* * *
DISCLAIMER:
This thread is meant primarily for theistic input.
Atheists are welcome to ask questions, provided those questions are not anti-theistic in nature.
* * *


Given that a person normally learns about God from people, this puts one at the mercy of those people.

The theistic discourse is embedded in psychological and social issues, thus effectively becoming a matter of interpersonal politics between the person who seeks God and the person who (presumably) knows God.

This political factor sets the scene for all kinds of abuse.


Is there a way to avoid it?

How can a person inquire about God, without falling into the machinations of interpersonal politics?

For example:

We are told to approach God on God's terms, just like one would approach the President on his, the President's, terms.
Allright, seems fair.
But what are those terms? A seeker, per definition, does not know what those terms are.
So he has to turn to someone who declares to have such knowledge. At the same time, the seeker is per definition unable to identify who indeed has knowledge of God and who doesn't (if the seeker knew that, there would be no quest for him to begin with!).
And this is where the search for God becomes a matter of interpersonal politics.
And this is where I am stuck.
How to move on from here?

Lightgigantic, how can I know you are God's "dog" - and not someone else's?
All I "know about God", I know from you and people like you. How can I have any peace that I am not operating simply in a bubble of circular logic which will sooner or later burst and reveal there was nothing to it?

Simple, go to the source material and don't ask questions of anyone that may be in any way biased. ;)

You can ask someone about "God", let them show you what they think "God" is and then be given a means of evidencing "God"... but you might forever wonder if they are correct in what they see/define as "God"... afterall it was they that laid the definition in front of you.

For example, if you had never seen an "Elephant" and were given a description of this four-legged animal... and then shown to a room where there was an animal matching the description... you'd think it was an elephant, even if their description and the animal itself was actually that of a mouse.

So my only question would be, do you know what it is you're looking for?

* * *
DISCLAIMER:
This thread is meant primarily for theistic input.
Atheists are welcome to ask questions, provided those questions are not anti-theistic in nature.
* * *


Given that a person normally learns about God from people, this puts one at the mercy of those people.

As a child growing up in a theist family, initially, yes. But to presume that a person is trapped and is somehow a victim for life because of their initial introduction to God does not stand up. People can later seek for themselves and from their seeking break the strength of that initial introduction to theism. (Or sometimes confirm it)




The theistic discourse is embedded in psychological and social issues, thus effectively becoming a matter of interpersonal politics between the person who seeks God and the person who (presumably) knows God.

This political factor sets the scene for all kinds of abuse.

Only if the Seeker decides to remain exclusively dependant upon the person who they presume has all the answers on theism. There are some who decide to do this. It is their decision to give over their eternal security to another person. It is their decision to life up the other person to an infallible God like status. In the end they are responsible for what ever happens to them as a result of their policy to remain dependant on the other.




Is there a way to avoid it?

Yes Seek beyond the introduction. Gather information independently. Seek a personal relationship with God.




How can a person inquire about God, without falling into the machinations of interpersonal politics?

Pray directly to God for understanding. If one is a true Seeker one will already believe that a God exists. So seeking Gods leading would be a wise course of action.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

For example:

We are told to approach God on God's terms, just like one would approach the President on his, the President's, terms.
Allright, seems fair.
But what are those terms? A seeker, per definition, does not know what those terms are.

Well a genuine desire would be the first term. Would you agree?

And as we are talking about God. A genuine desire to be lead by God.

Of course my second point runs against the desire for independence. It is also fear inducing for many. Placing oneself in the hands of another is something many cannot do.



So he has to turn to someone who declares to have such knowledge.

I would say they can read scriptures independently. But then again the seeker must believe that God has given His will through scripture.

I guess the second point would be turn to God as you are reading scripture. Ask for conviction to come upon you when you are reading the right scripture.




At the same time, the seeker is per definition unable to identify who indeed has knowledge of God and who doesn't (if the seeker knew that, there would be no quest for him to begin with!).
And this is where the search for God becomes a matter of interpersonal politics.
And this is where I am stuck.

How to move on from here?


Then you must make a genuine appeal to God himself. And do not fear.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

* * *
DISCLAIMER:
This thread is meant primarily for theistic input.
Atheists are welcome to ask questions, provided those questions are not anti-theistic in nature.
* * *


Given that a person normally learns about God from people, this puts one at the mercy of those people.

