of what Nick said, (Nick you should have really thought about the fine print in the pre-birth contract ), but bottom line is we can never know why tragedy strikes. But what is in our control and understanding is how we might be changed for the better due to that tragedy. In Buddhism the phrase is actually karma vipaka with karma being "seed" and vipaka "fruit." In most non-simplistic Buddhist discussions of karma, there actually isn't as much attention paid to the "why's"-the karmic possibilities which are multi-faceted and therefore ultimately unknowable as there is on the "what now's?"-the seeds we might plant in this moment- the means of dealing with the moment, which with the right seeds and cultivation may bear good fruit. Now here's something for both Nick & Luna to mull over from the controversially "channeled" Course in Miracles folk regarding how forgiveness & karma do or do not relate, which is well worth considering-i.e., how forgiveness does in karma:

Are forgiveness and "karma" operating simultaneously?

have a good one, earl

 

[lunamoth]

So Luna you're asking me to explain metaphysically the existence of evil in the world?

Lol yes, I don't ask for much do I?

I concur with some of what Nick said, (Nick you should have really thought about the fine print in the pre-birth contract ), but bottom line is we can never know why tragedy strikes. But what is in our control and understanding is how we might be changed for the better due to that tragedy.

In Buddhism the phrase is actually karma vipaka with karma being "seed" and vipaka "fruit." In most non-simplistic Buddhist discussions of karma, there actually isn't as much attention paid to the "why's"-the karmic possibilities which are multi-faceted and therefore ultimately unknowable as there is on the "what now's?"-the seeds we might plant in this moment- the means of dealing with the moment, which with the right seeds and cultivation may bear good fruit.

I totally agree with this bottom line earl. The 'what do I do with this now' is the name of the game, isn't it.

Now here's something for both Nick & Luna to mull over from the controversially "channeled" Course in Miracles folk regarding how forgiveness & karma do or do not relate, which is well worth considering-i.e., how forgiveness does in karma:

Are forgiveness and "karma" operating simultaneously?

have a good one, earl

Well our friend AdD would say that karma and forgiveness/not judging are the exact same thing. I'm still pondering that one...perhaps we can do a new thread on this.

 

[Thomas]

Hi all ... brilliant discussion.

There's a million places I could pop in (perhaps later) but I wanted to address one point from Earl and Lunamoth earlier, the apparent temporal condition of the afterlife, and the apparent pardox of the various beatific states that arises therefrom.

The Abrahamic Traditions believe the world was created by God, it has its beginning in God, and it has its end in God. Not only is it good, it is 'a good' because it is a means by which the divine is manifested. The good of any particular instance of that manifestation – a tree, a crystal, a tree, a deer, an angel, and man, all being theomorphic forms, reside in God first, because they necessarily existed in the Mind of God (the Logos of God) before they existed for themselves, and reside in themselves secondly and subsistently precisely because God gave them their own reality and existence.

So the 'world' defined as bodies existing in space and time has its own alpha, its own primordial perfection, which was 'lost', and its own omega, which is the restitution or reconciliation with that primordial perfection which will eventually be 'found', and this journey or unfolding takes place in the world, in itself, and necessarily therefore, in space and time.

But the Eternal, being timeless, is available to all men equally at all times. (It calls to all, all the time, but to a rare few It commands).

The paradox of the eternal, of the Abrahamic eschaton, of the Perfect, is that the world has its place among the Perfect, but it is evident it is not in the place yet, even though some instances of it might be.

So what happens to the Perfected of an imperfect world?

They cannot stay here, for it cannot contain them in their fullness. So they must depart this world, for a time, until it is ready for their return. (Although they may shine their light upon the world, from afar.)

Nor can the less-than-perfect remain, for a Law of the Good (we will have to go into Aquinas deeply on this) is that God, and nature, never repeats Him or herself. Two instances of the same thing lose their individuality (by the simple fact of there being more than one), their theomorphic image, for God is One.

Two things now come into play.

One:
The apokatastasis, the final restoration or general resurrection, talks of the Perfection of the world, in the figure of the coming of the New Jerusalem, for example, and the event marks the 'end' of the world as we know it and the commencement of a New Age.
One view holds that there will be a sorting of the wheat from the chaff, a final judgement.
Another view holds that all will be restored to their theomorphic image.

Whether it is all (100%), less than all (99-1%) or none (need I spell it?), is for God to know and man to ponder, buit not for us to know – who can fathom the depths of God? But we live in hope and faith, and must square with our conscience if we decide to arbitrate upon that point. (Supposing God said, 'knowing him as I do, I would have forgiven him, but you knowing him not as I do, have seen fit to condemn him – because I know all things, I know you are wrong, but hey-ho, on your head be it ... what did someone say, 'Judge not lest ye be judged'?').

