Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Fork-in-the-road territory. Always stimulating.

Tonglen practice is beneficial and does not conflict with Christianity.

No, sorry...it sure does "conflict." They have nothing in common, actually.

You're wrong.

No, I'm right. I don't need to go into all the details, because there are many, many of them; but for a start, the whole worldview required in order to practice tonglen is a denial of the entire Christian worldview.

So yeah, they're in direct conflict, and at the most basic sorts of levels.

[Walker]

No, sorry...it sure does "conflict." They have nothing in common, actually.

You're wrong.

No, I'm right. I don't need to go into all the details, because there are many, many of them; but for a start, the whole worldview required in order to practice tonglen is a denial of the entire Christian worldview.

So yeah, they're in direct conflict, and at the most basic sorts of levels.

No, you're wrong, for the reasons already stated.

[Immanuel Can]

You're wrong.

No, I'm right. I don't need to go into all the details, because there are many, many of them; but for a start, the whole worldview required in order to practice tonglen is a denial of the entire Christian worldview.

So yeah, they're in direct conflict, and at the most basic sorts of levels.

No, you're wrong, for the reasons already stated.

I'm right. I know my theology. And anybody who does, and who looks at the particulars of tonglen, is going to know the same. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Walker]

No, I'm right. I don't need to go into all the details, because there are many, many of them; but for a start, the whole worldview required in order to practice tonglen is a denial of the entire Christian worldview.

So yeah, they're in direct conflict, and at the most basic sorts of levels.

No, you're wrong, for the reasons already stated.

I'm right. I know my theology. And anybody who does, and who looks at the particulars of tonglen, is going to know the same. Sorry to disappoint you.

You're wrong again. I told you the particulars of Tonglen. The effects are not belief dependent, although they can be interpreted through a belief system, such as Christianity.

And, your ignorance concerning the topic does not disappoint me. Quite often do I not only need to write it, I need to supply the understanding too.

If only they would listen, there would be no problems. Eh?

[henry quirk]

Seems to me: all we need is a means of binding arbitration.

Yeah, that's tough, though. Who gets to "bind" is the problem.

Not who but what.

At least with democracy, the selfishness of others is counterbalanced by votes from the other side, which, if nothing else, etiolates the powers of authority until they can do minimal damage.

Sounds wonderful till you're the one gettin' screwed by attenuated authority. Ah, Henry, quit yer bellyachin'! You'll get the chance to turn them tables in >insert time till next election<!

Nope. Doesn't work for me.

A bad arbitrator is voted down or voted out, eventually. In unilateral arbitration, if it works it works, but if the arbitrator's a jerk, it's really bad.

If you have a plain as day principle/law, abuses are plain as day. Couple this with the plain as day threat of public hanging for proxies who abuse their gifted authority, and you'll see reform.

[Immanuel Can]

I told you the particulars of Tonglen.

I went one better. Having never heard of it before, I went and looked it up. It's not Christian, nor is it compatible with it. It's Buddhist, empty-minded, quietistic, devoid of God, devoid of any understanding of human "compassion" or sin, pantheistic, magical-thinking...and on and on.

It's totally premised on a completely different worldview. Sorry. No go.

[Walker]

I told you the particulars of Tonglen.

I went one better. Having never heard of it before,...

"Nuff said. I ain't here to set you right.
'Specially since I already have.
Since my words did not cause confusion, you sought it elsewhere.

[attofishpi]

I told you the particulars of Tonglen.

I went one better. Having never heard of it before, I went and looked it up. It's not Christian, nor is it compatible with it. It's Buddhist, empty-minded, quietistic, devoid of God, devoid of any understanding of human "compassion" or sin, pantheistic, magical-thinking...and on and on.

You really are limiting your thinking if you think God is not pantheistic. Explain water turning to wine without such a theistic comprehension of reality.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I ain't here to set you right.

I’ve got that angle covered, Walker.

[Immanuel Can]

I told you the particulars of Tonglen.

I went one better. Having never heard of it before,...

"Nuff said. I ain't here to set you right.

Well, one has to know both Buddhism and Christian theology to know what's wrong there. The differences are not trivial.

[Immanuel Can]

You really are limiting your thinking if you think God is not pantheistic.

If you say that, you either don't know what Pantheism is, or don't know what Christianity is, or both. Which it is, I can't say.

[attofishpi]

You really are limiting your thinking if you think God is not pantheistic.

If you say that, you either don't know what Pantheism is, or don't know what Christianity is, or both. Which it is, I can't say.

I know what Pantheism is, that all of nature being the universe included is God, but this is no personal God (contrary to my experiences). That leaves me with Panentheism, similar to Pantheism except this version has God as throughout the universe but extending beyond - seems multiverse is required - on the upside it permits for a personable God, confirmed by my experience.
So my version of Pantheism is a combination of the two - i'm not satisfied with a God that extends beyond the universe, but my version of Pantheism IS personable.
So what? Do I need to create a new version of "PAN" - as far as I am concerned I don't believe what we perceive as the entire universe is necessarily true or that it matters to believe this God extends throughout it beyond our perception of REALITY. Thus, Panperception, Panreality may be required to satisfy my comprehension of God and its attributes thus far.

Certainly, my version of Pantheism IS required to turn water into wine. God operates below sub-atomic reality thus water to wine plausible.

What do you think, does God not require sub-atomic control to manipulate atomic structures?

[promethean75]

Only a very few, among which are the Silver Surfer, Jean Grey, Scarlett Witch and Apocalypse, have that power.

[Lacewing]

You seem to be implying that we pre-existed in some context of reality prior to our present situation here on earth.

No, rather this (below)... which you agreed with.

I do not know or imagine what else we are or what else there is -- I simply think we are much more than this physical/human reality, and that our connectivity to ALL is way beyond this Earth experience.

I can agree with that.

Therefore, if we are something more than this physical/human reality, and our connectivity to ALL is way beyond this Earth, then why wouldn't there be the potential of us being part of the 'directing' and/or creation that brought us here? I'm not imagining anything more than that.

We are here doing this. Thinking there's something else doesn't necessarily help us do this any better.

I beg to differ, for I suggest that if every human on earth knew the true extent of the gift of life,...

You can differ with everything else that's said in order to insist on what you claim. Still, what I said is truthful and reasonable whether or not it serves your (or any other) particular mindset or agenda.

Regardless of whether I am right or wrong about the details, I am going to keep promoting a higher and more beautiful, equitable, and logical vision of reality.

Great. There are lots of ways people are going to keep doing what makes sense to them. Surely the Universe doesn't need anybody in particular to save the world.

What do you want other people to do about it?

I want other people to wake up to a new level of spiritual consciousness

I think there are lots of levels to 'wake up' from and to -- and maybe it is happening in many different ways and methods, all the time.

What kind of Universe would it be if all of this was a mistake?

[Dubious]

I think there are lots of levels to 'wake up' from and to -- and maybe it is happening in many different ways and methods, all the time.

What kind of Universe would it be if all of this was a mistake?

It certainly wouldn't be this universe in which total indifference precludes any conception of mistake. A failed process simply gets devoured by another process but not because it was a mistake neither in its beginning nor its end. Had we never existed or failed to survive that too would not have been a mistake...not according to any ruling cosmic protocol. To subsume a miscalculation category requires a conscious entity which can never exist within a state of frozen neutrality being the hallmark of the universe itself. There was never any design or necessity for all the forms which exist within it to ever have existed in the first place. It never even had to be in that fractilized version it eventually resolved to.