What If the Story of Jesus Was… Just a Story?
I am a Christian. That means I believe in the teachings of Christ, and endeavor to emulate the principles he prescribed. In that light, I have long been suspect of the “doctrines” of Christianity — meaning I essentially reject there is some mystical property in chanting a prayer, taking the bread and cup, or even in performing good deeds — not that they are without merit. These things are essential to Christian theology and profoundly useful in the practice of spiritual focus, from Catholic to Protestant and even transpose with principles of other religions, but here I offer my own view of such things as a gift to anyone who is willing to listen (er… read).
Theology is a science. Just as psychology studies the human mind, sociology studies human interaction, and biology studies the mechanics of life, anything ending in “ology” is a study of something: theology included. To this end, I would point to a recent article I read about a prominent Jesuit banned from teaching about Jesus by the Catholic church, and a corresponding analysis by Thomas Rausch of religion-online.org. If you like theology, the first link may pique your interest, and the second link will lay out the theological lingo associated with the ban.
However, if you can machete your way through the liturgical complexities of the theological link, it becomes clear that Roger Haight is being banned for proposing such a question: “What if it’s all just a story?” The fact that he backs up his questions with theological doctrine and historical fact is the most virulent reason he has been banned from teaching by the Catholic church.
I happen to agree with Dr. Haight. From what I can tell, he’s offering an alternative theory (founded largely from his own intense study of the documentation surrounding the Christ character) that Jesus, while he most certainly lived, was most certainly a profound spiritual teacher, was most certainly crucified, and most likely could have been the miracle worker described by the many-times-translated Gospels, the ultimate catechism of who “Jesus Christ” has become today in terms of theological doctrine may have evolved into something more mystical and audacious than the actual life of this carpenter from Nazareth.
I have long thought this to be the case — just from a common sense perspective achieved through life experience. But my objection to the “ah-ha’s” and “oh-ho’s” from prospective nay-sayers and anti-believers is this: “Even if it is just a story, so what?” It seems that is Dr. Haight’s position as well.
Does removing the mysticism from the mythical Jesus discount any of his teachings? Does it discount the universal parallels of the human condition from Christ’s life? Does it mean bad things suddenly don’t happen to good people? Does it mean for all our noble efforts, we won’t sometimes meet with evilly grotesque ends? Does it make personal positivity any less effective in the face of negativity? Does it remove the inherent hope from human beings? Does it even remove the mystical properties of nature, life, and love we all subtly acknowledge but still doubt persistently?
I say no, in answer to all these questions. In fact, I think looking at Jesus from a realistic standpoint only solidifies the content of his position — and the positions of those who have labored to successfully make his efforts iconic to countless billions of people.
Even if we remove that Jesus walked on water, fed five thousand with two fishes and five loaves, or ascended in Hollywood style toward the heavens after his death — it doesn’t deny that heaven is a place on Earth, where Love supersedes in our actions, charity overruns greed, sacrifice outweighs gross prosperity, and simplicity is more noble than excess.
The things Jesus taught us about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness far outpaces the detractors who aim only to point out, “Ah-ha! It’s all a fraud!” To those, I would say: “My faith is unwavering, and you still don’t get it. Even in the face of full disclosure, I am still a Christian.” Why? Because I embrace the principles he is attributed as teaching: faith, hope, love, charity, compassion, civil disobedience, and above all… a desire to be fully connected with a higher power.
RSS, Atom, more...
2009/01/14 09:02 -0700Z
Comment on your first paragraph. I think you have it exactly the wrong way round. In my view, the “mystical property in chanting a prayer, taking the bread and cup, or even in performing good deeds” are not the copyright of Christian doctrine. They are the universal property of mankind, for any religion or none. (I take the bread and cup as a mystical ritual no better or worse than bowing down to a golden calf if you are a follower of a religion that only got a bad name because of being a religion of the Israelites’ enemies.)
The teachings of Christ, as embodied in the New Testament, are however Christian doctrine!
Scanning quickly through the theology stuff in your post I see that you are in support of a Jesuit who asked “what if it’s all a story?” Is that right? Well, English Anglican bishops have been asking questions like that and writing books about it for the last forty years or more and they are never sacked for it.
