BreezeWood brought up issues in another thread (on spiritual experiences and ways of sharing them)
that seemed to imply my beliefs were intrinsically tied or OWED to past Christian teachings and Bible.
I was not able to explain to BreezeWood what my beliefs are and where they came from
to EXPLAIN this is not based at all on anything BreezeWood is attributing to past Christianity
as negative, false, and abused to persecute.
So I'm starting this new thread to compare the DIFFERENCE between the
visions and beliefs I have about the FUTURE of humanity (and religions)
vs. the old school way of teaching these same things.
BreezeWood I hope this helps distinguish the areas where I go into the future
and teach what is missing from the past.
I will summarize this in THREE parts
A. comparing Buddhism of the past with where I see the future
of humanity "expressed in Buddhist terms" (but it did not COME from that,
that's just the language used to describe the future developments of humanity using this system)
B. comparing Constitutionalism of the past with how I see it taught and fulfilled in the present and future
C. comparing Christianity of the past with where I see it fulfilled in the future
==============
C. I already tried to summarize my beliefs using Christian structure and language:
1. the OLD TESTAMENT is about living by the letter of the law which unfortunately
gets corrupted by political greed for power. so use of LAWS ends up focusing on
RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE or judgment and punishment for authoritarian power over people,
causing death destruction and war or hell on earth.
2. The NEW TESTAMENT is about living by the SPIRIT of the law
where "Christ Jesus" represents Universal JUSTICE for all people to bring PEACE on earth,
or RESTORATIVE JUSTICE with a focus on forgiveness, correction and restitution
(not judgment, punishment and rejection)
My way of comparing the CORRUPTED incorporation of "Christianity" into politics
is to equate it with the spirit of ANTICHRIST.
(BreezeWood also objects to the whole corruption by Christian Bible and teachings
but calls this Christianity while I call it Antichrist and against the true meaning of Christianity.)
So the main difference is that I don't try to justify and call the politics of the past
consistent with Christian belief in God giving people dominance over others.
I'm saying the way of RESTORATIVE JUSTICE is the true meaning and message of Christ
Jesus, and the Bible is a symbolic representation of the human process of realizing Justice
or the spirit of Jesus embodied in man to reconcile man's laws and will with God's laws and will
as one in peace and harmony, establishing Truth Justice and Peace for all humanity.
A. For Buddhism the basic principles that all Buddhist teachings are based on are
1. Developing perfect WISDOM
2. Developing perfect COMPASSION
These are like the equivalent of the Great Commandments in Christianity
1. To love GOD with all our hearts minds and souls
2. to love our neighbors as ourselves
and the THIRD NEW COMMANDMENT that joins these two as one:
3. To love one another as Christ Jesus loves us
Which means to love one another not with conditional human love
but with God's unconditional love that is universally selfless for all people.
What is missing from Buddhism is a THIRD level.
So my beliefs about what will complete and fulfill the Buddhist teachings
is a THIRD principle about putting Wisdom and Compassion into action in the real world:
Either a principle on "Developing perfect communication"
or "Developing perfect community".
B. For Constitutionalism currently this is taught as the laws applying to checking GOVERNMENT
and defining rights of individuals that are NOT regulated by laws.
But I teach Constitutional laws by applying the Golden Rule,
that whatever rights and laws we want enforced for us,
that means we have to follow and uphold these same laws, not just argue GOVT has to do that.
But the PEOPLE must enforce the same standards in order to invoke authority
of Government to compel others to do the same by our example and support for these same standards
1. Free exercise of religion is not just individuals outside of govt
but empowers people to equal EXERCISE or executive authority to carry out our own programs
and policies
2. Freedom of speech is not just individuals speaking for ourselves
but empowers people to equal JUDICIAL authority to have equal say in interpreting
laws since this involves our beliefs, which GOVT can neither establish or prohibit without
the consent of the people affected (so that judicial power is not abused to impose religious decisions)
3. Freedom of the press is not only about communication and expression
but the capacity to write and establish our own laws and contracts for ourselves
4. And the right of the people to assemble and to petition "the government" is a combination
of all these powers in the democratic process, where "the people" and "the government" are one, so we are basically charged with responsibility for petitioning EACH OTHER to resolve grievances and conflicts
This interpretation of Constitutional laws and principles makes people equal participants in govt
instead of separating it where people in govt "make decisions for" people outside. The govt
should reflect and represent the consent of the governed, especially to avoid "taxation without
representation" or discrimination by creed by excluding or violating the beliefs or consent of citizens.
BreezeWood I couldn't fit in all the differences between the old school way
of teaching these laws, and the way I see society in the future.
Is this outline clear enough to show where my beliefs are coming from the future
instead of the arguments you make about the political history behind Christian
teachings that is coming from the past. In the FUTURE all these wrongs will
be corrected so we will no longer teach the old ways that led to corruption abuse and war.
In the future, humanity will agree to focus on Truth Justice and Peace,
so this is the spirit of the laws that will fulfill the teachings in Buddhism,
Christianity and the Constitutional laws as well. Can you see the difference
when I spell it out this way by comparison? Between the traditional ways
of teaching and the future ways when laws are fulfilled in a unifying way.
