»THE MATRIX AND BIBLICAL UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM«

"The Matrix 1", Unitarian Universalism, and the True Biblical Matrix

By: Orlando Alcántara F. (Cristorly).
At the end of December, 2003, I hadn’t seen The Matrix 1 and I hadn’t searched into the knowledge of the Biblical Unitarian Universalism yet. In those days I saw a Christian drama that tried to
Christianize the film taking away from it the elements of the New Era. In that occasion it seemed to me to be mistaken to take an example from
the "world" in order to give a Christian message to the People of God. I was mistaken in this point, but when seeing the film last night (Sunday January 23rd, 2005),
and after I had studied over 2,000 pages of Biblical Unitarian Universalism (www.godstruthfortoday.org), I realized that without knowing that night back in 2003 I was correct but for different reasons that I intuited secretly and about unexpected aspects that I explain now.
In the cosmogony of "The Matrix 1" coexist evident contradictions. It tries to be trinitarian in its deontology, but it does not reach to surpass its dualism. It tries to be trinitarian with respect to its ontology, but it does not stop being anthropocentric, since in its attempt to be Theocentric (Zion, the One, the Source) it could not articulate a truly unitarian universe in which
God had a unique personality apart from the trinitarian impersonality that tries to be caught by the symbol (Neo, Morpheus and Trinity). Good and Evil are not Good and Evil if Equilibrium does not exist. Positive, negative and neutral. God is one, not three in one. God is Yahweh. God is Spirit. The Holy Spirit of God is the same Spirit of God as it is expressed very well in Shakespeare’s English. Christ is the Only Begotten. That is to say, the only Son who was generated directly by God. Generated, not created. Adam and Eve are created to the image and likeness of Christ and by
transitoriety all of us are created to the image and likeness of God, including Satan the Devil and all his malignant angels. Here there is a Source (Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6 and Proverbs 16:33). An Origin. Zion. In real and true cosmogony there is no place for the concept of "Matrix" as presented by the film, because over there the "Matrix" is maya or orientalist illusion that admits
in its universe the concept of Reincarnation against the correct concept of Resurrection. It is truth -as it is displayed in the film- that the human beings in their great majority live under the false effects of the unreal
reality of the society in which in a way or another they function like robots, just by showing an ephemeral power, or by putting themselves under a deadly madness to reach for that same power that does not
come from the top, but that is "a knife for their own throat". And here the divine punishment enters into the game, an element that is not taken into account by the film. And everything is sum up in a power struggle being stranded from the correct adoration to the only alive and living God in the figure of
Jesus Christ. Some follow Muhammad. Others follow Buddha. Some follow Nietszche. Others follow Gandhi. Some follow Socrates. Others follow Virgin Mary. Some follow the pastor of their favorite congregation. Others follow the magnetism of their favorite doctrine. The distortion is enormous. The true adoration "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24) is
absent every day of the human heart darkened by the direct or indirect influences of Satan the Devil. However, how to justify such a chaotic universe as ours? The answer belongs to Trinity when she kisses Neo: Love. Thanks to the unconditional love of God everything is possible. The First Cause is God and the purpose of knowing Evil in the present
time is to give account to us of its temporality, it is for enabling us to appreciate in its right dimension all the kindnesses of Good, that it is eternal, non-temporal, being God Yahweh its more perfect reflection in the Golgothian Cross
of Calvary in the atoning sacrifice of His only Son Jesus
Christ. Here the atonement is not by substitution, but all the opposite. The atonement is for inclusion, that is to say, Christ died in favor of ours to include us in the extremely highly perfect merits of His own Blood. That is to say, it is not true that Christ died instead of the sinner, like a substitute of the sinner, but, rather, Christ took our sins, which we could not atone for by ourselves nor give nothing in return to settle for such a great debt and Christ included all the created beings in His
sacrifice of infinite repercussions in all the future happening of the
universe, then with His sacrifice Christ carried out the Universal
Reconciliation (II Corinthians 5:19, Romans 5:18, Romans 11:32, I Timothy 2:4, 4:10, Tito 2:11, Colossians 1:20, I Corinthians 15:22, Ephesians 1:9-11). The film "Matrix 1" is a serious attempt to present a correct cosmogony, real in last instance, but their deontological premises are not framed in the true Biblical
Unitarian Universalism that can explain all the interiorities of the real reality without any cliffhanger. The film fails in its attempt of being trinitarian. In last instance the universe will be what it is, that is to say, there will be neither trinitarism nor no dualism, everything will be unitarian, the Great All will be what He is, He will be ONE. There will be no positive, negative and neutral, but all the opposite, everything will be affirmative, no action will be simply positive, nor neutral and by logic it will not exist Evil. Everything will be Yahweh and all the created beings we will be one in the
Great ONE. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Perhaps somewhere in that orgy of understanding you could have explained to us what "biblical unitarian universalism" is?