I don’t trust a single thing that Jesus is supposed to have said or done or had done to him. I support the very bit that you reject: the mysticism, not the mysticism attached to the historical or mythical Jesus, but the mystical acts that we can approach in our everyday life, in or out of church: prayer, the giving of thanks, the performance of rituals, the acknowledgement of miracles the respect of everyone else’s religion without worrying about what they believe. As long as their behaviour is acceptable!
2009/01/14 09:23 -0700Z
When you think about it, what you call the mystical side - the bits that you want to ditch apparently - occur in every culture and so it should be. The Christian doctrine that you need Jesus to be saved, or to be a role model, or whatever: these are the falsities to be avoided. It’s perfectly obvious that it’s enough to be born somewhere and adopt the religion of one’s parents, more or less. Not that I did, but then I was at war with the entire world as a child and especially my parents.
Now I see that it is not necessary to be a “seeker” in that peculiar way of exploring other cultures, when all one has to do is look inside, as it were.
2009/01/14 09:44 -0700Z
Makes sense to me. It’s possible to embrace the kind of life, values, and sense of connection to something infinitely greater that you refer to here without elaborating the details of a supernatural world. (Look, for example, at the Buddha.)
2009/01/14 10:13 -0700Z
@Vincent: I think we may be confusing words again, as it seems we often do before we resolve. Your concept of the definition of “mystic” must be counterintuitive to my own — not that either one of us is right or wrong, only that there is a discrepancy. I attribute the converse to “mysticism” in that I ascribe a similar cynicism and skepticism to the rituals of believing in the story for its literal interpretations and personally describe such reliance on said believing as the “mysticism”, and from my view that’s exactly what I’m explaining in this post. I guess what I’m getting at is, as Paul mentioned, we can attain a level of knowledge, peace, and sanctity by understanding the principles laid out in the story as though they were (and quite possibly are) only metaphor and analogy. In that light, I think you and I are actually on the same page… much the same way that I continue to profess that I am a Christian, though highly separated from the traditional constraints of common definition.
@Paul: I tend to agree with that view, and that’s largely what I’m growing, cultivating, and learning to express — even though these thoughts and ideas were born in me long ago, even if evidenced by my purchase of the domain name “one higher power” two years ago. These concepts were in me prior, though I have no other evidence to back that up! :)
Thank you both, so much, for… for who you are, and for taking out of your own valuable time to spend a bit on what I have going on in my own life. It is sincerely appreciated, and I can only hope it continues for a long, long time!
2009/01/14 12:01 -0700Z
i find myself in agreement with both of you :)
i asked a rhetorical question of a friend the other day…so…was Jesus ever wrong about anything? is there any allowance or room that he could have ever been wrong…and if you did learn he was ever wrong about this or that would that dismantle an entire belief system? in the past when i would pose such questions the response i would get would usually be … “the bible is either all true or it’s all a lie”…
which is the problem with belief…when belief is attached to doctrine rather than experience everything relies on holding to that doctrine with an iron fist…
i do find my reaction to your opening sentence a bit curious to myself actually…”I am a Christian”…this could solely be for personal reasons…for what those three words meant in my own life for so long and how much baggage they carry with them…but i think there’s something more to it than that…it’s like attaching these words on myself is like slapping a sticker on my coat as an identifier to separate myself from others … “I am a Christian” … like why would i need to make that so clear to anyone (or to myself) … am i trying to include myself in something so others will recognize me…? am i trying to exclude myself from others?… is it an image i am trying to convey?…is it some sort of declaration of loyalty?…
do i find value in the teachings of Jesus? yes (probably more now than i ever did when i used to make such declarations)… do i find value in the teachings of Buddha? yes… do i find value in the teachings of hinduism? yes… do i find value in what atheists say? yes do i love like a sufi? yes…etc…
but do i need to identify myself with any of them? not any more… these are just paths leading to the same thing…
i am …
2009/01/14 12:12 -0700Z
@serenity: You’re right that the reasons I attach the sticker are complex. First and foremost is that I desire the ability to identify with those who might also bear the badge, yet endow me with the flexibility to shift their perceptions toward a more accountably accurate position while remaining psuedo-constant. Secondly, is likely due to my own experience and upbringing surrounded with a Christian tradition — though I like to believe I see through the guises of ritual into a deeper, more accurate, and ultimately more fulfilling meaning. As Vincent expressed, I am not intending to marginalize the value in ritual, but rather I wish to enhance and further the spiritual experience that can (and *dreaded* “should”) result from such a practice.
