Re-incarnation - anyone told you yours ?

Nei Jia: the Qigong and Taijiquan Forum Qigong and Meditation
41

OK…

Ok, I do definately disagree that Paul was not appointed. Appointed by Christ is good enough for the Church. Accepted by the other original Apostles is also good enough for me. Don’t see a problem here frankly.

It does not really matter however, as Paul’s letters are part of the same Cannon that Peter’s letter are, and niether the Catholic Church, nor any mainline Protestant denominations (that I know of) seperate their teachings. Do you think their letters are somehow contradictory???

In fact, in patristic texts of the first and second centuries, Peter and Paul are mentioned together by many of the eary fathers of the immediate post-apostolic period. I guess I just don’t see the point. Never heard of tension of theological problems with Paul’s and Peter’s teachings??? In fact, Peter supports Pauls Letters in his own letters explicitly by name.

In fact, what is the issue here anyway? Are you trying to split apart the New Testament? Whassup?

42

Let me try to be a little more clear here Scott

I re-read your post. Ok. Let me make this statement. Christ appointed Paul as His Apostle according to the New Testament. There were witnesses to this event, and full concurrence withing the ‘original’ Apostles. When Paul met Peter, as the Holy Sripture says, their Gospels were identical with no disagreement.

You make it sound like Paul heisted the Church. Have you studied the Ante-Nicean period of Patristic Texts? Your conclusions are foreign to historical texts on this matter frankly.

Are you a modern proponent of Dispensational Theology by any chance?

43

Sorry guys…about the thread

I hope Scott and I are not killing this thread. Perhaps we could take this one to email. Mine is in my profile.

Please let me know if this is disturbing the forum, and I will take it offline with Scott cuz Scott and I have not even scratched the scratch on the surface. I spent 5 years of my life studying this small area of interest to me!!! Whew! Thanks!

44

CD LEE,

No, I am not attempting to split the teachings. In fact, I respect them very much, as I do Paul and the early Church fathers; I just disagree with the mainstream Christian attempts to validate the truth of the teachings through circular reasoning and other invalid arguments.

I believe that Truth speaks for itself and that the Truths of the Bible are self-evident through independent, individual investigation, and practice in one’s life. I believe that the Church embarrasses itself by using invalid arguments in an attempt to prove the truth of its teachings when it is unnecessary. The Truth stands on it’s own that is why it is the Truth.

To me the bottom line is not whether Christ is the actual son of God or metaphorically the son of God. I care about the truth of his teachings and the teachings of the other church fathers. I believe that the Church should focus on demonstrating the practical Truth the Bible teaches and how it can be demonstrated through living its teachings.

I respect Christians very much. I do not respect Christians that proselytize and do not understand the simple rules of rational argument i.e. “You believe by having faith and have faith by believing.” I am not applying these comments to you is particular. So far it appears that you are very well informed and educated concerning these matters.

Sincerely,
Scott

45

CD LEE,

I has been years since I have studied these matters. My memory tells me that Peter and Paul did have some doctrinal issues to iron out. One of which was the inclusion of gentiles into the Church body. You are clearly presently better read I on these issuesthan I and I will defer to your expertise if you correct my memory.

Sincerely,
Scott

46

Nice response Scott

Good post. I guess we agree for the most part on a LOT. :smiley:

You are correct on the inclusion of Gentiles. This was a ‘question’ that arose in the very early Church. That is the main reason for the Council of Jeruselem recounted in Acts. After that authoritative council, this issue was resolved.

I think you have been exposed to a lot of Fundamentlist Evangelical brothers in the faith, am I right??? No offence to them, but I have the exact same problems with the logic you speak of.
I was raised with this circular logic, and was totally frustrated by it as a young adult.

The logic you refer to is not taught by any traditional authoritative theological bodies. It is usually ranted on by mis-informed followers.

The basic great divide of Christianity as a Religion vs. some eastern beleifs is that it is a religion of Revelation, not of discovery.

It frankly requires more than blind faith if want to do more than just hope you are right. An understanding of how the Bible became the Bible (Cannonization) and how it functions within the body of the Church is critical I think. Once you seperate the two, you get nothing but radical division in Christianity.

