Money. Religion. Power.
- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Detroit Publishing Co. Trinity Church and office buildings, New York 1915 French President Hollande declared on TV on his nation's national holida
[See the full post at: Money. Religion. Power.]Hi Folks,
A last shout for those interested in giving feedback on how the site ‘looks and feels’ please go to this thread:
TAE 3.0: What do you want to see?
Thanks,
L,
Sid.Very true. ALL worldviews involve philosophical presupposition, established dogma and faith, whether they are “religious” or “non-religious”, which are terms representing a dualistic mindset that has only recently (relative to human history) started to make any “sense” to even think and talk about.
The Judeo-Christian tradition is rather unique in that it does not attempt to make any artificial distinction between money, politics, etc. and faith, but rather explain how the former is inextricably linked to the latter. Where we put our faith is a question of vital importance in all spheres of human society.
Personally, I think it neither fair nor logically coherent to talk about Christianity in terms of anything other than the teachings of Christ. But that’s what a large segment of Western society does, such as the politicians, bankers, etc. who call themselves Christian and simultaneously promote the Church and grandiose symbols of wealth. In the end analysis, they are simply using the former as a means to embrace the latter, and that is decidedly UN-biblical and ANTI-Christian.
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” Matthew 6:24
It’s just my opinion, of course, but I don’t think religion will make a full comeback anytime soon because there are just too many people who have specifically rejected it at present. Given a few generations for struggle, however, and we might start to see people creating religions for fragments of whatever is left, what they can find from the past, and whatever their imaginations might simply make up.
Should the Dark Ages 2.0 hit, I suspect that the most celebrated value will be resourcefulness but who knows if that can be the basis for any type of cohesive religion amongst disparate and fragmented peoples.
Ballpark love.
Two outs, bottom of the ninth, bases are loaded and the home team is down by 3. Three balls and Two strikes. The tubby, aging slugger, fast-on-the-fade digs into the batter’s box. Here’s the pitch: Crack! It’s a sharp line drive to center field; He’s going back, back, at the warning track. That ball is outtah here!
My sweaty bottom leaves the seat. Feet in the air, I’m in love with 35000 people. For this moment, we’re brothers and sisters sharing a communal exorcism of grunting, growling, sputtering and howling. The fever is universal and ephemeral. Soon they’ll all be assholes, clogging the exits and making too much noise. I’ll want my gold, my barbed wire, my watchtowers stocked with flamethrowers. But not yet. Let’s can this moment and store it next to the dried beans.
rapier post=7702 wrote: American itself is an integral part of American Christianity. It is hardly unique that a nation sees itself in some way as playing a special role in let’s call it God’s plan. The very first kings did it, all kings in all places have always held that their station and authority were conferred by God. The Lutheran church as Nazism arose in Germany found common ground with them in advancing the power of The Nation.
The civic religion that is America was always closely entwined with it’s dominant branches of Protestantism to some degree. The melding of religion and The Nation have only accelerated the last 40 years to the benefit of the Republican party and ministers and preachers some of who have gained great wealth and power from the marriage. Even as religion faded away in European socialites and politics.
All elites here, even corporate, where nary an executive committee member in any of its largest corporations is religious to any degree much less a Christian fundamentalist, are perfectly happy to claim belief in America as a secular religion. Always claiming what’s good for them is good for The Nation.
Oddly the most religious citizens buy it. The now endless reproachmont between nativist, fundamentalist Christians and even the financiers of Wall Street is a sharp break from the past. In the 1890’s populism and fundamentalism met in the person of William Jennings Bryan who ran for President twice essentially as a Socialist, and came semi close to winning once and he and his followers hated Wall Street. Times have change. The denizens of the lavish parties now going on in the Hampton’s where wrenched excess abounds find common cause with the Tea Party and the Southern Baptist Convention. Both willing and now eager to insure a growing underclass and a desire to control if not crush them. The leaders of the opposition joining in semi reluctantly, seemingly, but join in they do.