The theistic discourse is embedded in psychological and social issues, thus effectively becoming a matter of interpersonal politics between the person who seeks God and the person who (presumably) knows God.

This political factor sets the scene for all kinds of abuse.


Is there a way to avoid it?

How can a person inquire about God, without falling into the machinations of interpersonal politics?

if what you're seeking is god, then why oh why (again) are you looking at people?

We’re born ignorant of where we came from, if anywhere, what reason we’re here, if for any reason, and where we’re going, if anywhere. At the same time we may not even be willing to seek answers to these questions, whether because we’ve presumed there can be no answers or because we’re too proud to admit we don’t know them already.

But if we’re not so presumptuous and if we’re honest and humble enough to admit we don’t know, then we’ll become seekers and may well have to experiment with more than one path to the truth we seek. IMO we all have a tendency-a preference- to believe we already possess all relevant truth regarding the "big questions" and this is called pride, so if a person resists having a change of mind then I’d be suspicious of them-they’ll probably never even begin the journey.

if what you're seeking is god, then why oh why (again) are you looking at people?

Because of solipsism, for crying out loud!

In my opinion, if there is a God, he is equally available to everyone. Your perception is just as valid as that of Jesus or any disciple.

We’re born ignorant of where we came from, if anywhere, what reason we’re here, if for any reason, and where we’re going, if anywhere. At the same time we may not even be willing to seek answers to these questions, whether because we’ve presumed there can be no answers or because we’re too proud to admit we don’t know them already.

But if we’re not so presumptuous and if we’re honest and humble enough to admit we don’t know, then we’ll become seekers and may well have to experiment with more than one path to the truth we seek. IMO we all have a tendency-a preference- to believe we already possess all relevant truth regarding the "big questions" and this is called pride, so if a person resists having a change of mind then I’d be suspicious of them-they’ll probably never even begin the journey.

You already said that exact thing before, haven't you?

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.



if a person resists having a change of mind

Letting one's mind change "as it will" is a recipe for insanity, you do see this?

Well a genuine desire would be the first term. Would you agree?

And as we are talking about God. A genuine desire to be lead by God.

Of course my second point runs against the desire for independence. It is also fear inducing for many. Placing oneself in the hands of another is something many cannot do.



I would say they can read scriptures independently. But then again the seeker must believe that God has given His will through scripture.

I guess the second point would be turn to God as you are reading scripture. Ask for conviction to come upon you when you are reading the right scripture.


Then you must make a genuine appeal to God himself. And do not fear.


Truisms ...

Because of solipsism, for crying out loud!


Solipsism (play /ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.


If it is because of solipsism then you would not be looking towards other people because solipsism is the belief that anything outside your own mind is not dependable.

So you reply to me makes not sence. In relation to the question posed to you.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Because of solipsism, for crying out loud!

well i'm sorry, but that's not a good reason. lol...

So my only question would be, do you know what it is you're looking for?

Thank you for this question.

I suppose I am looking for the freedom, the right, the justification, to go about my spiritual quest in a way that makes sense to me, as opposed to having to constantly give in to the demands of others, no matter what those demands are and no matter who they are; and then to have the hope that things would still make sense even if I do them "my way".

well i'm sorry, but that's not a good reason. lol...

Why not?

Solipsism (play /ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.


If it is because of solipsism then you would not be looking towards other people because solipsism is the belief that anything outside your own mind is not dependable.

So you reply to me makes not sence. In relation to the question posed to you.

Looking within, one runs into the danger of solipsism - solipsism is short of insanity.

Looking without, one runs into the danger of being swallowed by interpersonal politics.


So where should one look?

Thank you for this question.

I suppose I am looking for the freedom, the right, the justification, to go about my spiritual quest in a way that makes sense to me, as opposed to having to constantly give in to the demands of others, no matter what those demands are and no matter who they are; and then to have the hope that things would still make sense even if I do them "my way".
But first we must back up and begin by asking ourselves, "What is freedom?"

I would be glad to give you some thoughts on that matter too, if you like.

Thank you for this question.

I suppose I am looking for the freedom, the right, the justification, to go about my spiritual quest in a way that makes sense to me
You already have that.