Two:
What happens to the Perfected in the meantime? Do they simply wait? Are they put into some kind of suspension? (The early theology of Sheol intimated such, I think.) Most traditions, I believe, agree that such is not the case. The Perfected enjoy their reward in the Eternal which, being not constrained by time, they enter immediately.

And the imperfect – what of them? Are they suspended, or erased? A suffering eschatological state implies consciousness and self-awareness, as it would be worse than cruel to punish a creature for something it cannot understand, and cruel too to continue the punishment once the creature realised the error of its way.

This last is the hinge ... if God punishes man for being evil in who he is, then He is punishing a creature for being what it was created to be. Unacceptable.
If God punishes man for the evil that he does, then that punishment will (or justice is meaningless) be fitting to the evil, and that punishment will, because God is Good, perfect that which is ill.
At which point it will cease.

(And how long did it last? An age, a nanosecond, eternity?)

I contend that the 'punishment', portrayed by every suffering the human mind can conjur, is simply the realisation of separation from the Divine, the 'pain' and 'anguish' thereof ... and lasts as long as the individual clings to any vestige of that separateness.

So while the individual Perfect enjoys the Beatific Vision, they sorrow for their kind, locked in time and space, for whom it is not complete, and for those caught, as it were, between worlds, who cannot enter because they refuse to loosen their grip upon the idea of themselves.

But when that Moment comes, then in a twinkling all shall be changed, and the Perfect shall put on incorruption, and heaven will be realised on earth, and the human will stand forth as the crowning glory of His works, as Pontifex, the bridge between two worlds by which both will be one.

How long that Golden Age will last, between the Perfection of All things in themselves, and the reabsorbtion of all into the One ... who knows? An age, a nanosecond, an eternity?

Thomas

 

[lunamoth]

Excellent Thomas! Thank you so much for this contribution. It is all eloquent and inspiring, but I'm going to pick out two points because they represent things that have fallen through the cracks a bit in what I was trying to say.

The apokatastasis, the final restoration or general resurrection, talks of the Perfection of the world, in the figure of the coming of the New Jerusalem, for example, and the event marks the 'end' of the world as we know it and the commencement of a New Age.
One view holds that there will be a sorting of the wheat from the chaff, a final judgement.
Another view holds that all will be restored to their theomorphic image.

Whether it is all (100%), less than all (99-1%) or none (need I spell it?), is for God to know and man to ponder, buit not for us to know – who can fathom the depths of God? But we live in hope and faith, and must square with our conscience if we decide to arbitrate upon that point.

To express it as one's hope is much better I think than to say that I believe. Hope captures both the positive and the mystery, and the humility. (It has occurred to me before in prayer and in conversation with an EO friend that I should not attempt to tie God's hands in this!)

I contend that the 'punishment', portrayed by every suffering the human mind can conjur, is simply the realisation of separation from the Divine, the 'pain' and 'anguish' thereof ... and lasts as long as the individual clings to any vestige of that separateness.

So while the individual Perfect enjoys the Beatific Vision, they sorrow for their kind, locked in time and space, for whom it is not complete, and for those caught, as it were, between worlds, who cannot enter because they refuse to loosen their grip upon the idea of themselves.

But when that Moment comes, then in a twinkling all shall be changed, and the Perfect shall put on incorruption, and heaven will be realised on earth, and the human will stand forth as the crowning glory of His works, as Pontifex, the bridge between two worlds by which both will be one.

How long that Golden Age will last, between the Perfection of All things in themselves, and the reabsorbtion of all into the One ... who knows? An age, a nanosecond, an eternity?

Thomas

I'm not sure I've said it before...but I also think that this is the nature of the 'punishment,' or 'purifying fire.' Not physical torment, but the spiritual torment of separation.

Thank you!

 

[lunamoth]

"Individual life requires some kind of 'body.'.... ...we will have a body...light needs to be reflected off some-thing for it to be detected, and love likewise needs a differentiation to be experienced."

--> That is an interesting observation. In Theosophy, however, we eventually become the Light — all distinction and differentiation between me and the Light disappears. (This is a very difficult concept to understand, when someone is hearing it for the first time.)

"...if at the end of this life we are 'forgiven' and leave all sin behind...what is the purpose of coming back to live another life mired in the duality that creates sin?"

--> You have the described the difference between Christianity and Theosophy beautifully.

Yes, I don't think I've ever proposed that Christianity and Theosophy are similar, or even related. I see them as distinctly different belief systems, which has bearing on some of what you ask below.

As to becoming the Light...if I were to speak metaphorically I might say that we become Love manifest, as Jesus was Love manifest on earth. Not that we become Christ, but that we become as Christ-like as we possibly can. I could substitute Light for Love, although I think Love captures it better for me.