Hi Folks,
Of the seven deadly sins, Pride, Greed, Lust, Envy, Gluttony, Wrath, the only one bankers cannot be accused of is Sloth.
Actually that is the very one that they are most guilty of. As in the original meaning and context of the word in the ‘religious’ sense: of being spiritually lazy – the materialistic slant of just being physically lazy and ‘good for nothing’ came from the rise of Mammon itself in order to instil the ‘work ethic’ and thus a tighter control over others for personal gain. The fact that the word itself comes from the Latin religio-onis meaning bond or obligation should be a give away.
“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool” — Mark Twain
This pseudo-spirituality of some force ‘out there’ or ‘in the future’ (salvation anyone? Heaven? How about growth or ‘better’ living standards?) is a mask all religions use to hide their real raison d’etre which is one of control and subjugation which is but a function of civilisation itself especially in the form of Empire. It is no coincidence that the rise of all major religions coincided with the rise of empire: Brahmanism (Hinduism) with its caste system (the most blatant and open of control systems – your position in society is down to your previous life…) Ashoka, Emperor of the Mauryan Empire who converted to Buddhism (the core teaching amazingly survived); Christianity which was ‘Remodelled’ by Emporer Constantine (it evolved from a cult of Mithras’ that was popular with the ‘military’) and turned the fading secular Empire into the reborn ‘Holy Roman Empire’; and not forgetting Islam, itself the product of the rise of the Arab Nation in the 7th Century as Persia and Rome’s influence declined.
The ‘fact’ that ‘money’ should be the fetishistic token of choice in a contractarian/materialistic society, with its [strike]economists[/strike] priests expounding the myths of eternal progress and growth while metaphorically buggering the children (literally in terms of their future) in the inner temple should come as no surprise. This is the Religeo-onis, the ‘obligation’ forced upon us by the ruling elite.
True spirituality which all religion to some extent corrupts is an internal path; the closest ‘traditions’ to get to it were perhaps the Daoists with the ‘canonical’ statement to the effect of ‘the Dao that can be spoken is not the True Dao’, and the ‘Hopi Indians where the conflict between the sacred inner life and outward material development could not be more critical.
Its all happened before even if not on such a large scale:
Maybe Zerzan was right. The current civilisations ‘religion’ of purely material focus and gain that sees nature as something ‘nasty and brutish’ to be controlled and manipulated for the ‘true good’ of profit will, with the wholesale destruction of the environment lead inexorably to a ‘nasty and brutish’ end. The only option we have is to each individually re-make the connection with the Earth and re-birth our relationship with that which ultimately supports us and thereby to see the nakedness of all our Emperors.
– Aldo Leopold
From a window box to a field to a forest garden we can all start to make that re-connection right now, all it takes is that subtle recognition inside ourselves. 🙂
L,
Sid.
(‘Tae Summary’ will have a field day with this subject! :whistle: )Sid et al,
In the end, I think Hazel Henderson defined economics best (and religion in the same vein, since economics is religion):
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise … economics is a form of brain damage.
No, not all religion is economics, true. But all religion very much IS politics. Not in its purest core, perhaps, but certainly as soon as it gets organized.
Ilargi –
To generalize your statement even further, I’d say that any organization – because it is comprised of people – is inherently political. Politics seems to happen as soon as you have more than 2 people in one place.
And so even though churches start from a spiritual basis, because they are earthly organizations comprised of people, they instantly start morphing into political organizations.
After enough time, you get Borgia Popes and the Spanish Inquisition.