I'll discuss the law of Chirst that gives us the freedom to love in the deepest way possible. For the sake of simplicity, I will devide freedom up into two main types; namely, inner freedom and external freedom. Inner freedom refers to the freedom to be all we can possibly be. And external freedom refers to freedom of action, the freedom to do all we can possibly do.

Inner Freedom

Inner freedom, the freedom to be all we can possibly be, is a state of fulfilled being rather than a way of acting. Inner freedom means freedom from such things as isolation, suffering and death, in short, from all that prevents us from being fully alive. because all of us must die, none of us can attain total inner freedom while on earth. However, we can attain various degrees of inner freedom, and, by means of religion, the hope of perfect inner freedom after death.

An example of a kind of inner freedom is found in the experience of two people who fall deeply in love, and in their love are set free in an experinece of unlimited happiness.

The inner freedom of this love, for all its power and wonder, is obviously not total and final. A bribe, for example, cannot promise her spouse freedom from all suffering, much less can she promise him freedom from death. In short, her love does not have the power to make him all he can possibly be.

Nevertheless, the inner freedom found in human love is real. Furthermore, it brings out two important thruths about inner freedom. The first is that inner freedom is found in a love relationship. It is love that makes us all we can possibly be.

the second point is that the couple in love achieve inner freedom by means of external freedom. In other words, their daily actions toward each other are the means by which maintain inner freedom of love. if a husband, for example, "freely" chooses to be unfaithful to his wife, his freedom of action becomes the means of destroying his inner freedom to be he can possibly be in love. Ultimately, his action is a kind of antifreedom force. No matter how "freely" he chose to be unfaithful, he nevertheless freely chose not to be free. What is seen here is that in a love relationship one is free to do what he or she must do in order to be faithful to love.

Human love, as we know it on this earth, eventually ends in death, but God's love does not. The Church's celebration of Easter is a constant reminder that the focus of faith in Chirst is notgrounded in his high moral values or his great wisdom. Rather Jesus offers to us a participation in his own total victory over death. It is the Christian hope that in Christ we will become all we can possibly be. The alleluias sung on Easter morning are grounded in Jesus' promise that "whoever believes in me, though he should die, will come to life; and whoever is alive and belives in me will never die" (Jn 11:26), and in the realization that his promise will be fulfilled because he has given us the Spirit. It is St. aul who said, "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will bring your moral bodies to life also through his Spirit dwelling in you" (Rm 8:11).

We will, of course, reach our goal of total inner freedom only in heaven. The point is, however, that we will achieve total inner freedom only by means of external freedom. It is at this juncture that we see the impostance of Christian morality. Our moral actions are the means to achieving the inner freedom of perfect fulfillment in God. An immoral act is an act freely performed against one's own ultimate freedom. As with all people in a love relationship, the Christian is free to do what he or she must do in order to be faithful to love. Freedom without this fidelity to love is not freedom but license.

The point is brought out in the story of adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. In freely choosing to disobey God, they freely chose to undermine their own inner freedom. Just as a husband or wife is free to love his or her spouse, he or she is also bound by that love. We can see there the paradoxical truth that moral obligations are in the last analysis obligations to our own freedom.

Lastly, it is worth pointing out that, just as inner freedom is not found in the possession of any external object, so too the hindrances to inner freedom come ultimately from within ourselves, in our free choice not to be true to love. We become, in short, our own obstacle to our own freedom, prisoners locked within ourselves.

External Freedom

External freedom is not the freedom to be all we can possibly be, but rather the freedom to do all we can possibly do. This is what most people think of when they hear the word "freedom". External freedom, in a Christian context, is a means to an end. We attain to inner freedom by responding to God's love in our daily actions. Thus morality can be seen as a free response to God's call to perfect freedom. There is then a paradox in human freedom. The paradox is that the free choice not to respond to God;s call is a free choice not to be free, because it is a free choice not to fully be. We bear within us not only the seeds of our own fulfillment but also the seeds of our own destruction. This is the meaning of sin.

You already have that.
Right, but there are threats to freedom such as oppression, injustice, prejudice, ignorance, etc.

You already said that exact thing before, haven't you?

I think so.