"...there seem to be all kinds of logistical problems with the thing about new souls being created and the numbers of bodies...."

--> There are? Please feel free to list them.

"...there seem to be all kinds of logistical problems with ... what will be the natural end of our planet and then the natural end of this universe."

--> Please feel free to list them.

I think that trying to discuss this would be like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No doubt for every untestable problem I might have coming from a Christian worldview, from the Theosophist worldview you could come up with an equally unprovable solution.

"Every day the mere act of eating to keep my body going causes the destruction of other organisms and the environment."

--> If it is part of the Divine Plan, it is not a bad thing that creates bad karma. Eating a fruit or a vegetable does not create bad karma.

How about eating fruits and vegetables grown on large corporation farms that take advantage of migrant workers and pour all kinds of chemicals into the soil to increase yield. I'd postulate that if we were forced to sustainable agriculture today our population could not be supported. I'm not saying trying to convert to sustainable agriculture is bad...I support it very highly. But, just by buying food for my family I contribute to a system that is determinetal to the health of our planet. And it's not a solution that I should just switch to organic foods...because as I said, if every single person insisted on low-environmental-impact foods right now...a significant number of us would starve to death. Should only the wealthy be able to reduce their karmic debt?

--> It is interesting to contrast this to one Theosophical view. 'Hell fire' is seen as the continued desire for fleshly experiences that we no longer have a body for.

That's very interesting, and yes quite a contrast between Christian hell, in which it is separation from God (Love) that we experience as pain, and Theosophical hell, in which it is separation from worldly desires that is experienced as pain. These might actually be the same thing though, as it is a clinging to something other than God/Being which causes the separation. I would note however that in both cases we can bridge that separation as Thomas says, in the wink of an eye.

"...the end of this life will be our end of times."

--> This is a huge difference between Christianity and Theosophy. Theosophy sees this life as merely one for of consciounsness in a long line of forms of consciousness. Christianity sees humanity going from nothing to human to Heaven, and that's it. For Theosophy, that is way too short a path.

Theosophy is much like the Baha'i Faith in this regard, although reincarnation is clearly denied in the Baha'i Faith. Progress through all the worlds of God after this one depend not upon our own works, but upon the mercy of God and the prayers of others, according to Baha'i beliefs.

"...Our love is resurrected into a new body...."

--> By that do you mean a new physical body?

I don't know. Quite possibly it is an existence as unimaginable to me now as being a human would be to a turnip.

"I think anyone [is a Christian] who sees themself as Christian and does something about that..."

--> It makes discussions easier when specific beliefs that make a person a Christian are listed. (Unless, of course, no such list exists.)

Well, labels might very well simplify things, just as having complete and precise interpretations of scripture and literal answers to every question about eternal life would. But it would also be rather limiting and dogmatic, and not reflective of the diversity of experience humans tend to actually have. I like to give the Holy Spirit a little elbow room for Her work. (<-----speaking metaphorically here )

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Luna,​

You said,​

"I would note however that in both cases we can bridge that separation as Thomas says, in the wink of an eye."​

--> You obviously have never been addicted to anything. I have read accounts of what (Theosophy says it) is like in Hell, and believe me, it is horrible. Addictions do not just disappear in the wink of an eye. ​

"Quite possibly it is an existence as unimaginable to me now as being a human would be to a turnip."​

--> I am quite surprised to hear you state something very similar to that old Kaballistic adage:​

"The Breath becomes a stone; the stone, a plant; the plant, an animal; the animal, a man; the man, a spirit; and the spirit, a god." ​

A large part of Theosophy is describing the steps in the Ladder of Consciousness. Your words are quite close. ​

"How about eating fruits and vegetables grown on large corporation farms that take advantage of migrant workers and pour all kinds of chemicals into the soil to increase yield."

--> All of that is taken into account on Judgement Day. I believe the Final Judgement Day (as well as the two prior Judgement Days that Christianity does not talk about) will be a lot fairer than you think.

 

[lunamoth]

Whew, I think I'm almost caught up with you.

lunamoth.

You said,

"I think one goal of our spiritual path should be to 'get over ourselves,' and not worry so much about just our own life. Part of religious practice for me is to look outside myself and not be so self-centered."

--> Looking inward (in the Buddhist and Theosophical sense) is the exact opposite of being self-centered.

I understand...I've talked with Buddhists about this before. I did not know exactly how that it worked in Theosophy. Thank you for the clarification.

"...the thing about such symbols and rituals...."

--> Your use of the word implies Theosophy uses such rituals. Is this what you mean?

No, I was just saying that symbols and rituals, like language and stories, are similar in that they a way to convey meaning, but understanding that meaning depends upon a common experience or some agreement about how the symbols are used.

"...most Satanists I've talked to actually value themselves and their abilities in a rather humanistic fashion."

