Liquid Dogma
Sunday, May 30, 2004
It would only be right to consider the counter argument. I guess...
Dr. Ankerberg and Dr. Welton have made an attempt to expose what they see as the nonsense of TNH and Thomas Merton.
There are some specific areas in which they are missing the point, at least the point that I have been taught. More on this later.
Fafnir, of Fafblog, interviews Jesus. Read here.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time, my parents had a friend who went to Hawaii. He stayed in a hotel while there and in the desk drawer, where a Bible is usually stowed (in most hotel rooms I've been in), was a copy of a book called The Teaching of Buddha. He thought this was so unique and cool that he stole it. And gave it to my parents. And they all lived happily ever after.
Until my parents had a son. And he collected religious books. And they gave him this book to read. And he started to read it. Then all hell broke loose.
There is a passage in this text that speaks of Buddha-nature. I quote:
"However unconscious people may be of the fact that everyone has within his possession this supreme nature, and however degraded and ignorant they may be, Buddha never loses faith in them because He knows that even in the least of them are, potentially, all the virtues of Buddhahood."
This passage is completely consistent, in my view, with the teachings of Jesus. He came to a Jewish society at a time when the rules and regulations of the religion had become the most important thing to the people. All the meaning behind ancient Jewish customs had been lost. He came to refresh the people's memory. Though certain groups of people were seen as undesirable compadres for any respectable person in this society (take that as a double entendre), Jesus reached out to these groups: lepers, whores, money-changers, etc. Not only did he preach to them, these people were his friends. He came to show them the truth about love. He came to let them know their true nature and how to actualize that nature.
There's more, but I'm finished for right now.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
OK, I've been tuned for too long. I need to know: what are you reading that makes you think HH TNH is onto something? Do explain. It is always difficult with you "born and raised" "Xns" so I'm intrigued to know why you now think (understand) that Xnty and Bdhsm are bros w/ different faces.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
As there has been no discussion as of late, let me throw something at you: a woman has been sainted (is that really a word?) for dying rather than aborting a fetus that doctor's said could kill her. Read about that here. Thoughts?
[Sincerest thanx to Fafblog]
Stay tuned for Matt's recent reading of Buddhist teachings and how he thinks that scholars like Thich Nhat Hahn could be on to something with the idea that Buddhism and Christianity may, in fact, be very similar teachings taught in slightly different ways.
Sunday, May 09, 2004
Al, I meant no offense. My take on Christianity is of a great loss because everyone in my universe (with the exception of my friends, largely) has considered me to be outside of the truth in the manner you describe because I don't believe in the God they do. Not believing in God has made me the guy out in the rain, believing himself to be surrounded by a house when really I'm just drenched (in the eyes of more people I know than I care to list). Just a matter of perspective.
I thought you considered yourself a Catholic, but I should've realized there was a more nuanced description of your beliefs (since we believe basically the same thing and I find it impossible to succintly describe to people what I believe -- maybe people attach themselves to a faith less because they believe everything about the faith and more because it gives them some way to tell others what they believe. "I'm a Lutheran" is a lot easier to say (and, frankly, more understandable) than "I"m an atheist who believes in love").
I think the major difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that Buddhism is a way of finding personal enlightenment (philosophy), while Christianity is largely (I realize that the group of religions made up of Christianity makes it impossible to describe with blankets statements, but most Christianity falls into this category) about seeking enlightenment based not on personal realizations, but on outside moral teachings (religion). I understand that it makes you feel stigmatized and I agree that it has this effect, but I sort of see where they're coming from on this one.
I reiterate my belief that no man (yes, man) will get elected in this country without at least saying he is a Christian. No one in the midwest is going to vote for someone who doesn't believe in God.
Saturday, May 08, 2004
I’m not sure Kerry has to be Christian to be electable. Also, to say that “calling yourself a Christian can open many doors for you in this world” seems to imply that the sum impact of that label is positive, and I’m not sure that’s the case. The majority of the people in my life, personally and professionally, think that either I don’t really understand or I’m completely insane, and probably hateful. These people think religion in general and Christianity in particular are these creations of the mind by and for people who simply can’t deal with reality. Like a guy standing in the rain who imagines a house around him and convinces himself so deeply that he actually thinks it’s not raining on him. But of course to such a man there would come no great favors from the many that watch him stand there and get drenched. Maybe I am overly sensitive to it, especially given the fact that I had tremendous animosity towards Xnty and Xns for the better part of my life. But most people I know continually make comments that either imply or assume that this religion is friggin nuts. I’m always impressed at the difference though between how people think of Buddhism and Christianity. Some of the major practitioners and scholars of each claim that the only real difference between the two is language (Thomas Merton, Thich Nhat Hanh). Yet when I went into a bookstore recently, the Christianity books were under “Religion” and the Buddhism books were under “Philosophy”. I think this difference has a real impact in the minds of non-participants.