As far as Truth. Your man Paul, says in Romans the first chapter, that this truth is there to be seen by all, even without having an education knowlage of organized religion as you say. He does not say this in totality, but does say it.

I think a lot of this truth is self evident as you point out too. However, in any religion of revelation, the reason for the revelation is to impart truth that may otherwise, be unknown in specific terms. Therefore, the Church believes that there is a combination of the two certainly.

You would find it very intersting what the Catechism of the Catholic Church say reguarding other non-Chirstian religions. You would find more agreement there with your view than you may imagine.

I know this is a huge topic, but each element expands into volumes of information.

Let me say this reguarding your statement that Paul’s interpretations did anything. The Church interprets Paul’s letters, not the other way around. Some bodies focus more on Paul’s letters than others, but that is not the way the traditional church has operated. Any division in the Church is attributed to people interpreting Paul and others letters (The Bible) in different ways. Would that the Apostle Paul were here to put an end to this and tell us what he meant.

:

47

I remember…

I can only remember one thing. I cant remember where I was, or how it happened…

I died.
I can tell you I remember the weather, the climate, temperature, sounds, humidity (actually a lack thereof), tastes, smells, physical sensations… the total sensory package. If anyone is interested Ill go into detail.

It was not unpleasant, but I felt I was prevented from doing something important. This could explain the tremendous anger and self- medication of my youth, and how when this experience came out and was dealt with, most of… if not all of my rage issues went away.

48

also someone mentioned something about the population growing in spite of the fact so many claimed to be “warriors” and the like…

The human population may be growing, but how many species of animal become extinct each day?

how many of them come back as humans?

how many from god realms, hell realms, titan realms, ghost realms?

49

CD LEE,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. You were very astute in your conclusionn of my fundamentalist exposure. I like the reference to Christianity being a religion of revelation. I would call many Eastern religious traditions of realization. This would make their systems of apprehending Truth very similar.

Sincerely,
Scott

50

Yo Scott, you are more than welcome

I am way outta my element when talking Eastern anything except eating good Chinese food! But…

I thought DAo and Taoism, and Buddism (sp?) were religions of self discovery and observation? That is what I like so far about what I have heard. People observing the universe around them, learning about themselves, etc.

In other words, no Budda had this reveliation from some porported Diety, and said" here is truth that has been given to me by revelation(of another source other than himself).

Like Judaism is the God of Abraham communicating directly with Abraham…Christianity is Jesus claiming deity and telling others about a New coveneant. The Mormons had some Golden Tablets that were given externally to them (hmmm). You get the general idea.

Is it true or not that Taoism, and DAoism came from men discovering and describing the universe as they saw it and lived it? I am not too sure about Buddism at all. If true, I am amazed at the moral thread that joins a lot of the other religions in the world. Any thoughts?

Than

51

CD Lee,

Taoism and Daoism are the same thing. “Tao” is merely pronounced as “Dao” so you will see it spelled both ways, but it is the same word.

The purported history of Taoism is that the founders observed nature and its rhythms and discovered intelligent and repeating patterns. When observing nature they did not limit themselves to seasons, birds, trees, water, etc., but also observed man and his patterns of behavior and history. There appeared to these men a perceivable repeating pattern that conformed to specific rules. The goal of a Taoist is to perceive the patterns and conform oneself to the pattern. In Christianity it would be expressed as, “Not my will Lord, but thy will be done”. In Buddhism the goal is the same when one attempts to rid oneself of all desire. Desire is a manifestation of our humanistic ego attempting to force our individualistic will onto the universe. These are all the same principle at the core.