2009/01/14 14:17 -0700Z
Hi Tim–The more I seek and experience the world of Spirit (by means of many teachers from various backgrounds), the more I appreciate Jesus. To me, he is a conduit towards God, both by words and example, as well as a living entity. But in this age, in the US, when I proclaim myself as “Christian”, it feels like a daring declaration, usually requiring explanation. I need to make my personal position clear because the mainstream Christian organizations are promoting policies which I believe are against the teachings of Jesus in the most basic ways. The image of a typical “Christian” now appears as a judgmental, angry, self-righteous person who will use any means possible to impose his/her own group’s beliefs on others. I often feel like a lone crusader, if I express my belief that Jesus was teaching us to be the opposite of this!
I am not able to imagine how I would have come to a love of God without learning about Jesus in my early life. To me he is the “first”. It is just written in my soul. This is beyond any argument about the details of what is written in the Bible, it seems obvious to me that much of it was “made up” and other vital material edited out. Which makes it even more important that we teach the “essence” of his message, which is God as love, and that being our ultimate reality.
2009/01/14 22:39 -0700Z
@firebird: Like your art, I find little to add. Though, since you have taken the time to respond to mine… Lessee…
I agree that often in American culture, Jesus tends to be a centerpiece. However, like you, I have an inclination to dig deeper — beyond the frivolous semantics, into a more solid and (hopefully) perfected understanding of what the story really conveys.
As I alluded to in a previous response, I am not at all a “Bible thumper” as it were… though I honestly believe there is much to gain by the study of the Bible — especially in the contexts of the story of Jesus. That’s why I mentioned parallels of the human condition as a comparison.
Thank you much for taking the time to look, listen, and respond!!! I hope my feeble attempt to respond is valuable to you.
2009/01/15 00:10 -0700Z
Tim, when you say “especially in the contexts of the story of Jesus”, I think you put your finger on the power of the Bible as just that, a story–one we can use in our daily lives, and learn from. That does not change depending on how factual it may or may not be. If we think of the Bible as a “book of rules”, that power is lost because then we descend into an argument about fact versus fiction, which completely bypasses the point!
2009/01/15 06:28 -0700Z
I’d like to come back to the jumping-off point, if I may: your reasons for posting on this topic in the first place. We’ve been having our fun and ranting away, as we have every right to do. As you say, “here I offer my own view of such things as a gift to anyone who is willing to listen”. We are all willing listeners, waiting our turn in the discussion.
All the same, we need to put a perspective on the news item that stirred you to post in the first place. A Jesuit has been told to shut up, because what he wants to teach is contrary to the current doctrine of the Catholic Church. Now the Jesuits are acknowledged as the intellectuals and in a sense the theological soldiers of that hierarchical organisation, the Papacy. As such they sign up to a discipline, in which they obey their superiors. I think they have indeed signed up to the monastic rules of poverty, chastity and obedience. So in that sense, there is nothing whatsoever controversial in the response of the Church to Dr Haight’s published views. He broke his contract.
From previous discussions I have deduced, Tim, that you are no friend of the Catholic Church. Many of its structures and beliefs and disciplines, I’m sure, contravene what you think of as true Christianity. But in this you differ not at all from Protestants going back as far as Martin Luther. They are Catholics. Nothing more to say. No point in highlighting any particular thing they do or say, because you are likely to be against it.
However, that was not quite the thrust of your post, which is actually that you agree with a Jesuit. Unfortunately he’s a heretic. I would go so far as to say that any Jesuit you will ever agree with is in severe danger of heresy from the mere evidence that you agree with him.
I don’t think any of us discussing the matter are Catholics. We probably think their views (unless they are heretics) are not particularly worth discussing.
