David Quinn wrote:You mean the same Jesus who said things like, “It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying, 'Here it is', or 'There it is'. Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it".....
It’s interesting to note that Jesus deliberately confined himself to parables when speaking publicly because he knew that his message was far too subtle and difficult to grasp by the average person. Even his closest disciples had difficulty understanding his teachings. And yet here you are, Laird, turning this subtle, difficult-to-grasp message into a simple, common-place fantasy that any dull-witted fellow can follow.
David, you can cherry-pick quotes from a gnostic-influenced, non-canonical gospel, but an honest reading of the canonical gospels reveals a very different picture. For example, Luke 13, 23:30:
Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”
He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’
“Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’
“But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’
“There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”
Notice that Jesus talks about the possibility of being "saved", and of "entering" a literal heaven, and about himself being the gatekeeper to that heaven. Clearly there is some form of judgement
by Christ going on - self-validation isn't going to cut it. Clearly there is a literal "place" where feasting occurs, from which people can be barred - by Christ, not by their own minds.
Or how about Matthew 7, 21-32?
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Again, we have entry to heaven based on doing the "will" of Christ's Father - clearly a personal God, for only personal entities have wills. Notice, too, that the Father is already
in heaven - clearly a literal place. Notice, too, and again, that judgement as to whether a person may or may not enter heaven is by Christ, not by self-validation. Notice, finally, that Christ refers to "that day" - clearly a literal day of judgement.
Or how about John 6, 38-40?
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
Notice that Jesus refers to heaven as a literal place from which he has "come down" (how do you "come down" from enlightenment?). Notice again that he is doing the "will" of a personal God. Notice mention of a "last day", and the raising up of the dead - clearly, this is a literal resurrection, for the purpose of judgement by Christ as to whether or not the individual is fit for eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.
Or how about John 18, 36?
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
Notice reference to Christ's kingdom as another "place", "not of this world" - i.e. heaven is a place other than this world.
I could go on, but you get the point. David, your game is tired. You turn Jesus into what you want him to be, in support of your weak notion of spirituality, rather than allowing the majesty of his true message to be revealed.
David Quinn wrote:"Oh Lord, get me out of this world! But don't take any actual part of me, as I hate all of myself as well!"
:-/ You're worse than Russell.
David Quinn wrote:On the contrary, the "human contrivance" part is the critical element. It is the key difference between the two activities.
Oh, stuff and nonsense. Enlightenment is, in any case, as much a human contrivance as is soccer - both have been defined and
refined by people over the ages.
David Quinn wrote:In any case, you get kooks within all spheres of life - even within religion where "validation" by "qualified third parties" is the norm. In fact, we can safely say that kooks run rampant in religion.
Kookiness can only be countered by increasing levels of truthfulness and honesty by each of us as individuals. By taking responsibility as individuals. Passing the buck onto "qualified third parties" is part of the problem, not the solution.
Certainly, I agree that we need strong personal commitments to truthfulness and honesty, but if you think that's enough, then you're badly mistaken. I don't believe that you possess that commitment in any case - you are too loath to admit your mistakes. You are, in fact, one of "those" kooks who thinks he's enlightened. And nothing anyone says is going to sway you. You've convinced yourself.
David Quinn wrote:True, no sane person would waste his whole life studying mathematics.
And yet you said that this is exactly what you would do. The point is, we are beholden to experts in all sorts of areas of our lives, and we cannot afford the time to become experts ourselves so as to judge them.
David Quinn wrote:But spirituality is a different matter. The future of one's own soul is at stake. It is far too important a task to leave it to others.
Oh man, you crap on. You don't even believe in a soul, yet you're quite happy to trade on the implications of the term.
David Quinn wrote:That passage was actually part of a larger point I was making. Here are the next few passages from that part of the debate
OK, I accept that you
did, after all, state explicit agreement with Nagarjuna's doctrine of indistinctness. Turns out it was me who hadn't read the debate closely enough (more like it's been too long between writing my analysis and posting it). My bad.