My debate with a Biblical-Thumping Myopic INDIVIDUAL

Now what if I said I CAN'T GIVE my X-tian friend GOOD KARMA, because he can't receive it, as he says. Just doesn't seem right THAT I CAN'T. ANYBODY see irony in that? LIke "SORRY, don't give me your view of the compassionate edifice this LIFE portends, because I DON"T SEE IT THAT WAY. YOUR WAY. ANY OTHER WAY THAN THE CONCRETIZED MONOLITH of MY own VIEW." NOW NOW WAIT A MINUTE. IN THAT my friend BELIEVES TRULY IN ONE LOVE OF HIS SAVIOR AND OUR promise therein--on the face of it, is fine. HE SAYS HE CARES. I JUST CAN'T FIND where that has become liminal in anybody else's tradition. Sorry, I find that sad, if not misinformed to imagine that it ought to be.


WEll, I am just going with the fact that my X-tian friend would not accept alternatives to Higher Ground. Meaning, he may interpret my goal for something Transcendent as lacking the Truth/ Jesus. I mean, that is the case isn't it? He feels I for one and Dalai Lama and an extenuating list of folks all are MISSING the boat. That may be hard for him to defend and meanwhile it may seem I would be mad at you for that sense of cultural resolve, but I am just trying to be as critically aware of how it is people generally dismiss the quality of the Other's view toward Compassion. It seems he has said as much. The Dalai Lama has mISSED the boat--so to speak, I have heard him say. I just think it's misinformed about the beauty of what one could get out of his / her own trad if it is at the expense of marginalizing the mutual arising of another community. You see, I am being rational. I am using an idea you yourself have noted about the LIMITS of everyone else, til they have found Jesus. There shouldn't be any thing angry/volatile here coming across. I would never say Jesus was anything but a beautiful Path. It may not be mine, but that must be my perogative, not now the job of X-tians to start a conflagration of missionizing, because they can't accept I haven't reckoned apostasy.
So, I am asked about Sin. I think by sin he may mean behavior that is misguided: actively pursuing concupiscence--self-indulgence.
Yeah, I call that escapism. For instance assuming we have the ultimate tool for catharsis, and discovery of our failings, sin makes for suffering of self and others. But considering people want to define things impermanently by imagining there is a World Here-after, because they feel better that the instinct of one's own demise shall BE answered for, IS what I call escapism. Because Jesus didn't REALLY say (as evinced in Karen Armstrong's wisdom seeking research) to believe in him, but to have faith--the root of which is termed Initiated. And as that initiation isn't our perfection, but only gratifying, albeit strongly having become better acquainted with our World in all its myriad forms, still, the tool only portrays an approximation about Creation. SO IT'S FLAWED, as we are even in the writing of said Scripture, tho' inspired in its relevance. SO AGREE--and quit running from the POTENTIAL beauty and relevance with the Dalai Lama that his Path must be as certain,--relevance being the actionable word. Because he has as flawed a tool as the bible, and equally inspired.



Next I was asked about resurrection: Sorry I find it strange that you'd think THE QUESTION for me is whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead. Because my friend that doesn't phase me. I am not answering THRU the biblacy lens--as you do. So, you'd get no verity from my sense of the super-natural assertion of scripture. Anyway, as far as discovery of TRUTH--the way, I'd say TRUTH is a PATHLESS land.**Krishnamurti reference. Truth is an obstacle to our sense of relevance. For instance, we are certain that we are bound by time, even timelessness, yet we transition, making the case for a strong TRUTH about the impermanence of things.
***I know that people come and go, this truth suggests I may as well reckon my solitarian life and imagine that ONLY my condition has significance. But tho' this sense of eternality and its corruption thru space, ignorance and desire, is a true observation (the fragmented lives we lead!)--it takes getting over EGO to realize that other person feels just as I do.--feeling solitarian I mean. THAT's KARMA. WE both are mutually arising. Seemingly having nothing to do with each other, yet we would learn from each other--not make him or her believe as I do, but accept that their world has conditions seriously different than mine and must be given its due respect. There is nothing but disipline that would make me "give a care" about other communities' IDEAL in their struggle with Transcendence. And disipline is not merely a path--actually it is sincerely OBSERVING WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT--just observing, NOT ACTING necessarily over abstract points like pie in the sky, and a world to come. There is one world--agreed--heaven and or hell before us, why deny the fine details of our various interpretations in how to live AMONGST?
Dude, youre welcome to go with odds, why would I accept the same proposition, since X-tianity is your religious antecedent, and not mine. So by way of answering your question--I could always climb over the wall rather than run into it, or I could sit before it in contemplation of the thing liminal. The uber-mensch, as discussed in Dostoevskii's Underground Man, so to speak topples the effect of even his own reprieve if only to maintain OBJECTIVITY. Whose alternative is delusion when we become complacent and imagine we have all that material control, as well as control over spiritual resources. Which isn't ABOUT DOCTRINE singularly, or if I accept then I'll-be-saved equations. I don't give away anything I'd ever need in the end. The thing you'd ask me to give away is the sense of identity I derive, as fleeting as it is, to a political institution: pick your religion--they all are! I'll be clear about the "IDENTITY" thing. The only thing, and the most noble thing TO ggive away IS identity. But, if I do, as I wear the cloak of aphorisms in light of the X-tian Ideal, then X-tians must also seek wisdom in what otherwise is not conventional to them. Because in the end convention means NOTHING, there is no normative to which I will create a life of unvarying habit. Constant revolution--if only in thought. Laying my salvation at the foot of an institution, as the gospel of John asks one to do, is foolish--the Gospel of Thomas says the Light of the Lord is within. Why accept a church conflict about what was accepted as canon, and what ought not be, while denying access to any other wisdom religion?