Tolle, or Eastern approaches vs. Christianity

[joe]

Thanks for the Tolle/Walsch clip- interesting.

When Christians personify spirituality by constantly talking about He and Him etc., how can we translate that if we can agree that the symbols stand for universal principles? Why so much emphasis on a particular man, Jesus, and his particular words and actions? It seems like this literalism is very insistent and can't be simply thought of as symbolic but actual. Christians will not agree that these are just personifications of larger spiritual truths. They will insist on the specificity of Jesus.

[joe]

So is the reference to individuals (God and Jesus) simply a symbolic methodology? Can it really be expanded to a broader spirituality, or is it fundamentally different? If only symbolic, why the intense specificity, especially when Christians along with non-Christians will admit of the symbolic dimension in the names. If fundamentally different, is it powerful simply because it's the right blend of humanness, effective symbolism and habit? Or is there a fundamental structure it fulfills that we can't find in Eastern non-personifying mystical traditions?

[smiileyjen101]

how can we translate that if we can agree that the symbols stand for universal principles?

We can, and already have. It's called The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and associated Conventions.

We even weave 'stories' around them to capture audience attention. The same power struggles, and group think apply.

[joe]

Can you clarify?

[Webwanderer]

Joe, you might find it interesting to do a study of word origins and meanings. For example, the word sin is derived from an old archery term 'syn'. This word meant 'off the mark'. Consider that 'on the mark' is the bull's eye or center. Centered is something often referred to today as being aligned with our true nature. Off the mark then becomes out of alignment or off center. For whatever reason we think of sin as being something morally wrong rather than just out of alignment. Maybe believing that we are separate from Source is the original sin. It is certainly 'off the mark'. Maybe also, an aspect of alignment is aligning with words intended meaning.

Remembering is another (the English vocabulary is full of them). What is a member? Thinking of it in a greater context we are members of the greater spirit of Source. To 're-member' then is re-cognize and re-align with our true nature and origin.

'Spirit' itself means 'breath'. Inspire, inspiration, respirate. Are we not an element of the breath of Source? It's really a fun and 'in-sight-full' study.

WW

[joe]

That is interesting, however I have not received a response yet that really goes to the heart of my question.

It seems the primary difference I'm relating is one of a belief system that personifies spirituality into human and male terms vs. a way of understanding that is broader and takes into account the values that all religions and spiritual approaches to life contain. The question again is, why is there a dominance of narrative and personification in Christianity? Why are Christians always talking about "His" word and "His Son"? What's prayer in the form of talking to someone all about? If that someone were indeed believed to be a spirit and we understood we are just using language symbolically, why does it get so insistently specific (i.e. He is telling us/His command is/He gave us life, etc.)? What are we to make of this?

[Webwanderer]

The question again is, why is there a dominance of narrative and personification in Christianity?

(I'll give you my take. Do with it what you will.)

Power to the orthodoxy. Control the narrative and you control the minds that follow it. Money, prestige and power follow.

Why are Christians always talking about "His" word and "His Son"?

By creating a mindset of the exclusivity of Jesus being the 'only' begotten son, it makes Christianity and the Bible the only path to being saved from sin and 'Heaven' as a reward for professing Jesus as Savior. Fear of 'Satan' and hell awaits those who stray.

Of course other religions ingrain their youth in exclusivity of their religion in their own way (Mohammed being the 'only' prophet), but Christianity boasts the actual Son of God. There are plenty of Bible scriptures to back it up, but you have to ingrain the Bible as infallible and fully inspired by God to make it work.

What's prayer in the form of talking to someone all about?

Again, it's born of the belief that man is separate from God. It's not all bad, but thinking a separate God picks winners and losers by way of answering prayers seems a bit distorted.

WW

[joe]

Good points, but fairly negative.

Let's look at Christianity as something more serious, as it certainly has proven by it's longevity and influence that it has something to teach. Should we just translate all the He's and Him's as some other term or terms or can that not be done because of the specificity of the narratives?

[Webwanderer]

Should we just translate all the He's and Him's as some other term or terms or can that not be done because of the specificity of the narratives?

We can, and I do when I look at scripture or religious terminology. But it's just too ponderous for me at this point in my evolution to study more religion when there are clearer sources of information. For that matter a degree of translation is appropriate for a lot in life teachings. Science and philosophy have their own 'truths' that are better understood through a degree of personal translation. I think we all have to make adjustments to what we explore to make the best use of any teachings.

WW

[smiileyjen101]

The question again is, why is there a dominance of narrative and personification in Christianity?

Because that is what Christians believe - they believe in the dominance and narrative and personification in Christ.
They have honed their moral code to be personified - Christ the example, Christians the followers of the example.

There is no reason beyond this, it is what it is. If you are truly to be a Christian then one must by definition believe in the Christ persona and the associated code of conduct to best replicate his deeds.