--> This goes off-topic, and would be good for another thread.

I was just using Satan as an example of such a symbol.

"New religions co-opt symbols and language from existing religions all the time, and this is a great cause of bad feelings and confusion a lot of the time."

--> You are getting into something I am unfamiliar with. Please give example.

We've seen examples of this already in this thread. No worries, we don't have to go there.

"The Roman Catholic Church does not condemn to hell all outside Her walls as some flavors of Protestanism do."

--> I have always assumed it does. (The fact that I do may surprise you, but again, we non-Christians watch all of the comdemming and un-condemmming and re-comdemming going on in the name of Christianity as humorous, and we just look the other way.)

Why did you ask me my view if you feel first that you already understand it and second that whatever I say does not matter, that you will view it as merely humorous?

"The main point, though (at the risk of repeating myself), is that He is unfair. --> I don't see it that way."

--> On this point we agree to differ.

OK.

"I am looking forward to the day when you spend all your time as a Guardian Angel — the time is closer than you think. --> What does that mean?"

--> What do you think... (oops, gotta rephrase that) ...what does the average Christian think they will do in Heaven for, say, the next trillion years? When I get to Nirvana (not Heaven, although I believe in both, and I see no conflict between the two) I will immediately get to work for the next 22 million years non-stop. (Yes, that is a fairly exact number in Theosophy.) As soon as I get there, I will immediately get to work being a Guardian Angel. (I heard a story not too long ago about a woman who finally made it to the next level, and has been working non-stop 24/7 for the last 400 years as a Guardian Angel.) I am very much looking forward to it. I know I will see you there. See you there!

Thank you for the explanation. The idea that we will have roles something like guardian angels in the next life is appealing.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Luna,

You asked,

"Why did you ask me my view if you feel first that you already understand it and second that whatever I say does not matter, that you will view it as merely humorous?"

--> I wanted to see what your view is. I understand the generally accepted view of what Christians usually believe. It is nice to hear your opinion as well, and see how you do not fit the stereotype. This Forum is all about removing stereotypes. The stereotype out here in non-Christian-land is that the Roman Catholic Church definitely condemns to hell all outside Her walls. To be perfectly honest, to hear you say they don't surprises me.

The part that does not matter is this: I do not think one human being has the power to condemn another human being to Hell. The best way for me to deal with it is with humor.

"The idea that we will have roles something like guardian angels in the next life is appealing."

--> I am glad Theosophy gave you the idea. In the Theosophical view, Heaven will be a place of rest, but Nirvana will be a place of great activity.

 

[Thomas]

Hi all, sorry, had to pop in here:

This Forum is all about removing stereotypes. The stereotype out here in non-Christian-land is that the Roman Catholic Church definitely condemns to hell all outside Her walls. To be perfectly honest, to hear you say they don't surprises me.

Well, as surprised as you might be, that that's one stereotype you can dispense with:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the topic of "Outside the Church there is no salvation"
Paragraph 846:
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.
847:
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

The late Pope John-Paull II in his Encyclical on the Missions:
"For such people (those who do not formally enter the Church, as in Lumen Gentium para 16) salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church."

I would also say that someone's ability to comment on Abrahamic texts and their exegesis is limited (to say the least) if their knowledge and understanding of the text and its traditions is confined to stereotypes?

I only mention it because sometimes you seem to present yourself as a fundamental literalist, at others as a profound esoterist, dependant upon which position suits the argument you're trying to make at the time – such as the determination of whether a text can be read literally, or mystically, (as Gen 1:26-27) rests with you?

And in support of Lunamoth's assertion of the sacred nature of Scripture, not all of it need be read 'literally' – that is the stereotypical and limited post-Enlightenment idea of 'literality', a definition that is being corrected as certain assumptions of the Enlightenment are being shown to be false – but all of it conveys a limitless and inexhaustible well of knowledge, wisdom and spiritual sustenance.

To say otherwise is to define the limits of God.

On last comment:

Christianity sees humanity going from nothing to human to Heaven, and that's it. For Theosophy, that is way too short a path.

Luke 1:37:
"For with God nothing shall be impossible"

Further, as I understand Brahminic and Buddhist eschatology, there is no stipulation that a person must fulfill a required number of lifetimes, or that a person cannot attain the highest within any given lifetime?

I'm just curious to understand why there is such a limitation of Theosophy possibility?