So what are we doing? I think, Tim – and I hope we are friends enough after this time for me to say this – that you get roused by journalistic attempts to stir things up, and then in an equally journalistic fashion, enjoy stirring them up a bit more, in the opposite direction. Which is what many blogs do, I’m sure.
But it has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you (or I for that matter) truly hold dear.
This is my way of asking you “Why don’t you let other people who call themselves Christians, atheists, Catholics, Muslims, or whatever, alone?” Unless you can justify why these rants (and the discussions in which your readers join in the fun) are actually edifying.
2009/01/15 22:24 -0700Z
If I were a Muslim, I would feel it necessary and relevant to speak out against the words and actions of groups who performed violent actions in the name of “my” religion.
Same with any group calling themselves “Christian”–I feel it’s appropriate to put in my viewpoint to balance extremist views.
It’s a shame when spirituality becomes a power struggle. Sacreligious, if you ask me.
2009/01/16 00:32 -0700Z
We all need to feel a sense of connection to something that is greater than ourselves because when we do we feel more empowered.
2009/01/16 05:24 -0700Z
@firebird: I like the way you put it: “descend into an argument about fact versus fiction.” That frame does tend to bypass the point, but if the debate is tempered with an ear to hear, and eyes to see, then the result from the argument can ascend — even transcend — the discussion entirely to where one or both parties actually meets the point head on.
@Vincent: I do get roused, when I feel agitated — when something is said or written that disagrees with my sensibilities. Fortunately, for now, I still have every right to make counterpoint to things which I find objectionable: such as the hijacking of “power” and “authority” over what it means to be Christian. I feel the Catholic church does so, as a military general would accost a soldier who steps out of formation. In that light, let me pose this analogy… What if the pilots of the bombers over Hiroshima and Nagasake took a moral high ground, and refused to carry out their orders, instead conspiring to release their morbid payloads a few miles from city centers? Devastating a pasture full of cows or a rice paddies could surely have delivered a thorough warning… without so much casualty. These pilots would assuredly have been summarily dishonorably discharged, and perhaps become subversively listed as MIA or KIA — yet, how would the course of history be changed? How would the lives of those who were slain have moved on to convert history in their own way? Does resistance to “toe in” always mean a man has “broken his contract,” as you suggest Haight has done? In fact, that may be true — but what if Dr. Haight is the one who actually has a greater understanding of the power and authority of Christ, and the Catholic church simply fears to leave it unrefuted would diminish its own authority? Assume for a moment this is the case… in that context, who is breaking the “contract?”
@Sharon: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. There is certainly some truth to the psychology of herd mentality.
2009/01/16 10:16 -0700Z
Timothy,
I love the courage and voice with which you speak. Your words reflect your heartfelt passion for living as your truest self. You have given us much food for thought here. I hope you will keep doing so.
I’m not one for debating the “rightness” or “wrongness” of things. Things just “are,” and we will never know their ultimate “truth” (if there is such a thing) until we leave this human form. To me it is all about “living in allow.” No matter what you say, no matter what you do, may I (may we) continue to see the world through Jesus’ or Buddha’s eyes. Compassion is the key…
2009/01/16 10:19 -0700Z
Oops! I noticed my blog site didn’t post correctly here…just in case anyone wants a trail back. :-)
Love.
2009/01/16 10:25 -0700Z
I cannot think of a more far-fetched analogy. Jesuit=pilot carrying atomic bomb?
I suggest to you that before criticising anyone or anything, it is necessary to have profound empathy amounting to love. On this basis, only a Catholic could make a meaningful critique of Catholicism. Any outsider could ridicule the whole thing.
You have to understand the whole point of Catholicism. It takes away from the congregation the burden of theology, so that the ordinary worshipper can worship in simplicity and without doubt. For doubt is a distraction from the business of joyful living—or agonised living, if that is your preference.
Unless the Catholics have done you some personal harm by their behaviour; or unless you love their religion with a passionate love, you will find no pleasure other than a perverted one in yielding to your agitated arousal every time you read a newspaper.