Thank you and hope this helps us
to communicate better as to where
corrections need to be made to how ALL these systems
are taught and fulfilled.
that seemed to imply my beliefs were intrinsically tied or OWED to past Christian teachings and Bible.
I was not able to explain to BreezeWood what my beliefs are and where they came from
to EXPLAIN this is not based at all on anything BreezeWood is attributing to past Christianity
as negative, false, and abused to persecute.
So I'm starting this new thread to compare the DIFFERENCE between the
visions and beliefs I have about the FUTURE of humanity (and religions)
vs. the old school way of teaching these same things.
BreezeWood I hope this helps distinguish the areas where I go into the future
and teach what is missing from the past.
I will summarize this in THREE parts
A. comparing Buddhism of the past with where I see the future
of humanity "expressed in Buddhist terms" (but it did not COME from that,
that's just the language used to describe the future developments of humanity using this system)
B. comparing Constitutionalism of the past with how I see it taught and fulfilled in the present and future
C. comparing Christianity of the past with where I see it fulfilled in the future
==============
C. I already tried to summarize my beliefs using Christian structure and language:
1. the OLD TESTAMENT is about living by the letter of the law which unfortunately
gets corrupted by political greed for power. so use of LAWS ends up focusing on
RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE or judgment and punishment for authoritarian power over people,
causing death destruction and war or hell on earth.
2. The NEW TESTAMENT is about living by the SPIRIT of the law
where "Christ Jesus" represents Universal JUSTICE for all people to bring PEACE on earth,
or RESTORATIVE JUSTICE with a focus on forgiveness, correction and restitution
(not judgment, punishment and rejection)
My way of comparing the CORRUPTED incorporation of "Christianity" into politics
is to equate it with the spirit of ANTICHRIST.
(BreezeWood also objects to the whole corruption by Christian Bible and teachings
but calls this Christianity while I call it Antichrist and against the true meaning of Christianity.)
So the main difference is that I don't try to justify and call the politics of the past
consistent with Christian belief in God giving people dominance over others.
I'm saying the way of RESTORATIVE JUSTICE is the true meaning and message of Christ
Jesus, and the Bible is a symbolic representation of the human process of realizing Justice
or the spirit of Jesus embodied in man to reconcile man's laws and will with God's laws and will
as one in peace and harmony, establishing Truth Justice and Peace for all humanity.
A. For Buddhism the basic principles that all Buddhist teachings are based on are
1. Developing perfect WISDOM
2. Developing perfect COMPASSION
These are like the equivalent of the Great Commandments in Christianity
1. To love GOD with all our hearts minds and souls
2. to love our neighbors as ourselves
and the THIRD NEW COMMANDMENT that joins these two as one:
3. To love one another as Christ Jesus loves us
Which means to love one another not with conditional human love
but with God's unconditional love that is universally selfless for all people.
What is missing from Buddhism is a THIRD level.
So my beliefs about what will complete and fulfill the Buddhist teachings
is a THIRD principle about putting Wisdom and Compassion into action in the real world:
Either a principle on "Developing perfect communication"
or "Developing perfect community".
B. For Constitutionalism currently this is taught as the laws applying to checking GOVERNMENT
and defining rights of individuals that are NOT regulated by laws.
But I teach Constitutional laws by applying the Golden Rule,
that whatever rights and laws we want enforced for us,
that means we have to follow and uphold these same laws, not just argue GOVT has to do that.
But the PEOPLE must enforce the same standards in order to invoke authority
of Government to compel others to do the same by our example and support for these same standards
1. Free exercise of religion is not just individuals outside of govt
but empowers people to equal EXERCISE or executive authority to carry out our own programs
and policies
2. Freedom of speech is not just individuals speaking for ourselves
but empowers people to equal JUDICIAL authority to have equal say in interpreting
laws since this involves our beliefs, which GOVT can neither establish or prohibit without
the consent of the people affected (so that judicial power is not abused to impose religious decisions)
3. Freedom of the press is not only about communication and expression
but the capacity to write and establish our own laws and contracts for ourselves
4. And the right of the people to assemble and to petition "the government" is a combination
of all these powers in the democratic process, where "the people" and "the government" are one, so we are basically charged with responsibility for petitioning EACH OTHER to resolve grievances and conflicts
This interpretation of Constitutional laws and principles makes people equal participants in govt
instead of separating it where people in govt "make decisions for" people outside. The govt
should reflect and represent the consent of the governed, especially to avoid "taxation without
representation" or discrimination by creed by excluding or violating the beliefs or consent of citizens.
BreezeWood I couldn't fit in all the differences between the old school way
of teaching these laws, and the way I see society in the future.
Is this outline clear enough to show where my beliefs are coming from the future
instead of the arguments you make about the political history behind Christian
teachings that is coming from the past. In the FUTURE all these wrongs will
be corrected so we will no longer teach the old ways that led to corruption abuse and war.
In the future, humanity will agree to focus on Truth Justice and Peace,
so this is the spirit of the laws that will fulfill the teachings in Buddhism,
Christianity and the Constitutional laws as well. Can you see the difference
when I spell it out this way by comparison? Between the traditional ways
of teaching and the future ways when laws are fulfilled in a unifying way.
Thank you and hope this helps us
to communicate better as to where
corrections need to be made to how ALL these systems
are taught and fulfilled.