It sounds like you have plenty of things to say, but at the moment I have no way of differentiating what you are saying from Hick's pluralism or from an inclusivist perspective. It is really not very obvious what your great theological concept is. Perhaps you could explain the basics behind this essay?

Hello! As a clear and evident reference I mentioned the website that explains in detail the concept of Biblical Unitarian Universalism. That website is God's Truth For Today (www.godstruthfortoday.org). Biblical means to stay all the way within the boundaries of the Bible as The Word of God. This means plenary authority as long as the translation used is as close as possible to the "original" manuscripts that we so far have. This version of the Bible is the Concordant Bible by A. E. Knoch (www.concordant.org). The translation has to be as accurate as possible and the late A. E. Knoch did a great job in his version using the Concordant Method of Translation discovered by him at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Unitarian is ridiculously simple: One God. Period. The same God of the Bible. The same God as worshiped by the Jews, not the Christians. There is no Holy Trinity in Unitarianism. Universalism is obvious: It is the salvation of all the CREATED BEINGS. That means the Human Beings plus the Dark Angels. I think that you didn't take a look at Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6 and Proverbs 16:33. My theological corpus might seem strange to you, but it is so simple that sometimes it is better to say nothing. This theology makes sense and there are no cliffhangers in it. It explains everything, good and evil, Adam, Eve and the Devil. There is a real discipline, a real punishment in between before the ultimate goal. And there are also big awards for the obeying creatures. I say things in a complex way in order to keep the aesthetic level of language, but it doesn't mean that I am talking about difficult things. Bear with me. Take your time to dig it. That's it. I am not going anywhere and most important people won't pay attention to my theology. See you. Blessings in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

all of those dogmatic texts would be better served as rolling papers.

Hello! You can't get away "dogmatics". Behind "The Matrix" there is an unavoidable "dogmatics". Behind your rolling paper there is an unavoidable "dogmatics". If you really saw "The Matrix", you are not supposed to discard joyfully any "dogmatics". Somebody might be behind your brains. If any. You are missing my point. I am speaking about First Cause, Who is God, so "The Matrix" is controlled by Zion. So the cosmogony of "The Matrix" is obviously wrong. My point is simple: Why not make a science fiction movie based on the correct and right cosmogony? Does that offend you? Is that an insult to your intelligence to propose a correct and right movie? Is it a sin to argue against the cosmogony of The Matrix? On the contrary, what I am saying can be used by a bright movie producer to deliver a brilliant "The Matrix"-like movie. "Great people don't laugh at great ideas." That is my point and I stand behind it 100 per cent. If you don't dig my cosmogony, that's OK, but some movie producer might dig it. That's why I am speaking my mind. If my cosmogony is wrong at the end of times, the same we can say about "The Matrix"'s cosmogony. "The Matrix" is not the Word of God. It's a movie. You might say I am wrong, but I am not the only one. In fact, out of my cosmogony a better, more optimistic movie can be made in favor of all Humankind. It would be like the "Hymn of Joy". Like "Leaves of Grass" (Walt Whitman). No bygotry. No nothing. Just peace. And joy for everybody. A real "Matrix" for everybody. Happiness in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

What good is your view of religion if those who do not accept it can still be saved?

You claim that all created beings will be saved. Does that include atheists? If not, why not?

You may think your interpretation fits well with the movies, but you must realise that there are many possible interpretations - including atheistic ones. All these interpretations are equally valid, yet vastly different.