2009/01/16 11:03 -0700Z
@Jan: Thank you for the kind comments. A state of allowance, or as I might say, “acceptance,” is a trait embodied by Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi and all sorts of other great spiritual leaders. The power in it stems from the sort of peace it brings to self and to others, and is surely a result of being filled with love. However, as I read your comment about not focusing on “right” or “wrong,” I couldn’t help but wonder… I can see the non-resistance as beneficial, but even Jesus was said to have turned over the tables of the money-changers in the temple. Gandhi promoted civil disobedience and non-cooperation against things he felt were wrong. How many Buddhist monks have lit themselves afire, or fought to the death against things they have found to be wrong? It’s certainly noble to resist a trivial approach to right and wrong, but is it altogether unnecessary? That’s what I wonder — not that I have an immediate answer. Anyway, thanks again. I will check out your site.
@Vincent: Actually, I was applying the analogy to Dr. Haight — in the sense that he voluntarily signed on to a cause he apparently believes is a noble one. Yet, in the practice of that cause, he sees fit to side-step some particulars in the work, and has stood his ground based on his belief. I do see the importance of religion as a means by which to blindly trust — for many, that may well be necessary toward finding Joy. Yet, for the Catholic elite to rigidly deny detractors for the simple reason it doesn’t fit inside the packaged doctrine… in the story of Jesus, there were groups like this as well, called Pharisees and Saducees. I have not held any personal harm from Catholics, nor Protestants, nor any direct harm from Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, or Zoroastrians for that matter. However, just as the Catholic church has every right to proclaim what they will, I am still free to disagree and bring the point here on my platform to pose the question — and I truly appreciate the dialogue and discourse from other willing participants.
2009/01/16 15:17 -0700Z
Off you go then, Tim.
2009/01/16 18:27 -0700Z
Vincent, as I look at my last sentence, I hope I didn’t give the impression I appreciated the participation by those “other” than you. I surely include yours in the discourse and dialogue I appreciate, as well as others.
2009/01/16 21:35 -0700Z
i do not question much nowadays, simply because of lack of time.
living a hand to mouth kind of existence makes me rely on my existing faith. hope that He is real, and He gets me outta my struggling state. amen.
and.. i love your company and the smart friends who visit you here too. :)
2009/01/17 01:35 -0700Z
Tim, I didn’t gain that impression! What I was trying to convey was a sort of threat! that if you carry on having fun knocking other people’s religion (which I tried to show was a very easy way to get your perverted kicks) then I will not wish to encourage you in such foolishness.
Having said that severe stuff, I absolutely appreciate your discourse for the lessons it teaches, to those who have ears to hear.
It is interesting that you bring up the example of the Pharisees and Sadducees, to demonstrate that even Jesus was a knocker of other people’s religion. Perhaps he was, perhaps he wasn’t. Perhaps he lost his temper with fig-trees. Perhaps he was invited to all the parties because of his water-into-wine reputation. Because perhaps it is just a story, exaggerated by the first-century journalists in exactly the same way as today’s news stories.
What I see is that in the world of religion, spirituality, call it what you will, there is a central focus which makes it all worth while, and at the edges there is gossip.
The thesis of your post, that the Jesus story would be just as powerful if it were just a myth, would be much clearer if it were separated from the Dr Haight/Catholic Church news story, even if that did trigger your interest in the first place. Because that part is just gossip and has nothing to do with your question.
Personally I think that what distinguishes different Christians is their notion of what is holy. This is not a reason to knock those whose idea of what’s holy isn’t exactly the same as ours. The edifying thing is to focus for ourselves on what we find holy and reap the benefits, and not run a gossip column that makes fun of those who believe differently. Even if the whole of America is doing that.
2009/01/17 14:36 -0700Z
Tim–I like your Hiroshima analogy. In fact, it is a possibility I had never thought about before. It’s sobering to imagine how much difference one or two peoples’ actions could have had, if Jesus had been speaking loud enough in their ear…
May there come a time when love becomes our “authority”.