To answer Mark’s question. Right, the problem is that Kerry doesn’t see his position on abortion as problematic and this is why some clergy members are saying he can’t receive communion. So, maybe he shouldn’t. If that’s the case I shouldn’t either, as my positions aren’t all in line with the Vatican. I have brought up my principal issues, namely homosexuality, with one of my priests though and he definitely didn’t tell me I’m out or I can’t participate in the Eucharist. I know this should all be consistent, as Matt pointed out this branch has a pretty defined hierarchy and it aims to be consistent philosophically, but it’s not. There are priests and bishops in the United States that condone capital punishment (according to Sister Helen Prejean). I have been told contradicting things many times by different priests. So there is somewhat of a spectrum, and I think my teaching thus far has been more on the progressive side of it all.
Also, Matt, for the record, I am not a Christian or a Catholic. I am a student of Catholocism, or better yet Zen-Catholocism ;)
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Okay, back to the task at hand (JFK taking communion). It's amazing to me how quickly this discussion has gotten back to the main issues Al and I have discussed ad nauseum over the years. Here's what I mean:
Al (and J Kay, for a time -- if anyone knows his e-mail, please let me know so I can invite him to join this thing) always held that they were Christians, even though they believed in virtually nothing the Chrisitan faith I grew up with taught me was necessary for being a Christian (you know, "salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ"; an adherence to a belief in miracles; a belief that what the leaders of the church say is wrong is actually wrong. And it's not like I disagree with Al that the essence of Catholicism is about love and all the other great things about religion. But the current incarnation of Catholicism (and every other strain of Christianity I can think of off hand) is also about dogma. And Catholicism is the only branch of Christianity that has a guy at the top who can tell you that you're not a part of his religion anymore if you don't do exactly what he says.
Being the person I am, it's difficult for me to belong to a group that I am not in whole-hearted agreement with (I belong to virually NO groups, for this reason). Christianity has a long, great tradition. Calling yourself a Christian can open many doors for you in this world that are not open to you if you call yourself an atheist (like, say, being President of the United States). I have no problem with someone affiliating him(or her)self with this tradition and believing in what Christianity is really about (beyond all the rules and regulations -- the essence). But many people don't see this the way I do. For lots of people, relgion is about the dogma. I think these people are largely missing the point of their religion, but they tend to not take kindly to people not adhering strictly to certain beliefs.
In short, Kerry has to be a Christian to be electable. Catholicism is what he knows, so it's what he goes with. I have no idea what he "really" believes and I don't care. But lots of people do. And if Catholics see this as an affront to their beliefs, he will probably have trouble getting elected. But most people (even staunch Catholics) realize there is lots of grey area in life and most people are unable to live a life of absolutes. Kerry believing that abortion should be safe and legal should not be something that prevents him from having fellowship with his god. That is really between him and god ("to sodomy, it's between god and me"). But voters tend to not see things this way (being a public figure makes even your most private actions a subject of debate and discussion for people who know virtually nothing about you).
I'm sure Kerry is not taking communion just to fuck with people. I'm sure it's a hard decision for him to justify beliefs that are not part of the tradition he associates himself with. But this is about more than just his very personal beliefs, unfortunately.
Monday, May 03, 2004
I'm really not trying to change the subject here (really, I'm not), but there's been something on my mind for several months that I recently remembered. Jad and I have discussed this, but I've never met anyone else who has experienced this and I want to know how common this is.
This is going to be mangled and incoherent, but I'm not really sure what I'm describing, so it's difficult to describe it properly.
I've experienced this state of being where everything seems wondrous and beautiful and I am totally calm, no matter what I'm doing. I love everything and I want nothing. And no drugs are involved. I believe that this is what has been described as a "zen" state. As I was listening to rather trippy electronic music this weekend, I was thinking about this. I think it's an issue of "essence", because I've experienced this feeling doing many things and it feels like I'm doing something perfectly when I'm in this state. My friends, in general, are not athletes, but I imagine that this is what it feels like to be "in the zone". When I feel this way, I feel like I know what it's like to be "inside" something and understand it perfectly. For instance, when I'm dancing, I can reach this point where I am totally absorbed into the feeling of the music and my dancing is nearly unconscious. Or, when I'm playing poker, every decision I make is the right one, every call I make is perfect. Or, when I'm working out, I can do something entirely redundant (like jog) and not even notice when I'm finished. It's as if I am performing actions outside of myself.
That might be the best description I can give. I want to know if any of you have experienced something similar and I'd like to know what happened to you and what it felt like. Or not. Just wondering.
Saturday, May 01, 2004
A tough question indeed, but that's to be expected from Mr. Snyder.
The Eucharist deserves sincere respect. Period. I hope that anyone who partakes does so genuinely and not for some sort of political show. That being said, there's no way JFK is any worse than I am or any other student of Catholocism for that matter, and thus the decision to partake or not to partake is his as long as he has been through the necessary sacraments.
Part of this debate came about due to some church officials making public statements that Catholics cannot in good conscience vote for John Kerry because of his pro-abortion position. There is a serious problem here that begs the question: why don't these church officials want those of us that study this philosophy to vote? I mean, if we can only vote for those that act in accordance with this philosophy, then we must stay home on voting day. If it ends up being between JFK and GWB, should we really go with Bush regardless of his tendency to fry people up? Maybe the argument is that Bush is not 'catholic'. Well, as far as I know, the philosophy teaches that it matters not so much what a person says or calls himself, but rather his level of tolerance, love, and aversion to violence that is important.