Hello! We are talking business now. It's true that all interpretations are valid, but there is only space for one and only right and correct interpretation in the long run. Not matter what that correct and right interpretation might be, there is no doubt in the Universe that someday all of us will get to know it. There is no way out. My point remains the same. It is a good idea to make a movie based on my own cosmology using characters from The Matrix and renaming them according to their new status in my cosmology. Why not? It sounds good to me to come up with a Biblical Unitarian Universalist movie with its own branded signature completely different from all other movies in the planet but using all the tricks of the trade that can be borrowed from a great variety of movies, books and ideas. That could be a great movie. It won't be a Hollywood movie. Not even an avant-garde movie if you like, but it would be a real and fascinating cult movie with a great following of new movie fans. It would be a new paradigm much more in accord with globalization because globalization is universalist in essence. Internet is universalist like it or not. It iw for everybody with randomly equal opportunity of benefitin of its resources. Maybe through this forum a serious movie producer might get interested and make his own movie out of my cosmology or interpretation. Thanks, FatPie, for the feedback! Blessings in Christ Jesus to all. Cristorly

Why aren't you answering any of my questions?

What good is your view of religion if those who do not accept it can still be saved?

You claim that all created beings will be saved. Does that include atheists? If not, why not?



I do not see that your interpretation of the matrix works any better than any other and I don't think there has to be one correct interpretation. I don't think that is how the movie is intended. The movie is very postmodern, lending itself to many possible interpretations. We cannot say that the meaning is held by the Wachowskis since the meaning is held by the work itself. This is best understood by reading Barthes' "Death Of The Authour":

Hello! Excuse me. I got excited and forgot to answer your questions. All created beings include atheists for sure. Atheists will be saved of course, but there will be different degrees of glory, like the glory of the stars (I Corinthians 15). Evil is ignorance in my cosmogony. Ignorance leads to sinning. Sinning leads to isolation from God Himself. The higher state of glory will be the ones reigning with Christ in the heavens. The lowest state of glory will be the ones on Earth living in a state of limbo. It is like in The Matrix. Almost exactly the same as in The Matrix, where most of the people are not aware of their numb state. They live in maya (illusion). They will know their true identity as sons of God, but they won't enjoy the benefits of being closer to God as the ones living in the realm of the heavens reigning with Christ. The mission of the enlighted beings in my cosmogony is to help as many created beings as possible to wake up from their state of dream (maya) and to raise themselves to a higher realm of being through the love of Jesus Christ. Knowledge is the weapon used by those messiahs and in the long run all of the created beings will be messiahs in a way, because there won't be no more ignorance anymore even in the lowest level or degree of glory. But the main advantage of being enlighted is to escape the wrath of God in the day of the Judgment of the Great White Throne (Revelation 20:11). Why? All the created beings will be ultimately saved, but most of them will be punished according to their degrees of evil (ignorance). So there is a clear benefit of knowing the truth and that is the mission of the different messiahs (not only one) led by Christ Himself according to my cosmogony. I agree with you regarding the metapoetic and postmodern qualities of The Matrix, giving to it many different meanings and interpretations. Its multifold semiology is accomplished through the deliberate use of ambiguity by the part of their authors. Mainly its ambiguity resembles the same ambiguity of many Buddhist sentences and situations. For somebody who knows Buddhism as a philosophy (not teology) and the manifold power of language with all its intrinsic ambiguity when we deliberately want to be ambigious, then in that case the multiple interpretations of the movie won't be a possitive quality, but instead it will reveal as this forum is revealing in other sections that there are certain inner contradictions in the epistemological corpus of the different movies. There are certain cliffhangers that are unavoidable. Regarding Barthes, I haven't read the text that you quote, so I can give you my opinion after I read it myself. Any way you see it my teology is in itself consistent. It makes sense. And a good movie can be made out the closed body of a meaningful universe where all its members are validated by the Creator Himself. My teleology is the best possible one, because in my universe every little being is trascendent, is meaningful according to the Creator's purpose or plan. See you. I hope to have answered all your questions. Blessings. Cristorly

When you say 'teology' do you mean 'theology'?

Your theology sounds somewhat naive. Surely you cannot bully people into being saved? If so what makes you think the punishments rained down from heaven in revelations will lead to the salvation?

Surely some of these punishments are meant to be 'eternal hell' so surely that means that some people are never saved? But even if none of them are eternal punishments it still does not seem obvious how any punishment from God could possibly encourage us to love Him.

If we look at the way the matrix links to your view, maybe you could explain how any theology can fit into a film which seems to depict God as cruel and condescending. I have the same trouble in real life understanding how anybody can wish to accept a God who is so cruel. Surely the only reason we have original sin is because God blames us for the actions of our parents?

It seems to me that the matrix shows the supernatural beings (machines) learning from humans and not the other way around.