2009/01/17 18:17 -0700Z
@mistipurple: The last post about spiritual kitchen duty touched on that essence in a way — that a spiritual existence can be achieved through simply “doing,” and leaving the rest to what it is. I appreciate your taking the time to stop and drop a note, and hope between all the brilliant minds that post here there may be more already and more to come that you’ll find helpful, provocative, or even downright entertaining! :)
@Vincent: Well, I’m not sure I agree that I spend much time knocking others’ religions, nor that I enjoy such things. Maybe it’s just wording, but I tend to see what I do here (when I come across as critical) as an expression of disappointment when I see behaviors and activities under the guise of spiritual practice which miss the mark of a spiritual focus. I also like to think I offer alternative “solutions” that might reorient said focus (not that I am any more or less qualified to do so, only that it is something that comes from my heart, through the words my head conjures up). Again, I think we are in agreement that the idealistic goal is to be trying to find a “least common denominator” in the realm of universally human interaction in spiritual terms — perhaps more my focus than yours, but you seem to allude to in in your last comment.
@firebird: There is a lot of wiggle room in looking at situations like that in hindsight, but it does make for an interesting track to ponder the effectual possbilities… like the wings of a butterfly, or drop in the ocean, so to speak. I honestly see that’s what the story of Christ tried to teach, that “authority” from external forces becomes unnecessary when we live in purposes of love. Something else that comes to mind is the way I see the old Christian phrase of letting “Jesus into your heart.” It isn’t at all some kind of spiritual possession that could be exorcised or the like, but rather a gaining of the wisdom of those principles of love wherein men (and women!) begin an internal transformation to adapt their thoughts and actions into an alignment with the universal principles of love. Good thoughts!
2009/01/17 23:36 -0700Z
Tim, I hear you and hope my last comment (and the ones before that ) were not too harsh in making their point. However when i spoke of a “central focus” I was not being clear what I meant by that, and I think this has caused you to misunderstand it.
You write “Again, I think we are in agreement that the idealistic goal is to be trying to find a “least common denominator” in the realm of universally human interaction in spiritual terms.”
You make a valid point but we aren’t in agreement about it because I never meant anything like that. And I worry about your thought that finding a least common denominator is an idealistic goal.
It’s my fault. I gave no clue as to what I meant by “central focus”. We’ll come to that. I didn’t mean “finding something central that everyone can focus on together.”
Wikipedia has this to say about the figurative uses of “lowest common denominator”.
“The phrase is also used to describe the most basic, least sophisticated level of taste, sensibility, or opinion among a group of people. This is most often used in criticism of art, products or media thought to be aiming itself at such a group, the implied complaint usually being that the subject has been simplified to appeal to a wider audience.
“A third figurative use is to describe negotiations and agreements which only cover the points where everybody’s previous positions coincide.
“Note that, in some of these cases, the concept being expressed is actually closer to the related-but-different mathematical concept of greatest common divisor.”
What I meant by central focus was completely different. I meant that spirituality’s central focus is to connect with an experience within the individual human heart. Since we are mostly not hermits, but pilgrims along the way sharing our stories, interaction may be helpful; but (in my perception) it is not the central focus.
We can certainly criticise behaviours, when we see that they are immoral. But we cannot know the workings of another person’s heart. I could argue that I don’t even know the workings of my own heart. It is extremely complicated! I might be an atheist who nevertheless prays to a statue of the Virgin Mary, because it calms my troubled mind and makes me feel a mysterious joy. How can any person try to pick that apart?
So I am baffled by your “expression of disappointment when I see behaviors and activities under the guise of spiritual practice which miss the mark of a spiritual focus.” These things are none of our business, Tim.
2009/01/18 13:03 -0700Z
Even if it IS all just a story, which I believe it is, the basic tenets are still brilliant…as were Buhdda’s and a handful of others. History is not kind to the story of Yeshua thanks to all of his nearly identical precursors from Egypt and Persia.
The study of GOD is a pretty “iffy” science due to the abscence of empirical evidence and viable avenues to test theoretical hypothsis…that’s why they call it Faith…
not seeing IS believing.
Either way we all need a cosmology and treating others with respect and kindness (especially when they do not deserve it) is what makes us so interesting.
One last thing, since all vertebrates begin as default females doesn’t it stand to reason, OOPS I said the R-word, that the Creator would be a Feminine Entity? I have always been curious that the warmongering mysogynist tribes in the desert chose such a harsh taskmaster, while those flourishing in a more hospitable Edenic tropical paradise, came up with more of a Mother Earth deity?