Thomas

 

[earl]

Luna, for what it's worth re the subject of reincarnation & increasing population growth, here's something from a guy affiliated with Johns Hopkins, (wonder what his colleagues thought of him taking up the topic ), on how that is theoretically possible:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/14.3_bishai.pdf

Since 1 of many topics touched on in this thread is expectaions of the afterlife, I thought for those interested in the subject of near death experiences, I'd recommend the site where I obtained this next interesting tidbit as it contains much fascinating stuff including many personal accounts of NDE's. This link is to a summary the guy did of personal accounts that led to such interesting insights as the same % of self-described Christians & atheists (the vast majority) described being met with unconditional love. Also interestingly the highest % who experienced "hell-like" stuff were self-described Christians (38%) while no atheists did. This summary though makes mention of a particular person's experience, Howard Storm, who apparently had been a rather nasty person and had a hell experience which ended in resuce by a Divine being and a true metanoia in his life. I'm going to be spending some time here reading all the good stuff. fascinating.

Common elements are found in near-death experiences

have a good one, earl

 

[Thomas]

Hi Earl –

I think I might have mentioned this before, but in one source I read that in Buddhist iconography of the infernal states ... and wow, the number of Buddhist hells outnumbers the Christians by a long mile ... there is always a Buddha/Boddhisatva seated right in the middle.

This says to my Christian sensibility three things:
1 – There is nowhere that the Presence cannot be found for those who seek it;
2 – The seeker always finds the Presence there 'before him' (ie waiting);
3 – All one has to do is reach out and touch...

+++

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Luna,

I did want to share one idea that kind of goes along with Earl's posts.

Heaven (according to Theosophy) is in many ways an illusion. People who want to see Jesus will see Jesus. People who want to see Buddha will see Buddha. It is a fascinating idea to think of how our physical life concepts will effect our afterlife experience.

 

[lunamoth]

Luna, for what it's worth re the subject of reincarnation & increasing population growth, here's something from a guy affiliated with Johns Hopkins, (wonder what his colleagues thought of him taking up the topic ), on how that is theoretically possible:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/14.3_bishai.pdf

Since 1 of many topics touched on in this thread is expectaions of the afterlife, I thought for those interested in the subject of near death experiences, I'd recommend the site where I obtained this next interesting tidbit as it contains much fascinating stuff including many personal accounts of NDE's. This link is to a summary the guy did of personal accounts that led to such interesting insights as the same % of self-described Christians & atheists (the vast majority) described being met with unconditional love. Also interestingly the highest % who experienced "hell-like" stuff were self-described Christians (38%) while no atheists did. This summary though makes mention of a particular person's experience, Howard Storm, who apparently had been a rather nasty person and had a hell experience which ended in resuce by a Divine being and a true metanoia in his life. I'm going to be spending some time here reading all the good stuff. fascinating.

Common elements are found in near-death experiences

have a good one, earl

Cool earl, thank you for the links. I'll browse them this evening with my 'earl' grey.

 

[Muslimwoman]

OK, obviously my answer is no.

But people who leave Christianity, either drifting off into a secular life or actually converting to a different religion, sometimes site a negative perspective or too much emphasis on 'sin' in Christianity as the reason they were turned off from it.

Do you agree that Christianity has a more negative outlook on things? Please say whether you are or were a Christian, and if you left what made you do so. Was it the teachings, the people, a particular experience?

From my own perspective, I think Christianity is a very (the most) hopeful and positive religion. I can understand however that the emphasis on sin, and especially the doctrine of Original Sin, is viewed by many as a negative aspect of Christianity, especially when combined with some Protestant teachings about predestination and hell. Personally I think that while some meditation on sin and hell (as separation from God) can deepen our faith, to only emphasize these aspects is a shallow, hollow approach to Christianity and yes, I consider that a very negative face of the religion. It can also be noted that not all Christian denominations, notably the Eastern Orthodox, have Original Sin as part of their doctrine, and the ideas of theosis and apacatastasis are not/have not always been viewed as heresies.

as salaam aleykum

What a great thread, may I join in.

I realise you have moved on considerably from the original question but I would like to answer it anyway, hope thats ok.

I was born a Christian and converted to Islam a few years ago. Here are my reasons for leaving Christianity (my comments are to express my own reasons and not meant to offend anyone):

1. Even as a child I could not make myself believe that Jesus (pbuh) was the actual son on G-d. I believed Jesus (pbuh) was chosen by G-d to teach us and that he was truly 'good' (sorry can't think of the right word).

2. I became so disillusioned with the wealth the Christian churches hoarded while people were starving to death around the world.

3. I found out my own church (church of England) was created by king Henry VIII because he wanted to get divorced & marry his young floosy- hello did someone lose the plot a little? I want to commit adultery so I'll just start a new church/religion!!

4. Original sin - where on earth did that one come from? Jesus (pbuh) was born a Jew and as far as I am aware Jews do not believe in original sin so are people suggesting that G-d forgot to mention it before the advent of Christianity?

5. In England matters of the church of England are settled by Acts of Parliament (can you imagine George Bush deciding what we are to believe - omg don't even go there). So here in England the Privy Council decided that hell was no longer necessary to Christianity "ok lads we dont like the sound of hell so we'll just get rid of it, there we go no more hell".