Taoists observed that the universe is composed of mutually interdependent yet exclusive principles symbolized by the Yin-Yang. Positive and negative influences ebb and flow in the continuous dance of life, each principle in turn having a season of dominance only to become subordinate again at a future season. Each principle possesses a small portion of its polar opposite; symbolizing that there is never total positive or total negative manifestations. The Yin-Yang also represents the essential oneness of these opposites. There are two principles manifested; yet they are at the same time merely differing aspects of the same universal principle. So the Yin-Yang represents the oneness of division and the division of oneness as they are manifested in creation and the constant ebb and flow of creation as it flows through time. Harmony/Happiness occurs as a consequence of conforming ourselves to this ebb and flow and not struggling against it. Knowing when to behave manifesting the Yin principle and when to behave manifesting the Yang principle is crucial.

Buddha, on the other hand, was a prince who was raised in opulence. He had occasion in his early adulthood to observe human suffering, an experience his father had protected him from. Troubled by the suffering he witnessed he questioned its underlying cause and sought to discover a method for eliminating suffering. He spent many years investigating various religious methods and found no solution to his dilemma. Finally giving up he sat down under a tree and vowed not to arise until he had solved the problem of the cause of suffering and its elimination. This is when he had his realization.

There are some on this BB that contend that Buddha did address the existence of a deity and of reincarnation. I contend that he did not address these issues, because their resolution is not pertinent to gaining enlightenment. I contend that these were latter additions made my men because of man’s emotional need for assurance that their identity continues after death.

Buddha’s intent was to solve the problem of emotional suffering, not address esoteric and occult matters. These other issues distract the individual and inhibit ones effort in overcoming the cause of suffering. In other words, so what if you live numerous lives and there is deity if you cannot effectively live this life because you are trapped by your own mind into patterns of behavior that cause suffering and pain. When an individual solves the problem of suffering these other issue become superfluous.

Sincerely,
Scott

52

rebirth

I found an essay relevant to rebirth by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Whether he’s right or not is a different question. You can find the essay (“Dhamma Without Rebirth?”) at www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/news/essay06.html

53

another interesting article by same guy

“Tolerance and Diversity”
description: An urgent question for the world today is how followers of one religious tradition can live in harmony with those who practice another, without compromising the integrity of their own tradition. The Buddha’s teachings of tolerance strike a delicate and wise balance that avoid the perilous extremes of intolerant fundamentalism on the one hand, and an “all-roads-lead-up-the-same-mountain” universalism on the other.

www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/news/essay24.html

About the Author:
"Bhikkhu Bodhi is a Buddhist monk of American nationality, born in New York City in 1944. After completing a doctorate in philosophy at the Claremont Graduate School, he came to Sri Lanka for the purpose of entering the Sangha. He received novice ordination in 1972 and higher ordination in 1973, both under the eminent scholar-monk, Ven. Balangoda Ananda Maitreya, with whom he studied Pali and Dhamma. He is the author of several works on Theravada Buddhism, including four translations of major Pali suttas along with their commentaries. Since 1984 he has been the Editor for the Buddhist Publication Society, and since 1988 its President.

54

Excellent post Scott. I found that quite informative. I know there is a lot more to it, but you know these western minds are so rigid. :slight_smile:

It is just good to know that experiencing Qi will not be channeling to demons as my past freinds would have told me. I always wondered for years why if this was the case, there were not more cases of mad demon possesed CMA intructors going around sacrificing people and stuff. And why do these guys teach all that ‘be good to other people’ stuff??? Then one day I turned on my brain swith and learned what an ignorant, arogant person I had been for so many years.

I will admit however, that I did feel a lot more confident when I knew all the answers in my younger years. :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

55

Great post Scott. One thing to be careful of also in the practicing of Taoism is how you take measure to the words of others. Often we hear the quote, ‘Those who speak do not know’ and ‘Those who know do not speak’. You will find something very similar to that in the Tao Te Ching.

This is saying that often when someone speaks about Taoism, people take them for their words and not the experiences, and so they lay weight on the words of the individual and begin to miss the entire point. The experiences must come with self-discovery, and when insight is gained, applied to ones self and then adjusted as it is necessary.

“When an individual solves the problem of suffering these other issue become superfluous.”

Well said Scott!

  • Nexus
56

Nexus,

Good point. Each individual should take the words of others as “the finger pointing the way” for them to search for, and know the truth for themselves.

Sincerely,
Scott