Could you use paragraphs in your next post please? It makes it much easier to read.

Hello! Excuse my wrong spelling. It is theology. My theology is not naive, but subtle. Punishment is not torture, it's discipline. If you say "eternal punishment", that is not logical. If punishment could be eternal, it is not punishment, it is torture. You can say eternal suffering, or eternal torture, but you can't say "eternal punishment". It doesn't make sense from the semantic point of view. Punishment has an end. Always. Punishmente according to Hebrews 12 is an expression of God's love.

Regarding original sin we have Romans 5:18 where we have its counterpart in the sacrifice of Christ. The same is expressed with different words in Romans 11:32. There is original sin, but there is also original obedience in the example set by Christ. So everything is settled for our own well being.

At the beginning of my posts I said that we must use a good translation of the Bible. One such translation is the Concordant Bible. Hades, Sheol, Tartarus, Gehenna and Lake of Fire are translated as Hell. None of them refers to eternal torture. When you say Hell in English, you get frightened, but if you go back to the original word with its original meaning, you won't be frightened at all. Hell is just pagan fear.

God is not cruel at all. God is Love. According to my theology it's easy to see why God is unconditional love. According to the popular theologies it is impossible to see how God can be unconditional love when he is sending most of His creatures to hellfire.

From the philosophical point of view, God is necessary to explain the Universe. God is the First Cause. But God is also the Last Cause. This is Universalism at its best. The atheists belong to God no matter what they might think about God. All of us belong to God no matter what idea we have about God. This is where a movie based on the right and correct cosmogony has a place. The Matrix tried to accomplish it, but as we are seeing with this analysis they couldn't get it right. There are many cliffhangers around The Matrix and they can only be solved with the right and correct theology.

Last year I was working on a script for an ethical soap opera and I couldn't go on with it. I think that after watching The Matrix my script will work better for a movie. So I am thinking to work on a script for a The Matrix-like movie. My characters will have biblical names and the setting will be a paradise island where they compete for a big prize. It will be a mixture of "The Truman Show", "The Matrix" and "Love Boat". Something like it. I am just thinking on it, but so far I don't know if I will get my hands on that script. Thanks a lot for the feedback. Cristorly

Meh, all this theological discussion is making my head hurt.

As FatPie42 has put it, there is no clear and definite "answer" to the meaning of the movies. The Matrix is in itself what many might call a Hollywood philosophical treatise. It attempts to "awaken" its viewers to the truth of the world: that there is no truth. There is no end-all answer. In its personification of various philosophical beliefs, including determinism through Morpheus and non-determinism through several characters (Jada Pinkett Smith saying "I don't believe in the prophecy...I believe in Neo"), it also attempts to tell people that true insight comes from within. As such, the "truth" of the Universe and existence is as variable as our genetic code. Each one of us is in some way an individual, and as a result, our philosophies' all differ in some small way. All philosophies are as right as they are wrong (and this includes religion), for the plain and simple truth that they rely on the individual.

In short; the only right answer to any philosophical question is the answer that is right for you. Whether it's Biblical Unitarian Universalism, Hinduism, neoplatonism - or, as it happens quite often, a mix of several views - it's your choice. The Matrix does a great job of showing us that these questions have no real answers by raising very pertinent philosophical topics and leaving them open to interpretation. Some people (i.e. the guy that wrote the intro to matrix-explained.com) don't see that. But hey, it's only natural that we would want these frustrating questions answered.

Sadly, there IS no answer. And on a side-note - if you disagree with anything I've said above, you're wrong...but you're also right. Geez, who'da thunk that the world was so complicated?

Hello, Silent Warrior! Welcome to the real world! In my first post, which is a stand alone article in itself, I made an interesting distinction between the anthropocentric and the theocentric points of view. Nihilism is valid from the anthropocentric point of view. From God's point of view there is only one answer to all our questions. And that answer will always be a positive answer. Ambiguity is ruling the world at this moment, but one day will come when ambiguity will cease, we will know face to face the real truth about the unity of the Universe. It will still be unity within the diversity, but Nihilism and ambiguity in the negative sense will all cease.