6. The final straw was when I realised that man (as always) had taken it upon themselves to add to the word of G-d. One good example is Leviticus 21:16-23 - disabled people are not allowed to 'approach to offer the food of G-d' i.e., approach the altar. It just went against everything I had been taught about being a Christian. I felt that not only should they approach but we should help them get there.

At this point I left the church but not G-d.

So is Christianity a negative religion - Not in itself but mankind has made it negative, as they do with all religions. Look at Islam, Muslims can't agree what time it is let alone on the interpretations of the Quran (I might get stoned for that one). It is my humble belief that we need to forget about all the scholars and priests and go back to reading the words of G-d, He made them simple and clear if we just open our hearts and read them without trying to 'interpret' them to our own desires.

Salaam

 

[lunamoth]

as salaam aleykum

What a great thread, may I join in.

I realise you have moved on considerably from the original question but I would like to answer it anyway, hope thats ok.

Hi Muslimwoman...of course you can join in! We did go a bit off-track there didn't we?

I was born a Christian and converted to Islam a few years ago. Here are my reasons for leaving Christianity (my comments are to express my own reasons and not meant to offend anyone):

1. Even as a child I could not make myself believe that Jesus (pbuh) was the actual son on G-d. I believed Jesus (pbuh) was chosen by G-d to teach us and that he was truly 'good' (sorry can't think of the right word).

2. I became so disillusioned with the wealth the Christian churches hoarded while people were starving to death around the world.

3. I found out my own church (church of England) was created by king Henry VIII because he wanted to get divorced & marry his young floosy- hello did someone lose the plot a little? I want to commit adultery so I'll just start a new church/religion!!

4. Original sin - where on earth did that one come from? Jesus (pbuh) was born a Jew and as far as I am aware Jews do not believe in original sin so are people suggesting that G-d forgot to mention it before the advent of Christianity?

5. In England matters of the church of England are settled by Acts of Parliament (can you imagine George Bush deciding what we are to believe - omg don't even go there). So here in England the Privy Council decided that hell was no longer necessary to Christianity "ok lads we dont like the sound of hell so we'll just get rid of it, there we go no more hell".

6. The final straw was when I realised that man (as always) had taken it upon themselves to add to the word of G-d. One good example is Leviticus 21:16-23 - disabled people are not allowed to 'approach to offer the food of G-d' i.e., approach the altar. It just went against everything I had been taught about being a Christian. I felt that not only should they approach but we should help them get there.

At this point I left the church but not G-d.

I can certainly understand how you find these negative and disillusioning aspects of Christianity. I think at least some of them are not quite an accurate view of Christianity, but then again that probably depends upon one's perspective and experience. When I left Christianity for the first time I actually held some of these same conceptions, but for the most part my knowledge of Christianity then was just pretty shallow and not enough to be compelling to me as a way of life (haha! not that I am some kind of scholar now! Most people here run circles around me...but I'm still learning).

So is Christianity a negative religion - Not in itself but mankind has made it negative, as they do with all religions. Look at Islam, Muslims can't agree what time it is let alone on the interpretations of the Quran (I might get stoned for that one). It is my humble belief that we need to forget about all the scholars and priests and go back to reading the words of G-d, He made them simple and clear if we just open our hearts and read them without trying to 'interpret' them to our own desires.

Salaam

Apparently there are some similarities between Christianity and Islam then when it comes to how we actually go about trying to live out the faith. People are people the world around.

One thing about the Leviticus passage. Christians do not follow the Leviticus law, and I think that much of it is hard for us to really understand unless we are also very familiar with Jewish oral tradition and law. Perhaps Bananabrain, one of our Jewish members, will notice this and perhaps ease your mind a bit about that law. I'm surprised that this presented a difficulty for you actually because in all of my years in the Episcopal Church, which is also part of the Anglican Communion, I've never heard anything to suggest that the Church would say it is improper for the disabled to approach the alter. My goodness, quite often we have a disabled person do the offeratory at our chruch. Certainly this is not a law that is actually practiced in any Anglican Church you've attended?

 

[taijasi]

At this point I left the church but not G-d.

So is Christianity a negative religion - Not in itself but mankind has made it negative, as they do with all religions. Look at Islam, Muslims can't agree what time it is let alone on the interpretations of the Quran (I might get stoned for that one). It is my humble belief that we need to forget about all the scholars and priests and go back to reading the words of G-d, He made them simple and clear if we just open our hearts and read them without trying to 'interpret' them to our own desires.

