davidbrainerd wrote:You can take eating a piece of bread and call it a mystery but its not. There is nothing mystical there. Catholicism adopted the term "mysteries" from the mystery religions to sound cool, but its just lame. There is no mystery. Believe in Jesus or burn....no mystery at all. If any of the supposed mysteries or supposedly spiritual things in Christianity were really impressive, perhaps I'd still be a Christian. But the fact is its all just built on fear tactics: acknowledge these boring non-mystical things to be mysterious and mystical or burn. The fear keeps you impresssed with what is, in truth, utterly unimpressive. Its all very inauthentic and disingenuous.
Any religion can be subjected to the reductive analysis which you've given here. Again, you have an agenda to make you're True Buddhism and True Dharmic Religion and you're True Gnosticism as something special and mystical. We get it. Christianity is a dumb, unmystical, boring religion whose only concern is avoiding hell. You've decided that and you really want everyone else to see it the way you do and you want them to think we're just trying to make Christianity "cooler." We get it. I don't really care whether or not you believe in Christianity or think it's "cool" or not. I've stopped being a teenager a decade or so ago. I'm just here to provide counter-information to your misinformation.
(Religions don't act like teenagers. They don't adopt terms to seem cool. They adopt terms because they're part of the same society as their ideological opponents and want to express how their belief system contrasts with the other ones. But I guess that's not enough of a power-grab or a conspiracy for you.)
davidbrainerd wrote:Your theory of an abstract opponent doesn't work because he specifically asks "how is it that some of you are saying there is no resurrection?"
He is speaking to Christians at Corinth who are positing that there is no resurrection. Perhaps like modern Christians they think your soul goes straight to heaven upon death, no need for the body. But Paul freaks out. His whole argument is if there is no literal physical resurrection of the body then faith in Christ is vain. So, in other words, he wants to Judaize the Corinthians' Christianity, force them to believe in a physical resurrection. He was, after all, originally a Pharisee supposedly.
I was talking about the abstract opponent in 1 Corinthians 15:35 who is in disbelief that a nephesh could be restored to a decomposed or burned body to which Paul responds with the theology of the glorification of the body. I didn't realise you were dealing with 1 Corinthians 15:12.
You are correct in saying that he is admonishing the Christian community which he founded at Corinth. But you are incorrect in trying to hint that they positively hold to another theory of the afterlife and that Paul is "freaking out" and trying to quell reincarnation because he wants to make a power-grab. Rather, it seems like this group, like the group he's addressing in Thessalonians 4:13, is not yet familiar with the soteriological categories of Christianity or they're simply experiencing doubt, as do any adherent of any world religion. When I was at my fairly liberal and progressive university, we studied the letters of Paul from a scholarly and academic perspective and at no point was there ever mention of these New Testament groups holding to a theory of reincarnation. This kind of ahistorical reading and making up stories and circumstances between the lines to fit your narrative, is quite manifest when juxtaposed with your agenda to make Christianity as corrupt, dumb and boring as possible.
It's weird that you think early Christianity was Judaized when it is nothing but a Jewish sect with a Jewish Messianism, Jewish concerns for the land, Jewish apocalyptic visions and Jewish concerns for the restoration of the spirituality, rites, mysticism and symbolism of the corrupt Second Temple. Christianity always has been a resurrectional religion, not only because of its founder, but because this resurrectional schema is placed in the larger schema of Israelite Temple religion, based as it is on the enthronement mysticism and the ascension piety of Merkavah literature. Note, for example, the liturgical washings, anointings with olive oil and the language of the sacrifice and the ascent to the heavenly Temple in the book of Revelations. How a messianic group of 1st century Palestinian Jews came to believe in reincarnation is beyond me and an irresponsible theory to propagate without substantial evidence. But I guess this is all just a cover up and I'm just obeying the hierarchs out of fear.
iohannes wrote:Because Christ came as a man with a human body and a rational human soul, we men with human bodies and rational human souls, can imitate him: in Baptism we sacramentally decide to accept our own deaths: we die to our Adamic identity and are resurrected, clothed in Christ (taking on, by grace, the Christic identity) and this process is sealed daily, by the decision to imitate Christ in life and death; and weekly, by the decision to gather with His other members and, quite literally, become one with Him by partakaing of His Flesh and Blood.
Can you choose
Can you choose
in which universe you live, in what time you are born?
Uh. I don't know what you're getting at because I was talking about people who're already committed Christians. It was a post in response to davidbrainerd who's persists in this delusion that Christianity has no mystical dimension because it has no doctrine of union with Christ or union with God. I was trying to explain to him how theōsis
fits into the framework of daily Christian living and why it is the central pillar of almost everything we do and believe from Baptism to Communion to fellowship to Christology.
I wasn't trying to convince anyone to accept Christianity (even if davidbrainerd wants to convince everyone to reject it as boring and lacking in mysticism). I wasn't trying to convince people to choose their parents and the universe they live and the time they were born in so that they could have a more favourable environment to become Christian. That would be inappropriate for a Buddhist forum. I was only posting because the forum is "Connection to Other Paths" and the topic concerns Christianity directly. I figured that Buddhists, in all charity, who try to cultivate right speech, might be interested in knowing what a committed Christian, educated academically and ecclesiastically about his own traditions and history, thinks about his faith so that they can, with mindfulness and right concentration, fairly and moderately evaluate the similarities and differences between our faith traditions. Surely, it is delusional to try and push either the similarities too far or the differences too far. At the very least, it reveals more about the person involved and their personal spirituality and their agenda than it reveals about either Buddhism or Christianity.
Anyways, this discussion about the nous and theosis has gone wildly off track.
What is citta, exactly? (From a modern, orthodox Theravada or orthodox Mahayana viewpoint. I'm not interested in reconstructionism.)