Politics in its broadest sense is simply decisions on how relationships of power should be structured and how power should be allocated among people. You can have politics among friends and family, and certainly among a Church or Temple as well.
gurusid wrote: This pseudo-spirituality of some force ‘out there’ or ‘in the future’ (salvation anyone? Heaven? How about growth or ‘better’ living standards?) is a mask all religions use to hide their real raison d’etre which is one of control and subjugation which is but a function of civilisation itself especially in the form of Empire. It is no coincidence that the rise of all major religions coincided with the rise of empire: Brahmanism (Hinduism) with its caste system (the most blatant and open of control systems – your position in society is down to your previous life…) Ashoka, Emperor of the Mauryan Empire who converted to Buddhism (the core teaching amazingly survived); Christianity which was ‘Remodelled’ by Emporer Constantine (it evolved from a cult of Mithras’ that was popular with the ‘military’) and turned the fading secular Empire into the reborn ‘Holy Roman Empire’; and not forgetting Islam, itself the product of the rise of the Arab Nation in the 7th Century as Persia and Rome’s influence declined. – See more at: https://theautomaticearth.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=post&do=reply&catid=15&id=7705&Itemid=96#sthash.dDFoT2CN.dpuf
How about Judaism?
This is why I say we cannot separation Christianity from Christ. The term “Christian” itself was a derogatory label placed onto people who confessed absolute loyalty to and worship of Jesus, as they were heavily persecuted by the Empire.
Most scholars agree the entirety of the New Testament canon was complete before the end of the 1st century, and there is solid evidence for even earlier dating than that which is generally accepted. These are the writings which give us our knowledge about Jesus and who he claimed to be (the Christ and, moreover, God himself). They also expound on the theological implications of such a claim arising out of a Jewish context.
Jesus and the early apostles/disciples were smack dab in the middle of a Pharisaical perversion of Judaism on the one hand, and an imperial Caesar cult on the other. Far from being “secular”, the Caesars claimed to have divine authority, with Nero Caesar the most divinely deluded of them all and perhaps the most brutal source of persecution for early Christians. We have to remember these early Christians came from and operated in a Jewish context.
Typical Jewish “revolutionaries” of that time, as in recent times, would be those who organized and used force to fight off the pagan imperial hordes and reestablish dominance in Judea, and God willing, the entire world. The ideal was very much enmeshed in religious justifications for materialistic dominance, just as we have seen in atheistic justifications for similar dominance by “Marxist” or “socialist” revolutionaries. In STARK contrast, Jesus told his disciple Simon Peter to put DOWN his sword when he attempted to attack the Roman soldiers who were there to arrest his Master.
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” Matthew 26:52
He was counter-cultural, counter-religious and counter-“revolutionary” in so many ways. His early followers very much continued on in that legacy. So like I said earlier, I don’t think it is fair or coherent to lump Christianity, in any meaningful sense of that word, into the camp of all other religions (I prefer the term “spiritual worldviews”). It was only at the end of the 4th century that Roman “Christianity” became the official state religion, under the reign of the last emperor to rule over an undivided Empire.
…Christianity which was [strike]’Remodelled'[/strike] standardized by Emperor Constantine https://www.peter.ca/article38.html (it evolved from a cult of Mithras’ that was popular with the ‘military’) https://www.peter.ca/article37.html and turned the fading secular Empire into the reborn ‘Holy Roman Empire’;…
Fixed it for you.
But the Christian Bible, written from around 100 CE to 323 CE then further censored and modified by the First Council of Nicaea and subsequent Councils)
Meetings of bishops in the Roman empire are known from the mid-third century and already numbered twenty by the time of the famous meeting at Nicaea (325)
Constantine turned to summoning a synod at Nicaea, inviting “the most eminent men of the churches in every country”
I’m going to look deeper into the background of these writers.
Maybe, starting at https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.iii.vi.xvii.htmlThe ‘Empire” was in decline, just like now, and the writers included much of their knowledge/messages into their writings.
They are dead. Their knowledge, twisted and misrepresented as it is, has survived.
Lessons, from the past, about Money. Religion. Power. can be found in all the ancient writings.
Hummm!
https://www.ccel.org/index/author
It looks like I would need another life time to do a research into the wisdom found in the bible and who wrote what and when.
I do get the impression that the authors were part of the elite class.
They also manager to build their doomsteads as a place to gather and pass on their knowledge.