2009/01/18 19:47 -0700Z
@Vincent: This may be a point where you and I differ — at least in terms of reference. I construed your “focus” comment from an internal point, and didn’t understand you meant its meaning from an external point. You said: “I meant that spirituality’s central focus is to connect with an experience within the individual human heart.” When I use the term spirituality, in my mind it automatically takes on the position that such a thing is approached personally via experience, rather than looking at “spirituality” as a thing to be analyzed. So, in essence, I think of spirituality as a personal study of one’s own experience in the context of how it relates to the general and “least common denominator” — to mean the “core” of what is “universal” in the human “spiritual” experience. From your description, I am surmising (as well as you have expressed) you approach spirituality from a succinctly external point, viewing “spirituality” as a science in and of itself, which may or may not have core principles by which to study individual experience and/or general experience. Again, I think the difference is that I tend to view it from within, whereas you seem to view it from without. Not that either approach is “right” or “wrong” — it is what it is. However, seeing things this way does give me a greater appreciation for your point of view — regardless whether or not I agree. At the same time, however, as a person approaching the subject from “within,” I feel it is assuredly my “business” to analyze and critique it personally, so much as I understand your position leads you toward an opinion that it is “nobody’s business” to question at all but rather experience and let experience — OR in the words of a great Brit: “Let it be.”
@Donn Coppens: Thanks for stopping by to share your thoughts! I also agree that the tenets are brilliant, and I take the stance of “I don’t know, since I wasn’t there” regarding the factuality of the story. So, at its very core, the study of God is “iffy” — as the ultimate answer to these questions is, “We don’t know.” As you pointed out, it does require a measure of faith to even acknowledge the validity of “spiritual reasoning,” much less the individual contexts of particular religions. Good grief, man… the dualistic nature of male versus female opens up an entirely new chasm in the discussion, which is probably best left to a different thread — though it would likely make for another lengthy discussion in its own right. I won’t touch it here — but it might make for a great new post. :)
2009/01/19 10:44 -0700Z
Hi Tim,
This came across my e-mail this morning. I thought you might find it interesting. It is in alignment with my response to you on my blog about kindness, gentleness, genuineness as “The Way.” :-)
BTW, I linked my site with yours and visited your other site. What a gift you have for creative expression! I loved your art work.
Blessings!
J
FATHERS AND MOTHERS OF SHAMBHALA
Over the centuries, there have been many who have sought the ultimate good and have tried to share it with their fellow human beings. To realize it requires immaculate discipline and unflinching conviction. Those who have been fearless in their search and fearless in their proclamation belong to the lineage of master warriors, whatever their religion, philosophy, or creed. What distinguishes such leaders of humanity and guardians of human wisdom is their fearless expression of gentleness and genuineness — on behalf of all sentient beings. We should venerate their example and acknowledge the path that they have laid for us. They are the fathers and mothers of Shambhala, who make it possible, in the midst of this degraded age, to contemplate enlightened society.
OCEAN OF DHARMA: The Everyday Wisdom of Chogyam Trungpa, #264. Originally from “The Shambhala Lineage,” in SHAMBHALA: THE SACRED PATH OF THE WARRIOR, page 211.
2009/01/20 10:06 -0700Z
@Jan: That’s a beautiful message. Thank you for sharing it.
2009/01/22 12:22 -0700Z
“Ask not what the story can do for you; ask what you can really do for the story…” I don’t know… The air this week is just so - Kennedyesque…
2009/02/12 18:38 -0700Z
“The things Jesus taught us about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness far outpaces the detractors who aim only to point out, “Ah-ha! It’s all a fraud!” To those, I would say: “My faith is unwavering, and you still don’t get it. Even in the face of full disclosure, I am still a Christian.” Why? Because I embrace the principles he is attributed as teaching: faith, hope, love, charity, compassion, civil disobedience, and above all… a desire to be fully connected with a higher power.”
AMEN! His teachings remain solid under the various theories of his mystical attributes. The fact that He WAS crucified and did it for US is more than enough for me. :)