Letting one's mind change "as it will" is a recipe for insanity, you do see this?
That's not what I said. Assuming one never needs to change ones mind is to remain insane, IMO. Everyone is ignorant to some degree and needs change-sometimes called metanoia in Christian parlance-or else there'd be no need for our faith, let alone the Atonement. The difference is in who we listen to, where the truth we all need is to be found.

Why not?

because it doesn't make sense; it's illogical. there's god, and there's people, and there's your perspective or perception.

how is someone else's perception of god any better than your own? and how is your perception of other people any better than your perception of god would be?

Once we realize the importannce of freedom in our lives, it is easy to see why any threat to our freedom is an attack on humandignity. Just as with our discussion of freedom, I will divide the threats to freedom into inner and external types.

External threats to Freedom

external threats to freedom are forces in society which directly endanger our quest for inner freedom. This includes such things as oppression, injustice and prejudice.

Events such as the Revolution, people such as Jose Rizal (http://www.google.com.ph/#hl=tl&source=hp&biw=1276&bih=563&q=jose+rizal&rlz=1R2WZPC_enPH422&oq=jose+rizal&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2216l2949l0l10l5l0l0l0l0l0l0l&fp=7470cfee18f403d1) and Martin Luther King, movemenst such as community development and women's liberation, are examples of the constant need to struggle against the forces of oppression in any form.

Certainly, Christians must be in the forfront with those workingfor a free society. The Fathers of the second Vatican Council state:

Whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment...disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit....all these things and other of their like are infamies indeed....Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator(Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, No. 27).

The bishops go on to point that Jesus does not simply call us to heaven as individuals, but he also calls us as a people to the kingdom of God. We are nound by the love of Christ to work toward the perfection of society in preperation for the kingdom. Put in other terms, a Christian never goes to heaven alone. Our call from God comes in through the society in which we live. We are committed to work toward the perfection of society so that all people may find the means to become all they can possibly be. This may often involve reaching out and helping those whose freedom is being abused.

Internal Threats to Freedom

Internal threats to freedom are, as the term implies, the threats to freedom which come from within ourselves. The internal threats to freedom which we will discuss are ignorance, passions and habit. Within each of these in an element for which we are not responsible because we do not have total control of all our thoughts, emotions and life experiences. At the same time there is an element for which we are responsible. it is, of course, the responsible aspects of these hindrances to freedom that are the concern of moral theology.

Right, but there are threats to freedom such as oppression, injustice, prejudice, ignorance, etc.
A person is always free to explore their understanding of the universe in a way that makes sense to them. In fact, that is the only way it can be done.
:shrug:

Ignorance

Ignorance is a threat ti freedom becuase in ignorance we can hurt ourselves as well as others. Consider, for example, that you have a close friend who is very sensitives about a particular aspect of his or her personality. You, however, find this trait of your friend to be amusing and never miss an opportunity to mention it. Months later your friend tells you about his or her feelings on this matter. You then suddenly realize that in ignorance you have been hurting your relationship with your friend. The same holds true with your relationship with God. We must always make an honest effort to properly inform our conscience. It is morally wrong to deliberately remain in ignorance about what is morally wrong.

Another aspect of ignorance as a hindrance to freedom is seen in light of the mysterious nature of our own minds. So many of our deepest needs have their roots in the depths of the subconscious where we do not have access to them. This means that we may be doing a certain thing when we suddenly become aware that our deepest motives may be unworthy ones. Perhaps jealousy, revenge, or even hatred is motivating us to do what we are doing under the cover of friendship or perhaps our obligation to correct another. In conclusion, we are not responsible for that of which we are ignorant. But we are responsible not to remain ignorant to the extent we are able to do so. We must constantly work toward an ever greater understanding of ourselves and of our relationship to God.

Passions

The passions or the emotions or the emotions are those iner forces that affect us both spiritually and physically in moving us to act in certain way. These passions, such as joy, love, fear and sorrow, are in themselves good, and they learn from an important dimension in our lives. But it id important to see that while under their influence we are restricted in out freedom. This restricting power on our freedomiis where the passions are potential sources of immorality.

Some actions have no morl significance and so giving way to our emotions in such circumstances is also without moral significance. For example, the wild enthusiam at a basketball game is neither moral nor immoral in itself.

Some actions are directly immoral and so the giving way to the emotions that move us to do such things increases our involvement in the action. What is more, the emotions such as fear, hate sorrow, can do more than move us to intensify our involvement in destructive acts to ourselves and others. The emotions can become overpowering and, under their influence, we temporarily lose our use of free will and so become dehumanized.