Your point of view is completely anthropocentric, so it is a very popular and idolized point of view. It is harmful against evil. And evil is ignorance. You can do as you please. All of us can do as we please. So it is the most commonly accepted point of view. It is democracy at its best. What I am trying to point at is the fact that a theocentric movie can be made. Not democracy, but theocracy. That's what I am aiming at. To create characters out of real life with different and conflicting points of view that can show as a whole the unity of the Universe. I think that a movie like that can be a reality. That's what I am aiming for. Unity within diversity. God all in all (I Corinthians 15: 2 8 ). That is the comsummation. That is the ultimate end of the Universe. Happiness in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

Eternal values are the root of all evil.

A theocentric view is dangerous because it considers eternal beings to be more important than people. Humans are not all the same, we are all unique. We adapt and change and our values do too. If humans are not allowed to change, their ideas and culture grow stagnant. Humanity, not God, should be the centre of any ideology if it is to be humane.

SilentWarrior wrote:

Meh, all this theological discussion is making my head hurt. In short; the only right answer to any philosophical question is the answer that is right for you.

I am digressing from the theological and taking a philosophical angle...

I'm pretty sure you're championing relativism here. Relativism, if I am not mistaken, is logically unsound. It assumes there aren't certain truths because debate about them is intractible. If this were so, we would have to accept the argument that the world is flat as true simply because someone believes that to be the case.

Moreover, it assumes that since disagreement proves no objectivity, then objectivity guarantees agreement. This is not true. Math is objective without even being emperical, yet someone could believe that two is an odd number, and the relativist would have to agree with him.

However, in terms of the film, perhaps the directors did intend for many different interpretations; it's just that one should not assume any philosophical treatise follows the same rule.

Thanks for being epistemological, Dub329! Most of the Nihilists and Relativists say the following: "There is no absolute truth". But notice that what they just said is an absolute truth. So there follows that there is indeed absolute truth. Taking the Buddhist way, we can see that reality is manifold, but all Buddhists are looking for an absolute state of being. They are looking for enlightment, for Nirvana.

The physical Universe is absolute in itself. We cannot say that the Earth moves and doesn't move at the same time. We cannot say that both statements are true at the same time. That would be nonsense. An absurdity. So we cannot negate Eternity just because we die.

I dream of a sound movie with a sound cosmological background. In that movie one of the characters will take the position of FatPie and he will say at the beginning of the movie in a very categorical way: "All eternal values are the root of all evil". That is the movie I am dreaming of and in this forum I am getting some nice ideas. And pretty good lines. Thanks to all in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

When it comes to written texts or artworks, relativism is perfectly reasonable. Texts can be interpreted in many different ways, we know this. We also know that the authour/painter may not have realised all possible interpretations when they wrote the text. Even when the text says 'I', that 'I' has become a character in the story and is distanced from the authour.

The only source of absolute truth in a novel is the authour. But to give the authour such power over the work is tyranny. The work has as many meanings as can be interpretated within it.

Now when we look to religion itself, this is no longer an artwork. Certainly there WILL be certain facts of the matter when it comes to questions like "Is God real?" However, there are linguistic problems with the question. No one has ever really adequately defined God because he is wholly other from our normal experience.

So what comes from this. Religious ideas describe the phonomenology of religious experience. What a muslim may describe as Allah, a buddhist may describe as a nothingness, a divine nirvana. There may even be Nietzschean atheists who describe it as the shadow of the superman.

What is wrong with theistic scripture and doctrine is that our understanding of what the truths are is not found in our experience, but in fixed texts. No adapting and changing is allowed anymore. We are forced back into the tyranny of the authour. Even today, many different interpretations of the Bible exist but every reader claims their interpretation to be 'absolute'.

Certainly there may be, and in fact, probably are 'eternal truths', but to claim that we have grasped them. To say "we know what the truth is" is a tyranny.

In the first matrix movie they claimed to know the truth. What came out of it? Mass killings for a belief which is seen as far more important than human life.

At the end of the last movie everything is far more uncertain, but one thing is sure - Neo saved them. But even this is solely understood from the fact that the sentinels fly away. There are many who said that the machines could not be expected to keep their promise as they have been deluding (so essentially 'lying to') humans for centuries.

All things are understood through their context. All religious views involve a different context. As a result it is very hard to narrow down when religious views agree and when they conflict.

Claims to knowledge of absolute truth can lead to endless suffering.

Hello, FatPie! I agree with you in most of what you say. But keep in mind that I have been clear about taking a theocentric point of view. Your point of view is mostly anthropocentric.