[quote=jal post=7710]
…Christianity which was
But the Christian Bible, written from around 100 CE to 323 CE then further censored and modified by the First Council of Nicaea and subsequent Councils)Hey jal,
This claim is not supported by the evidence. The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the Biblical canon, and a lot to do with the nature of the Trinity, i.e. is Jesus co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father or a divine, yet created being?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Biblical_canon
A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council’s role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all.[67] The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[68]In terms of when the NT was actually written, we know for sure that John’s gospel, generally considered the latest NT writing, was no later than the early 2nd century, most likely the late 1st century.
ilargi and ash are correct, religion and economics are perverted human versions of underlying realities. Politics (greed and ego) has screwed up free market trade .Politics and fear of self-actualization (accepting our mortality) has perverted religion. True Christianity is not a religion, it’s a reality,historically.
I think that this latest article is a bit off topic and a stretch at best…What I want to know is why is the dollar to Euro not fluctuating much…Nicole said that the U. S would be the last horse in the glue factory…why aren’t people dumping their Euros for dollars and Swiss francs? And for that matter what about the Japanese yen?
Hi Ashvin,
How about Judaism?
I was making the point of how ‘Empires’ – that is structures of power and politics (as Ilargi has alluded to above) usurp the ‘spiritual’ impulse (which is internal) to its own ends which is dominion over the external manifest material world and increasingly throughout history the internal world as well. Judaism was not to my knowledge usurped by an Empire as its own doctrine, unless you want to include ‘international banking’ :dry:
[strike]Your ‘focus’ on someone called ‘Jesus’ and ‘His’ – ‘His-story’ misses entirely the deeper points about the internal spiritual path. You might as well join Viscount at the ballpark. Don’t get me wrong, I am not questioning your faith, just where it is focused.[/strike] – (Edit see below.)
Bernadette Roberts is a modern mystic who IMHO exemplifies the internal path that is the same for all humans, even if it has different ‘histories’ and frameworks:
However she has tendency to speak about the experience of No-Self as a stage rather than as the everpresent nature of reality, a dharma seal… even though she knows experientially that nondual is pathless without entry and exit.
“Bernadette: That occurred unexpectedly some 25 years after the transforming process. The divine center – the coin, or “true self” – suddenly disappeared, and without center or circumference there is no self, and no divine.”
Initially, when I looked into Buddhism, I did not find the experience of no-self there either; yet I intuited that it had to be there. The falling away of the ego is common to both Hinduism and Buddhism. Therefore, it would not account for the fact that Buddhism became a separate religion, nor would it account for the Buddhist’s insistence on no eternal Self – be it divine, individual or the two in one. I felt that the key difference between these two religions was the no-self experience, the falling away of the true Self, Atman-Brahman.
Unfortunately, what most Buddhist authors define as the no-self experience is actually the no-ego experience. The cessation of clinging, craving, desire, the passions, etc., and the ensuing state of imperturbable peace and joy articulates the egoless state of oneness; it does not, however, articulate the no-self experience or the dimension beyond. Unless we clearly distinguish between these two very different experiences, we only confuse them, with the inevitable result that the true no-self experience becomes lost. If we think the falling away of the ego, with its ensuing transformation and oneness, is the no-self experience, then what shall we call the much further experience when this egoless oneness falls away? In actual experience there is only one thing to call it, the “no-self experience”; it lends itself to no other possible articulation.
Initially, I gave up looking for this experience in the Buddhist literature. Four years later, however, I came across two lines attributed to Buddha describing his enlightenment experience. Referring to self as a house, he said, “All thy rafters are broken now, the ridgepole is destroyed.” And there it was – the disappearance of the center, the ridgepole; without it, there can be no house, no self. When I read these lines, it was as if an arrow launched at the beginning of time had suddenly hit a bulls-eye. It was a remarkable find. These lines are not a piece of philosophy, but an experiential account, and without the experiential account we really have nothing to go on. In the same verse he says, “Again a house thou shall not build,” clearly distinguishing this experience from the falling away of the ego-center, after which a new, transformed self is built around a “true center,” a sturdy, balanced ridgepole.
etc.