Salaam

Amen to that! ... and Salaam Alaikum

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

Luke 1:37: "For with God nothing shall be impossible"

Remember, Thomas, quoting out of context to illustrate one's point - we do change the original meaning of the scriptures. Note the preceding passage:

And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren (Luke 1:36)​

People say things everyday, like "Anything's possible!" Yet none of us expects a newborn SUN, a star of Sirian proportions, to suddenly appear next to the Earth, go supernova, and bring a Heavenly HOST of new stars - and new Humanities - into being in the twinkling of an eye.

Why?

Because God does not WORK this way.

And therefore, respectfully submitted, you have misquoted Luke 1:37. All things may be governed by God's Science, yet God does OPERATE outside of, or contrary to that science, relative to Humanity, and to manifest Cosmos.

This brings us to ...

... as I understand Brahminic and Buddhist eschatology, there is no stipulation that a person must fulfill a required number of lifetimes, or that a person cannot attain the highest within any given lifetime?

Nope. Nor even, when Theosophists refer to one Mahatma's teaching that there are 777 symbolic lifetimes, is this number meant in any other wise than to illustrate an IDEA. The actual number provided, is usually understood to be many thousands.

Theosophy, as the Eastern doctrines, teach that we can increase the number of lifetimes necessary to reach enlightenment, or we can shorten our journey around the Wheel. This is exactly the same as increasing one's suffering in the afterlife, based on living a life of wickedness, or sin ... versus shortening the time, and the intensity, of suffering.

If Christ tells us that "As we sow, so shall we reap," and "As we mete it out, so shall it be meted out unto us," then I'm not at all clear as to why, or how, Christians get out of this very straightforward teaching that somehow, the afterlife will be different ... for say, two different people who are each penitent, yet one man in the name of Krishna, or Ormazd (Ahura Mazda), and another man in the name of Allah, JHVH, or Jesus.

As for the notion we find in exoteric Tibetan Buddhism, such as the teaching that His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso by name, is literally the 14th incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, one and the same great soul ... I don't know many esotericists or Theosophists who would actually believe this. It is regarded, as much else, as an exoteric application of the idea of rebirth.

Likewise, to say that ANYONE - regardless of circumstance - can attain to the highest enlightenment in a single lifetime ... this too, while it is not really conceivable even by a stretch of the imagination - is meant to encourage us, and to inspire us to strive for enlightenment AS IF we will actually attain it in this very life. Just think how much better the results, than if we shrug our shoulders and say to ourself, "Why bother. It's gonna take a hundred more lives anyway!"

I think Nick would confirm that we are looking at a case of wishful thinking as far as getting to ParaNirvana with a snap of the fingers (i.e., in "this very lifetime," unless we're considering an extremely advanced Initiate, or Master, who has already attained this-step-but-one-remove in his/her most recent incarnation).

Yes, it was said, with Faith as a grain of mustard seed, mountains can be moved, and trees can be uprooted and planted in the sea. I believe this. And there are those alive, today, Who CAN do this.

There's another reason I see Christianity as sometimes coming across as negative, depending on who is emphasizing what. In sharing with a person of another religion, or another spiritual understanding, it is never polite - or helpful, ecumenical, or friendly - to seek to downplay that other person's Faith, especially in definite, Venerated Saints (Prophets, Divine Emissaries, Saviors, etc.).

Nor is it helpful, or friendly, to speak ill of another person's Ideal(s), and Values, when what these largely amount to - is simply another way of expressing the GOOD, and intimating a desire to draw near to, and experience, this Good.

I think it is a patently offensive notion, to suggest that Love is somehow discriminatory, and would cease to enter in ... to the heart and mind of someone who is SEEKING God's love, yet is asking for that Love in the name, and tradition, of another Savior or Prophet other than Christ (Jesus).

And I will go to my grave, knowing, and believing this. LOVE does not stop, and ask directions. She knows where to go, how to flow. It is our job, to either be a conduit, a channel, a director ... of this Divine energy -

- or else get outta the way, and let somebody else who isn't so bogged down.

And that person, who is bogged down, they probably should be the first one to receive the flow, as it passes through us, and reaches out into the world.

Luna, I hope this slight op-ed bit is understood in the spirit in which it is intended, because I think it says a great deal (for me, at least) about what is one of the fastest ways to turn off another person, about Christianity. It's not just Christianity, it's anyone, really, who says one thing, yet behaves in another way entirely.

The examples I provide, can be applied to anyone, speaking about any spiritual path ... so I'm not looking for "amen's" with regard to Christian hypocrisy. That isn't my point.

I'm just curious to understand why there is such a limitation of Theosophy possibility?

There are many details provided in Theosophical literature regarding duration of time spent in between incarnations, yet it is stressed that the Soul exists beyond time, space, and even conceptuality, as we are used to thinking. Thus, who's to say whether in "the twinkling of an eye" the Soul has experienced a short eternity in Heaven (Devachan) ... or whether 1000 years is literally like a day?