Knowing the truth about God won't never lead to suffering. All the contrary. When you get to know God as unconditional love, you really feel secure, peaceful, joyful.

I have talked here about a God of unconditional love. With no hidden second thought involved. Most of the religious people talk about the unconditional love of God, but when you dig into their theology you will find that is not unconditional love.

We are creatures of God no matter what religion we profess, no matter what interpretation we hold, no matter what level of perception we have about reality.

All of us are learning. Ignorance leads to disorderly desire and disorderly desire leads to sin and sin leads to punishment. But punishment can't be eternal. Look it up in a dictionary. Punishment is always temporal. It has an end. After that, God will be reconciled to every creature in the Universe. This is what I want to get at in the script I want to write. I am getting good ideas with the feedback of all of you.

Maybe you can write your own scripts for a quite different movie. Who knows. It will be for the better as long as we get creative and productive.

When we grasp the unconditional love of God, there is no suffering. Remember that. Spirituality is right and correct; religion is not. Religion is bondage. Spirituality is freedom. Blessings in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

Now this is the kind of philosophical discussion I love!

An interesting concept for Cristorly:

You said that we cannot say for certain that the Earth moves, and counter by saying that it does not move. "That would be nonsense." Ah, but is it?

Relative to the moon, the Earth is moving. But what about for the grounded human race? Can we say with certainty that the Earth is moving, when we, firmly planted on its surface, appear to be static? So, while it is proven that the Earth is in fact moving, not moving, and spinning all at the same time, we cannot explain its true existence with words. Each object, each situation, each constituent of our reality has an infinite number of potential interpretations. To say that one is absolute is a complete disregard for the complexity of our Universe.

As such, relativism does not only affect artworks or written texts, but ANY form of linguistic exchange. As FatPie put it, "there are linguistic problems with the questions." Absolutely! Language is an ineffective and incomplete method of expression.

Let us consider mathematics. Math consists of irrevocable absolutes. But think hard - are mathematical principles 'logical' in actual reality? Math exists in its own reality, one of perfection and absolutes. But when is the last time you saw exactly 100 mL of water? It is more likely that you saw 99 mL, 99.000452 ml, or 101.1012 mL, than is that you saw the precise "absolute" of 100 mL. Much like the number pi or other "irrationals," that 100 mL of water had an endless string of digits tagged onto the end to "define" it. But math tells us that irrational numbers are indefinable. The significance? Mathematical absolutes do not apply to our own reality. Only irrational numbers do, proving that reality in itself, is irrational and most importantly - indefinable.

So now comes the problem with religion; entire generations of people raised to be slaves to their "programmed morality." They are learning their morals through someone's absolute truth, but not their own. Is it such a surprise that there are religious people who do bad things? They believe that merely going to church and celebrating religious holidays absolves them of their inherent human faults. They have not and most likely will not discover their own truth, their own path to enlightenment. How can we ever be moral beings without true insight? Can we rely on scriptures that have been dictated to us to define our very existence?

I myself am a relativist (not a nihilist) - as such, I accept that there are differing views and that mine will only be received by those who wish to receive it, or feel that it is an accurate perception of reality. I have no qualms with any other philosophy of life, and recognize that mine is not an ABSOLUTE truth - it is my personal absolute truth. It was said that the statement of an absolute truth by a relativist is contradictory, but it is not. I have clearly explained that it is only my personal truth, and no one else's, unless they so desire. Ergo, it is inherently not a Universal truth.

Cristorly - I will also have you know that I am a religious man. Similar to Nietzsche, however, I believe that too much emphasis is put on Christ the Savior and not on Jesus of Nazareth, the man himself. I tend to perceive God as the divinity of our existence, the inherent "je ne sais quoi" of our reality. If the Universe consisted of a single rock, the same questions would be asked: why is it there, and who created it? My answer is God - or the divine existence - or nothingness - or everything. Whatever you choose to call it is fine by me. But it is undeniable that there is something absolutely divine about the fact that we even EXIST, that we are here right now, typing away at our keyboards. This is my God. And this is also why I have chosen to be a moral person.

We have one life to live, and we have been granted this one chance at existence - and honestly, who knows what comes afterwards? As such, we should strive to be balanced in all areas of our lives, to be good to our neighbors, and to listen to what our conscience tells us.

This was my road to enlightenment, Cristorly, a road that is never-ending, a road that I will continue to explore in search of more knowledge to subject to my own true insight.