Her new book The Real Christ I think is well worth investigating, and I will be ordering a copy soon.
This from a review:And her freinds page is interesting too.
Again there is that IMHO deliberate obfuscation by the ‘religious’ mechanism.
The ‘mythology’ is just that, it is an allegorical framework for the internal path to the divine – it was never meant to be taken as a material factuality – it is a spiritual ‘eternality’, the ‘stories’ may change but the ‘song’ always is the same.
The point is that modern economics and finance are so totally removed from any consideration of selflessness and the common good, yet alone the spiritual inner path that it is a joke when members of this ‘caste’ babble on about philanthropy (Gates Foundation anyone? In the future you won’t own your food, just the ‘right to use it’, and ‘we’ will upgrade it without prior notification – aka the Microsoft model writ large). Their whole world revolves around the ‘ego’. Truly it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter into heaven… :dry:
L,
Sid.gurusid post=7717 wrote: Hi Ashvin,
I was making the point of how ‘Empires’ – that is structures of power and politics (as Ilargi has alluded to above) usurp the ‘spiritual’ impulse (which is internal) to its own ends which is dominion over the external manifest material world and increasingly throughout history the internal world as well. Judaism was not to my knowledge usurped by an Empire as its own doctrine, unless you want to include ‘international banking’ :dry:
Yes, but you implied the formation of empire and “usurpation” occurred around the same time these major spiritual worldviews formed, which also implies there is a connection there. I pointed out that, even if that holds true for other spiritual worldviews (debatable), the Judeo-Christian tradition is unique in this regard. They both formed independently and in stark contrast to the ruling powers of their day. We know that because of another unique aspect of Judeo-Christian theology, it’s heavy reliance on historical reality (more on that below)
Your ‘focus’ on someone called ‘Jesus’ and ‘His’ – ‘His-story’ misses entirely the deeper points about the internal spiritual path. You might as well join Viscount at the ballpark. Don’t get me wrong, I am not questioning your faith, just where it is focused.
I understand, and I am questioning your misguided (IMO) theological perspective of Christianity, in which an artificial congruency with Eastern philosophy/religion is imposed on it. A Christian theology that doesn’t focus on Jesus as a historical human being, what he said and did, his death and Resurrection, is COMPLETELY missing the point. In fact, we are told by Paul that if Jesus has not been raised, the entire faith is meaningless. This is a common theme of both Judaism and Christianity – theological reliance on historical events. The exodus, for ex, is a major point of intersection for the former and the latter. But there are obviously many more examples.
Bernadette Roberts is a modern mystic who IMHO exemplifies the internal path that is the same for all humans, even if it has different ‘histories’ and frameworks:
This is a case in point of how badly we can misconceive Christianity as a worldview when we ignore the person of Jesus and the historical reality surrounding him. Her view is contrary to most of the objective evidence we have about what Jesus taught to his disciples. He was a Jew who came from an orthodox Jewish tradition and claimed to be the Messianic fulfillment of the Jewish prophets and law. He constantly references the clearly monotheistic Old Testament in his discourses, but never once references any Eastern philosophical or religious traditions. He does teach a “no-ego” ethic, as did the Jewish tradition before him, but he never once teaches a “no-self” perspective. Instead, he constantly makes distinctions between people and reinforces the concept of personhood, even WITHIN the Godhead.
I’m no expert, but I’m pretty familiar with mystical perspectives on Christianity, since they are so commonly used as a critique of the historical Christian faith… not a single one stacks up against the objective evidence we have supporting a traditional perspective of Christian theology within the early Church. And, in the modern era, the discovery of new manuscripts, advances in the fields of history, archaeology, science, etc. have only improved the historical reliability of these so-called “myths” or “allegories” found in the Bible.
And her freinds page is interesting too.