The limitation is not one of possibility, except according to Divine Laws governing all of manifest being. Theosophists believe that, while these are not inflexible, they are not waved for any group of people, for any reason. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander - yet the opportunity to hasten our evolution is available TO ALL.


And how we may do this, is taught in no uncertain terms. The Road is difficult, and the Path is thorny, yet I see similarities to the Christian Teaching in the Theosophical `Golden Stairs,' shared by HPB:

A clean life, an open mind,
A pure heart, an eager intellect,
An unveiled spiritual perception,
A brotherliness for all,

A readiness to give and receive advice and instruction,
A loyal sense of duty to the Teacher,
A willing obedience to the behests of TRUTH,
Once we have placed our confidence in,
And believe that Teacher to be in possession of it;

A courageous endurance of personal injustice,
A brave declaration of principles,
A valiant defence of those who are unjustly attacked,
And a constant eye to the ideal of human progression
And perfection which the secret science depicts-

These are the golden stairs
Up the steps of which the learner may climb
To the Temple of Divine Wisdom​

 

[Muslimwoman]

Most people here run circles around me...but I'm still learning).

The day that a scholar stops learning is the day they cease to be a scholar. We are all learning, every day and ensh'allah will be learning until the end of our days.

Apparently there are some similarities between Christianity and Islam then when it comes to how we actually go about trying to live out the faith. People are people the world around.)

Oh no my favourite soap box topic - sorry. This is a fight I have with so many people, Muslims as well as non Muslims. There are so many similarities between Judaism, Christianity and Islam and of course there are, they all come from the same source. So why all the fighting???? Just look at the basic laws of each religion you have the 10 commandments - these can all be found in the Torah (I am told) and Quran.

The Ten Commandments given to Moses are these: (abbreviated form)

1. You shall not worship any other god but YHWH. First pillar of Islam
2. You shall not make a graven image. Guess what we are not allowed to do!
3. You shall not take the name of YHWH in vain. And again
4. You shall not break the Sabbath. We have Friday.
5. You shall not dishonor your parents. Respect for parents - huge in Islam.
6. You shall not murder. Yep for us too.
7. You shall not commit adultery Think we top the bill there
8. You shall not steal. Yes it's haraam (forbidden)
9. You shall not commit perjury. We are not allowed to lie
10. You shall not covet. No coveting here.

I would not dare to speak for the Jewish faith but perhaps a Jewish friend could confirm whether these commandments are included in their teachings.

Sorry it's just that all this 'we are different' stuff just makes my blood boil.

Certainly this is not a law that is actually practiced in any Anglican Church you've attended?

No. I read an article years ago about an old priest that asked a disabled person to stay hidden behind a pillar so as not to offend people and quoted Leviticus. Offend people? - how offensive can you get?

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

Amen to that! ... and Salaam Alaikum

wa aleykum salaam

 

[lunamoth]

Oh that's a very good post.

Oh no my favourite soap box topic - sorry. This is a fight I have with so many people, Muslims as well as non Muslims. There are so many similarities between Judaism, Christianity and Islam and of course there are, they all come from the same source. So why all the fighting???? Just look at the basic laws of each religion you have the 10 commandments - these can all be found in the Torah (I am told) and Quran.

Oh yes, the ten commandments are very much in the Torah. That's the original!

The Ten Commandments given to Moses are these: (abbreviated form)

1. You shall not worship any other god but YHWH. First pillar of Islam
2. You shall not make a graven image. Guess what we are not allowed to do!
3. You shall not take the name of YHWH in vain. And again
4. You shall not break the Sabbath. We have Friday.
5. You shall not dishonor your parents. Respect for parents - huge in Islam.
6. You shall not murder. Yep for us too.
7. You shall not commit adultery Think we top the bill there
8. You shall not steal. Yes it's haraam (forbidden)
9. You shall not commit perjury. We are not allowed to lie 10. You shall not covet. No coveting here.

I think we could find even more similarities if we were to look for them.

I would not dare to speak for the Jewish faith but perhaps a Jewish friend could confirm whether these commandments are included in their teachings.

Very much so as the ten commandments given to Moses are first found in the Torah, the Law of the Jewish religon.

And after the ten commandments (found in Dueteronomy, here) we find what Jesus in the NT tells us is the first of the two greatest commandments:

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. [a] 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

and in Leviticus the other greatest commandment:

but love your neighbor as yourself[/I]. I am the LORD.

The NT version:

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. [e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' [f] 31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' [g] There is no commandment greater than these."

32 "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

Of course you know these well.

No. I read an article years ago about an old priest that asked a disabled person to stay hidden behind a pillar so as not to offend people and quoted Leviticus. Offend people? - how offensive can you get?

People are people the world around...too often we abuse scripture to justify our own prejudices.

Salaam

peace to you as well,
luna