My question to you is: what difference is there between you and I? Can you tell me that my way is flawed or 'incomplete' based on the principles of absolutism? Moreover, do you not think it bold to proclaim the existence of an 'absolute'?

Hello, Silent Warrior! Everything that you are saying is tautological in the context of what has been said. We have spoken about Buddhism and every linguistic problem is dealt with in Buddhism. I am Buddhic. I am not Buddhist. Buddhist is a follower of Buddha. I am not a follower of Buddha, instead I am A Buddha. I am Christic. I am not Christian. I am not a follower of Christ. I am a littler Christ in miniature. That's why I am called Cristorly. It comes from Christ and the diminutive of Orlando: Orly. So I see from what you say that you are also Buddhic and Christic. You are not a follower of Buddha and Christ. You are a little Buddha and a little Christ in miniature.


I explained that in another indirect way when I spoke about the difficulties of language. I agree with you in every detail about Relativism. But my point is loud and clear: If there is Relativism, there is also Absolutism. And I have repeated many times in my discretional language that Absolutism is heocentric, while Relativism is Anthropocentric. That is the problem with language. We are mostly speaking about the same thing, but we use different words.

I do believe in personal, individual enlightment. I have spoken about it before. That's why I am myself against Religion. I consider myself to be Spiritual, not Religious. I am Ekklesial. I believe is House Church or the Church of the New Testament (www.ptmin.org,

What was the tautology then?

So you are Christic and Buddhic then, ok. What has that got to do with anything 'silent warrior' said?

Hello, FatPie42! It is a tautology in the sense that it is in agreement with everything we had said about the complexities of language and interpretations. It is a tautology because Silent Warrior without labeling himself so is Buddhic and Christic. He is Buddhic in his philosophical approach to reality and he is Christic in his theological approach to God.

We are basically in agreement in most of the points. But we are not in agreement regarding the theocentric approach, which is lacking in many of the comments. Most of the postings take an anthropocentric point of view most of the time and I am taking a theocentric point of view right from the beginning. That is the way I see The Matrix, from the theocentric point of view. Blessings in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

cristorly wrote:

Hello, FatPie42! It is a tautology in the sense that it is in agreement with everything we had said about the complexities of language and interpretations. It is a tautology because Silent Warrior without labeling himself so is Buddhic and Christic. He is Buddhic in his philosophical approach to reality and he is Christic in his theological approach to God. We are basically in agreement in most of the points. But we are not in agreement regarding the theocentric approach, which is lacking in many of the comments. Most of the postings take an anthropocentric point of view most of the time and I am taking a theocentric point of view right from the beginning. That is the way I see The Matrix, from the theocentric point of view. Blessings in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

YIKES. HOLY OH MY GOSH. IF MY COLLEGE PROFESSORS SPEAK LIKE THIS IM GONNA PUSH MYSELF OFF A CLIFF WITH MY DEVIL CONSCIENCE!

In light of the relativism comments, Christorly is correct in affirming that to believe there is no asolute truth is to believe in an absolute truth. I am pretty sure this is known as a self-defeating belief. Besides, relativists should consider themselves objectivists if they believe there are no moral truths.
I understand the shortcomings of language that if I am not mistaken are the basis for the Zen koan; to leave reason completely behind is to reach the Absolute. I suppose to be Bhuddic is to acknowledge the existence of this Absolute, thus contradicting relativism. However, I believe reason is the starting point in spiritual endeavor. Perhaps it cannot bring you all the way but it can point the way and give you someplace to start making progress.
On a side note, I find the comment about irrational numbers intriguing. But still, an irrational number doesn't change, even though it is infinite. Moreover, just because there may be no such thing as exactly two or three in the world, one must remember that mathematics is not emperically based; otherwise, how would you know what is not two or three?
I apologize, for I no longer know what my point is, but I guess I made some points that will keep the conversation going, eh?

Hello! BigMista, sorry about my English. I would like to speak to you in my native Spanish, but this forum is in English. As you will realize, it is not that easy for me to express in English as that is a foreign language for me.

Welcome back, Dub329! Thanks for keeping the conversation alive. To be Buddhic means to be a little Buddha in miniature. To be Christic is to be a little Christ in miniature. You are no longer a follower of Buddha or Christ, but you get aware of your inner Buddha and your inner Christ, so you become one with them. That is the highest realm of conscience in the plane of reality: blessings! cristorly