Re: One last bone...(of contention?)
Sep 10, 1995 11:37 PM
by Ruben Cabigting
On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Eldon B. Tucker wrote:
> >I am so pleased that many of you are concerned
> >about my spiritual condition. I am even pleased that
> >some of you consider me a challenge.
> You are someone to talk to like anyone else.
> >As to Matthew 19:12 ... The passage was used to question our creation.
> Can you say something about what you believe in your own
> words, rather than giving references to some religious
> book that *you* hold as authoritative. What are *your*
> >These are clear passages that indicate that God
> >creates man in to His own vessels of honor or dishonor.
> >As a layman of biblical theology and one who
> >TRUELY respects the Word, I find it necessary
> >to counter or refute teachings that do not line up
> >with biblical theology.
> Books like the Bible are not "the Word", but are a "graven image"
> that hides the voice of the spiritual. If you put aside the
> book as a mask that covers over the experience of the higher
> side of life, and gaze directly upon the spiritual, you'll
> have more to offer to others.
> >If you are aware of the bible and its contents you
> >would find that the bible does not teach preexistence
> >of man, only foreknowledge of a living God.
> >There is no declaration of reincarnation in the
> >Old or New Testaments. Quite the contrary.
> >Pauls assertion that we die once then judgement,
> >Davids declaration that He would be with His son
> >in the future (after death).
> We can debate what fragments of spiritual truth made it into
> the Bible, and what were left out. That discussion is entirely
> different than the one of directly considering the truths
> themselves, apart from any particular religious text.
> >As a man who chooses to follow the teachers such
> >as Paul and then I am confronted by the teachings
> >of Zen or any other New Age beliefs and they are
> >at absolute contradiction to my established faith
> >and established truth then what is a man in time
> >supposed to do?
> There is only the appearance of a "contradiction" when the
> literal words are adhered to. All the approaches attempt to
> describe the same living realities of life.
> >Can anyone tell me who Jesus is?
> He is one of many great spiritual teachers, partly
> misunderstood by his would-be followers. His life and
> teachings were appropriate to his historic time and place.
> Only that part of Christianity that grows and changes with
> the times continues to remain relevant in this day. And of
> that modern Christianity, only that part which allows its
> followers the flexibility of mind to *directly perceive
> the spiritual,* continues to be of value to modern society.
> >And if he is not
> >God declaring Himself Savior of a broken people
> >that are destined to HELL if they do not accept the
> >advocates declaration of emancipation through the
> >shed blood of Jesus Christ...then he is an idiot with
> >delusions of grandeur.
> He is not. People are not broken, though they may choose to
> blind themselves to the light of the spiritual. The threat of
> a Christian "hell" is unreal, since there is no such place.
> And the sacrifice made for mankind by every spiritual teacher
> is properly appreciated. We must show our appreciation through
> leading others to open up to the spiritual. (And that does not
> mean "conversion" to our favorite religious sect.)
> >Why can't anyone on this list tell me who Jesus is?
> Do you really want to know what Jesus is, or just want to
> hear people echoing back to you a certain formula of religious
> >And how do you know what you say about Him is the truth?
> How do we know the truth in philosophical and metaphysical matters?
> It's an on-going, never-ending search, where we explore the great
> truths offered us, learn and grow in understanding, and make what we
> know a genuine part of our minds and hearts. That means that we can
> easily put ideas that are true to us in our own words, and explain
> them clearly. We don't need the authority of some citation to someone
> else's writing to make our own ideas any more clear. Nor do we need
> the words of someone else to better say the ideas, for they come
> from our heart and inner nature. "Philosophy" means the love of
> wisdom, and it is what we practice. This exploration is the opposite
> approach to the learning of rigid dogma, the exacting quoting of
> scripture, and the giving up of one's independent thought. But it
> leads to truth and a direct experience of the spiritual, whereas
> the other approach leads to a deadening of the mind, and a sense of
> emotional devotion, at best.
> -- Eldon
BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! IMHO, your answers above are excellent, it reflects
the ideal approach to the study of religion. I always encourage the
clergy and members of the congregation in my church to think for
themselves and discover the truth within. They can study the Bible and
any other religious books/material but they have to meditate and discover
for themselves the inner meaning or significance of what they read or heard.
The truth is, I can use a thousand words to describe the taste of sugar
but I am doomed to failure because nobody can learn the sweetness of sugar
unless they experience it themselves. Nobody will ever learn who Jesus
is or was until he/she will reach His spiritual stature and experience
what He realy is, until they become what Jesus is.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application