Why are Christians always talking about "His" word and "His Son"?

Because they believe in Christ, as 'the way and the light' - the only way (in)to the light.

What's prayer in the form of talking to someone all about? If that someone were indeed believed to be a spirit and we understood we are just using language symbolically, why does it get so insistently specific (i.e. He is telling us/His command is/He gave us life, etc.)? What are we to make of this?

This is the call to authority outside of ourselves - that something bigger than us, more wise, more perfect, more pure knows better than we do - when in fact all of our responses are within our own limits of awareness, capacity and willingness. In a way it allows external locus of control and once you give over to it, then you don't have to personally take responsibility for your living your life. The church structures - social, political and cultural - regardless of the 'religion' then get built around protecting and using that 'power' (personal response ability) that folks have abdicated.

In texts and meanings and persuasive communication one utilises ethos, pathos and logos and the scriptures were chosen (probably unknowingly to the degree that we understand persuasive communication now, but nonetheless for their impact in successful persuasion. You have to remember at the time the scriptures were written the Christians, those who believed differently to the dominant moral, social and political forces, were risking their lives to believe and behave differently.

Ethos is an appeal to ethics, and it is a means of convincing someone of the character or credibility of the persuader. By his deeds and fame etc etc what's not to believe about Jesus Christ?
Pathos is an appeal to emotion, and is a way of convincing an audience of an argument by creating an emotional response - this may be in fear, anger, compassion, love, or any of the emotions.
Logos is an appeal to logic, and is a way of persuading an audience by reason. This, therefore that. If this, then that.

As long as you can get agreement from the audience on all three elements - the ethics/morality of a thing, the emotional benefits/acceptance of a thing and the logic / reason of a thing, then you have the audience's total acceptance > belief.

So by definition all religions are a narrative with a whole lot of structure built around it to maintain or enforce the ethos, pathos, logos to maintain 'belief'.

So too with all individual perspectives that create or subscribe to belief.
A belief needs an underlying structure. A belief needs ethos, pathos, logos to be satisfied. A belief is stronger if it has more subscribers (power in majority) harder to argue against.

A belief needs you to believe in it.

The truth just sits there whether you believe in it or not.

[joe]

Whose truth?

If you are not Christian, what is the significance of Jesus and how might Christianity provide a way into truth?

What are the alternatives to organized religion? Can you be spiritual without a discipline? And can you have a discipline without beliefs?

[phantombaz]

Hi,
What you have to understand, is that all are the same, in teaching, all the lessons point to the same thing, once you see this you see the truth in the teaching, not all teaching are pointing to what is, again misinterpretation in the lesson is easy if you dont see the true, the that is.. However, the reason why we know they are all the same teaching, is to do with word forms and the illusion of words. Buddha, Jesus, Tolle, Monks, Sages all talk about it. its only down us "humans" that there is a big separation in these teaching, the group ego, often leading to the "you wrong and I'm correct" mind set.
Dont focus so much on what is said, but rather the lesson that are being taught.. see the truth in the teaching.

[DavidB]

Hi joe,

At the depths of Yeshua's message is the idea of love, forgiveness, compassion and unity. The whole narrative is essentially a pointer, sign post, pointing toward this realization.

Yeshua's message was as simple as this; the apparent separation, all though not really separate, is a manifestation of human consciousness. In other words, the apparent separation is only an illusion. There is no separation except for the one we perceive.

Unfortunately, most Christian have fallen for the false notion that humans are inherently evil, as does Islam. This was a notion that crept into Christianity a very long time ago, probably at about the same time as Islam spread into Europe, but I can't be certain.

The truth is, that we are inherently beautiful, all inherently divine.

Love is not of this world, Love comes into this world through us. So in essence, God consciousness is made manifest into this world through us. If we are not being that manifestation of love, then we are not being who we ought to be, and therefore, manifesting dysfunction.

Cheers.

[smiileyjen101]

Whose truth?

the truth belongs to nobody.
The truth is available to everybody.
the truth 'is'.

If you are not Christian, what is the significance of Jesus and how might Christianity provide a way into truth?

Every experience and every expression is divine. Christianity might point some in understanding this, but for me as soon as it falls from grace, falls from love - falls away from gratitude & generosity, falls to making enemy, obstacle, means to an end--- religious ego has entered and covered up the truth. Not saying Jesus did this, but the church certainly has. Not saying there is no truth in the church, for truth is everywhere underneath the fears and fallacies and things that must be believed.

What are the alternatives to organized religion?

Love. (Don Miguel Ruiz: Love, is the equilibrium of gratitude and generosity).

Love can guide you whether you are any of the religions or none of them at all.

Can you be spiritual without a discipline?

Can you be spiritual with one?

And can you have a discipline without beliefs?

I doubt it.

[joe]

Of course spirituality requires discipline!