The point is that modern economics and finance are so totally removed from any consideration of selflessness and the common good, yet alone the spiritual inner path that it is a joke when members of this ‘caste’ babble on about philanthropy (Gates Foundation anyone? In the future you won’t own your food, just the ‘right to use it’, and ‘we’ will upgrade it without prior notification – aka the Microsoft model writ large). Their whole world revolves around the ‘ego’. Truly it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter into heaven… :dry:
L,
Sid.That is true, but it is the historical reality of Jesus that really stresses this point and makes it meaningful in the Christian faith. If his life, ministry, death and Resurrection were just more fanciful stories aimed at making some larger, abstract metaphysical point, we would be justified is dismissing the whole thing as dishonest, misleading and flat out wrong. If not, then we see a powerful and moving example of a real human being who was completely selfless and faithful to moral virtues, and through his love and grace created the potential for all human beings to truly transform the world.
For those who are interested, an extensive discussion of this issue can be found at The Archdruid Report (long-form blog).
Hi Ashvin,
What ever works for you – that’s the way it has to be for everyone. Forgive me if I sounded trite – it was foolish of me to question your faith in the way I did, and for that I am truly sorry. 😳
L,
Sid.Well, I called JMG out on his irresponsible caricature of conservative Christians as “anti-science” and his blind dogmatic faith in neo-Darwinian evolution.
He responded by saying I was using “dubious stunts”, then by comparing me to Richard Dawkins (?) and finally banned me for telling him to remember the spirit of Matthew 7:5 (don’t hypocritically judge others). Never once did I get a response from him containing a hint of substance or a genuine desire to dialogue with those who would dare question his arguments.
That forum is the quintessential breeding ground for egotistical groupthink…
Hi Ashvin,
I understand, and I am questioning your misguided (IMO) theological perspective of Christianity, in which an artificial congruency with Eastern philosophy/religion is imposed on it.
I beg to differ. Bernadette Roberts was a Christian contemplative:
In her own words, she could not find any reference to this experience anywhere, not even initially in Buddhism:
Initially, when I looked into Buddhism, I did not find the experience of no-self there either; yet I intuited that it had to be there. The falling away of the ego is common to both Hinduism and Buddhism. Therefore, it would not account for the fact that Buddhism became a separate religion, nor would it account for the Buddhist’s insistence on no eternal Self – be it divine, individual or the two in one. I felt that the key difference between these two religions was the no-self experience, the falling away of the true Self, Atman-Brahman. Unfortunately, what most Buddhist authors define as the no-self experience is actually the no-ego experience. The cessation of clinging, craving, desire, the passions, etc., and the ensuing state of imperturbable peace and joy articulates the egoless state of oneness; it does not, however, articulate the no-self experience or the dimension beyond. Unless we clearly distinguish between these two very different experiences, we only confuse them, with the inevitable result that the true no-self experience becomes lost. If we think the falling away of the ego, with its ensuing transformation and oneness, is the no-self experience, then what shall we call the much further experience when this egoless oneness falls away? In actual experience there is only one thing to call it, the “no-self experience”; it lends itself to no other possible articulation.
Initially, I gave up looking for this experience in the Buddhist literature. Four years later, however, I came across two lines attributed to Buddha describing his enlightenment experience. Referring to self as a house, he said, “All thy rafters are broken now, the ridgepole is destroyed.” And there it was – the disappearance of the center, the ridgepole; without it, there can be no house, no self. When I read these lines, it was as if an arrow launched at the beginning of time had suddenly hit a bulls-eye. It was a remarkable find. These lines are not a piece of philosophy, but an experiential account, and without the experiential account we really have nothing to go on. In the same verse he says, “Again a house thou shall not build,” clearly distinguishing this experience from the falling away of the ego-center, after which a new, transformed self is built around a “true center,” a sturdy, balanced ridgepole.
(bold added)
This actually parallels the economic position of TAE; they are using an experiential account of an economic reality i.e. Predatory Elitism and Deflationary Depression that the Churches of economics have no description of. This is why it is so difficult to explain to the majority of economists, and to a larger extent the rest of the current economic church going public. :woohoo:
L,
Sid.OK, well I’m happy to see Roberts say Christian literature does not teach a “no-self” understanding.