While under the full impact of these emotions we are not responsible for our actions to the extent they have taken over. We are responsible, however, not to let ourselves become so dominated by these emotions. For example, one who has a violent temper is not fully responsible for his actions while he or she is acting in a rage. This person is, however, to see it that he or she checks these emotions before they get our of hand. We can see here how the threats to freedom can act upon one another in terms of moral responsibility. For example, a person who continually loses his temper has an obligation to do his best not to become dominated by his distractive feelings. He must also try to overcome his ignorance concerning why he is so prone to behave the way that he does.

Once again, it should be made clear that the passions are themselves good. They become evil only when directed toward an evil action that dehumanizes us. The passions involved in sexual love in marriage, for example, are directed toward a good end; namely, the deepening of love and the procreation of children. The same thing can be said about the strong emotions of joy that are often experienced at celebrations or at the meeting of close friends who have been separated for a long period of time. A stoic rejection of the passions is not the goal of Christian morality.

Habits

If you have ever watched a baby trying to learn how to use a spoon for the first time, you were probably struck by the humorous sight of someone trying to find his or her own mouth! If you try to think of how it is you are able to find yours, you come to some understanding of the importance of habits. Habits are a form of second nature to us. Habits are things we do spontaneously, effortlessly, without thinking. It is easy to see why habits are invaluable in our lives. Imagine how it would be if every time you sat down to eat you had to begin all over again to learn how to find your own mouth in order to feed yourself!

Habits are very significant in our moral life as well. As with the passions, when involving actions such as driving a car, that is, actions which are neither moral nor immoral, we can say that habits themselves are neither moral nor immoral. When the habit is a good habit we say that it is a virtue. This means that we can develop the virtue of going out of our way to help others, for example. A virtuous person is one who spontaneously does what is good because he or she has developed good habits. Here good living example becomes a way of life.

Habits that are directed toward immoral actions are called vices. Bad habits form us to do spontaneously that which in the beginning called for a deliberate act of the will. For example, the first time a person steals something, he or she may feel a great degree of guilt in the awareness they have done something wrong. But after repeatedly stealing, the act becomes effortless. In stealing long enough the person takes on the identity of a liar.

To determine the degree of responsibility in actions involving habits, we can use the same principle we applied to the passions. In other words, to the extent a person has been taken over by a particular habit, that person has a decreased amount of responsibility for what he or she is doing. By the same token, the individual is bound to avoid becoming entrenched in bad habits, and is obligated to try to replace them with good habits.

OP:

How can a person inquire about God, without falling into the machinations of interpersonal politics?
MoM how and why do you think your posts are answering the question? All you're doing is espousing someone's view (either your own or the church's) of how things are.
IOW you're a perfect example of Signal's original point.
Listen to me, because my view is that I'm right. :rolleyes:

because it doesn't make sense; it's illogical. there's god, and there's people, and there's your perspective or perception.

how is someone else's perception of god any better than your own? and how is your perception of other people any better than your perception of god would be?

The issue is - How can one know one isn't merely imagining things? How can one know that what one thinks is an experience of God, also truly is an experience of God, and not merely imagination, hallucination?

Normally, people turn to other people for confirmation/disconfirmation of their experiences and beliefs.

OP:

MoM how and why do you think your posts are answering the question? All you're doing is espousing someone's view (either your own or the church's) of how things are.
IOW you're a perfect example of Signal's original point.
Listen to me, because my view is that I'm right. :rolleyes:

Exactly!

That's not what I said. Assuming one never needs to change ones mind is to remain insane, IMO. Everyone is ignorant to some degree and needs change-sometimes called metanoia in Christian parlance-or else there'd be no need for our faith, let alone the Atonement. The difference is in who we listen to, where the truth we all need is to be found.

But the problem is that an ignorant person per definition does not know where to look.

So why instruct them to go "to the right source", when they don't know what that is?

An ignorant person does not know whether the RCC is the right source or not.
So telling them to go to the RCC is useless.

The issue is - How can one know one isn't merely imagining things? How can one know that what one thinks is an experience of God, also truly is an experience of God, and not merely imagination, hallucination?

