Re the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is a whole lot older than "modern"
Christianity.":
Indeed, the doctrine was dismissed by Parmenides in the 5th centruy BC with
his remark "Nothing comes from nothing". Can't fault that logic!
There is a whole shed load of doctrines a whole lot older than "modern"
Christianity; the problem is modern Christians are still stuck with them.
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote:
One can "see" how others might "see" this or that without necessarily going
along with it oneself, especially when it comes to "what Christ realized and
taught," given that we have no historical record of same. Plus which, any
exposition of nondualism in "plain speech" is automatically highly suspect,
words being, you know, dualistic. And when you find yourself talking about
"Advaita positions," things get really dicey.
Oh, and the doctrine of ex nihilo is a whole lot older than "modern"
Christianity.
Seraphita wrote:
Re "The writer is making a distinction between (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity
and Western Christianity and how and why they diverged after the first roughly
four centuries following Christ's death (and presumably his Resurrection).":
Yep - and I'm making a distinction between what Christ himself realised and
taught and what the Church (east and west) later came to teach.
Jesus *obviously* saw the truth of the Advaita position - "I and My Father Are
One" - and once you see that you also see that Original Sin and the
Forgiveness of Sins are two sides of the same coin - that there is One Self
("Christ Consciousness") which each of "us" is at root.
The reason modern Christians can't acknowledge that blindingly obvious fact is
that they have to maintain the fiction that each soul was created ex nihilo.
Only what isn't created is eternal. And what is eternal is the One Self. Read
the Gospel accounts and you have to really work overtime not to see what Jesus
was pointing to! The theological argy-bargy in the linked article isn't a
problem IF you see that it is expressing in mythological terms what the
non-dualists set out in plain speech.
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote:
Seraphita wrote:
> "Who is on those pictures, Daddy?"
> He replied, "The Virgin Mary and Jesus."
> She picked up the icon, kissed it and hugged it to her chest exclaiming,
> >"Oh, daddy, they love you so much!"
>"Then," he told me, "We understood. It's all about affection."
>
> If it's really all about affection who needed Christianity? People have
> been affectionate to their friends and family since time immemorial. And
> one can't be *affectionate* to one's enemies!
Odd that you didn't quote the very next sentence:
"Love, in fact, is the heart and soul of the theology of the early Church
Fathers and of the Orthodox Church" (emphasis added).
That would be God's infinite love and compassion, not ordinary human affection.
The writer is making a distinction between (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity and
Western Christianity and how and why they diverged after the first roughly four
centuries following Christ's death (and presumably his resurrection). You'll
need to read the rest of the essay to understand what that distinction is all
about.
Your other points are something of a straw man where Eastern Christianity is
concerned, as you'll find if you read the rest of the essay. No version of
Christianity can be really consonant with TM metaphysics, but it appears to me
that there are some elements of Eastern Christian theology that are more
resonant with TM than those of Western theology. (emptybill,
corrections/reflections solicited.)
> Here's the simple alternative. If you look at the basic Advaita-Vedanta
> "outlook" isn't it saying that there is in reality only One Self. It is only
> in
> appearance that there are many of "us". If therefore any one individual
> sins we've all sinned as there is no difference between us *in reality*.
> One man slips up - Adam - and we all take a pratfall. No man is an
> island.
>
> But if you recognise that there is just the Self as the one actor how can
> any one man be guilty? - that is precisely to imagine oneself apart from
> the whole. The forgiveness of sins balances Original Sin.