In opposition to the Buddha’s saying, we get this from Paul:
1Corinthians3 wrote: By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
We don’t eliminate the “foundation” and “house” that are our lives, but we BUILD upon the foundation that Christ has laid.
gurusid wrote: This actually parallels the economic position of TAE; they are using an experiential account of an economic reality i.e. Predatory Elitism and Deflationary Depression that the Churches of economics have no description of.
I guess you could say that. Although, TAE relies heavily on the academic work of Dr. Keen and his analysis of the debt deflationary theories of Irving Fisher, John Keynes and Hyman Minsky. Sometimes, “experiential accounts” are not enough… and we need to get into the raw hard data.
Hi Ashvin,
Well to me IMHO:
It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
As I see it this is describing two states of being and sounds metaphorically like:
I came across two lines attributed to Buddha describing his enlightenment experience. Referring to self as a house, he said, “All thy rafters are broken now, the ridgepole is destroyed.” And there it was – the disappearance of the center, the ridgepole; without it, there can be no house, no self. When I read these lines, it was as if an arrow launched at the beginning of time had suddenly hit a bulls-eye. It was a remarkable find. These lines are not a piece of philosophy, but an experiential account, and without the experiential account we really have nothing to go on. In the same verse he says, “Again a house thou shall not build,” clearly distinguishing this experience from the falling away of the ego-center, after which a new, transformed self is built around a “true center,” a sturdy, balanced ridgepole.
Thus “if what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward” which is the “oneness” union with God, where as “If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet be saved – even though only as one escaping through flames” equates to the state of no-self being left at all – but still the body is ‘saved’.
As far as Ilargi and Stoneliegh go, I get the distinct impression that they are coming from their own experiential positions in terms of their knowledge and learning which I think if anything is informed be previous historical “raw hard data”. Perhaps they would like to comment?Still at the end of the day, no one can accuse us of being slothful eh!. 😉
L,
Sid.Sid (short for Siddhartha?),
I don’t see how Paul’s teaching and the Buddha’s (as quoted by Roberts) can be equated. If anything, they seem to be the exact opposite.
Roberts is contrasting the “no-ego” perspective (destroying the old house of “ego” and building a new house) from the no-self perspective (destroying the old house and not building anything new, but just experiencing existence without a house, so to speak). Paul’s teaching is very much in line with the no-ego, new self perspective rather than the no-ego, no-self one.
Roberts wrote: In the same verse he says, “Again a house thou shall not build,” clearly distinguishing this experience from the falling away of the ego-center, after which a new, transformed self is built around a “true center,” a sturdy, balanced ridgepole.
So Paul is teaching a new, transformed self, which can be clearly distinguished from the Buddha’s “a house thou shall not build” teaching. Our old house is broken down by God’s grace, and the new house is established with Christ as its foundation (by faith). Then, although we are saved, we should attempt to build upon that foundation with righteous works, which will be “tested by fire” to reveal what they truly are. If they are merely superficial works, then we are only saved as one “escaping through the flames”.
Hi Ashvin,
Our old house is broken down by God’s grace, and the new house is established with Christ as its foundation (by faith). Then, although we are saved, we should attempt to build upon that foundation with righteous works, which will be “tested by fire” to reveal what they truly are. If they are merely superficial works, then we are only saved as one “escaping through the flames”.
Now that I like! 🙂
“In My Father’s House There Are Many Rooms.” (John 14:2)
Many non-Catholic denominations have referred to this passage in their argument that everyone who has faith in Jesus, they are saved no matter what religions they belong to.
…n’est pas? Yes I know it refers to the ‘saving only of parishioners’ who specifically follow Christ, but IMHO that is the same ‘elitism’ that is involved with the current economic crisis. I prefer the interpretation that everyone who turns in their heart to the principles of Christ’s teaching will automatically be saved. :woohoo:
Sid (short for Siddhartha?)
No, just vicious, as in the Sex Pistols… :whistle: The ‘L’ stands for LOVE every time! 😆
L,
Sid.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.