Normally, people turn to other people for confirmation/disconfirmation of their experiences and beliefs.

again, how is someone else's perspective or perception any better or more trustworthy than your own. honey i hate to break it to you, but your perception, of god, yourself, and everything around you IS ALL YOU'VE GOT. you may as well go with it.

A person is always free to explore their understanding of the universe in a way that makes sense to them. In fact, that is the only way it can be done.

How do you know you have this freedom?

How do you know, what reason do you have to believe that acting on this freedom will not have adverse effects on you?

again, how is someone else's perspective or perception any better or more trustworthy than your own. honey i hate to break it to you, but your perception, of god, yourself, and everything around you IS ALL YOU'VE GOT. you may as well go with it.

But then so many people will be against me!!!! How am I supposed to defend myself against them?

Not to mention that I will be concerned for my own sanity.

How do you know you have this freedom?

How do you know, what reason do you have to believe that acting on this freedom will not have adverse effects on you?
What are you doing right here and now if not trying to understand things on your own terms?

How do you know life won't have adverse effects on you? There are no guarantees.

Given that a person normally learns about God from people, this puts one at the mercy of those people.

I don't like looking at things that way.


The theistic discourse is embedded in psychological and social issues, thus effectively becoming a matter of interpersonal politics between the person who seeks God and the person who (presumably) knows God.

Epistemology, even religious epistemology, doesn't simply reduce to power. Obviously interpersonal issues are going to intrude upon any sort of person-to-person discourse. But questions of 'who's on top' can't be allowed to obscure or replace the 'fact of the matter' issue. Ostensibly at least, that's what people are actually talking about.

I'm not a theist, nor am I "seeking God". But just in general, whenever I inquire about anything among other people, I consider myself an 'intellectual free-agent'. I always make my own decisions (I know of no way to avoid doing that). So intellectually, I treat other people as 'resource persons'. I decide whether or not particular individuals seem to know anythng that might be valuable to me. If I think that they can be helpful, I devote some time and effort reading/listening to what they say and then thinking carefully about it afterwards.

But I never give anyone a blank check. (I wouldn't give a blank check to Jesus Christ if he ever returns.)

I guess that I developed that approach in response to university professors. They may claim all kinds of intellectual authority and in many cases they deserve it. But whatever their intellectual authority, they are still just 'resource people' to me, people who can provide me with information that may or may not prove to be true, helpful or relevant. I still need to decide for myself what I think about what they say.

Yazata -

May I use you as my "resource person"?

But then so many people will be against me!!!! How am I supposed to defend myself against them?

Not to mention that I will be concerned for my own sanity.

grow a set. :)

signal,

you've been "stuck" for so long now. you know how they say that you can't keep doing things the same way and expect a different result? it makes sense.

* * *
DISCLAIMER:
This thread is meant primarily for theistic input.
Atheists are welcome to ask questions, provided those questions are not anti-theistic in nature.
* * *


Given that a person normally learns about God from people, this puts one at the mercy of those people.
can one think of anything that one doesn't learn from people?


The theistic discourse is embedded in psychological and social issues, thus effectively becoming a matter of interpersonal politics between the person who seeks God and the person who (presumably) knows God.

This political factor sets the scene for all kinds of abuse.


Is there a way to avoid it?

How can a person inquire about God, without falling into the machinations of interpersonal politics?
from recognizing the different political machinations pertinent to general categories of person : kannistha, madhyama and uttama.

I've been telling you that since day 1 when you first hinted at it.

Instead you insist you are not qualified to make such distinctions and have no option but to blindly follow whoever and whatever - which of course, is a plan for failure.

My perspective on things had better be prefaced by what it stems from:

One, I'm a solitary, eclectic witch with strong Buddhist leanings. Not really an uncommon thing under the Pagan umbrella.

Two, I used to be an anarcho-syndicalist.

Therefore...I find the idea of assuming that anyone else's understanding of deity is superior to one's own is a false idea...considering the nature of the apprehension of Spirit-something that CANNOT be expressed adequately in words-why on earth would you accept the authority of another in this matter? Seek the Source, and when, after spending some years looking, you find it,then you know.

...I think that it is far more important to quest internally for a personal, intimate connection with Spirit than it is to take the seductive path of accepting, whole-cloth, the answers of others...because the fact of the matter is (and drawing on the tao te ching here) the description is always going to fall far short of the reality.

...I believe that it is the act of questing for the personal connection that makes us better human beings; whether or not we seek what we find in some degree...and even if we do, there can always be better connection, more improvements to be made...if you're in a body you are not perfected. We're all mad around here, Alice.

...I embraced Paganism because of a moment of ecstacy I had. I cannot explain it. I can only tell you that I was impressed upon with the tremendous sacredness of Life.
...Buddhism I take on because it is wise, kind, and useful.

But don't take my word for it. Or anybody's. To paraphrase a Zen buddhist saying, all the holy books are just fingers pointing at the moon. Go see the moon, then you don't need the guy standing there with his finger pointing at it.

Go find your own damn truth.

My perspective on things had better be prefaced by what it stems from:

One, I'm a solitary, eclectic witch with strong Buddhist leanings. Not really an uncommon thing under the Pagan umbrella.

Two, I used to be an anarcho-syndicalist.

Therefore...I find the idea of assuming that anyone else's understanding of deity is superior to one's own is a false idea...considering the nature of the apprehension of Spirit-something that CANNOT be expressed adequately in words-why on earth would you accept the authority of another in this matter? Seek the Source, and when, after spending some years looking, you find it,then you know.

...I think that it is far more important to quest internally for a personal, intimate connection with Spirit than it is to take the seductive path of accepting, whole-cloth, the answers of others...because the fact of the matter is (and drawing on the tao te ching here) the description is always going to fall far short of the reality.

...I believe that it is the act of questing for the personal connection that makes us better human beings; whether or not we seek what we find in some degree...and even if we do, there can always be better connection, more improvements to be made...if you're in a body you are not perfected. We're all mad around here, Alice.

...I embraced Paganism because of a moment of ecstacy I had. I cannot explain it. I can only tell you that I was impressed upon with the tremendous sacredness of Life.
...Buddhism I take on because it is wise, kind, and useful.

But don't take my word for it. Or anybody's. To paraphrase a Zen buddhist saying, all the holy books are just fingers pointing at the moon. Go see the moon, then you don't need the guy standing there with his finger pointing at it.

Go find your own damn truth.

:bravo:

can one think of anything that one doesn't learn from people?


from recognizing the different political machinations pertinent to general categories of person : kannistha, madhyama and uttama.

I've been telling you that since day 1 when you first hinted at it.

Instead you insist you are not qualified to make such distinctions and have no option but to blindly follow whoever and whatever - which of course, is a plan for failure.

It is also you yourself who keeps telling me, more or less directly, that I am disqualified!

This is the basic problem with esp. theists: They tell people what to do, and then they list a hundred reasons why they are not qualified to do it.

How does that make sense?
How does it make sense to tell someone "Do such and such" and then explain to the person in length why they are unable or otherwise not in the position to do so?

This is to LG -



My perspective on things had better be prefaced by what it stems from:

One, I'm a solitary, eclectic witch with strong Buddhist leanings. Not really an uncommon thing under the Pagan umbrella.

Two, I used to be an anarcho-syndicalist.

Therefore...I find the idea of assuming that anyone else's understanding of deity is superior to one's own is a false idea...considering the nature of the apprehension of Spirit-something that CANNOT be expressed adequately in words-why on earth would you accept the authority of another in this matter? Seek the Source, and when, after spending some years looking, you find it,then you know.

...I think that it is far more important to quest internally for a personal, intimate connection with Spirit than it is to take the seductive path of accepting, whole-cloth, the answers of others...because the fact of the matter is (and drawing on the tao te ching here) the description is always going to fall far short of the reality.

...I believe that it is the act of questing for the personal connection that makes us better human beings; whether or not we seek what we find in some degree...and even if we do, there can always be better connection, more improvements to be made...if you're in a body you are not perfected. We're all mad around here, Alice.

...I embraced Paganism because of a moment of ecstacy I had. I cannot explain it. I can only tell you that I was impressed upon with the tremendous sacredness of Life.
...Buddhism I take on because it is wise, kind, and useful.

But don't take my word for it. Or anybody's. To paraphrase a Zen buddhist saying, all the holy books are just fingers pointing at the moon. Go see the moon, then you don't need the guy standing there with his finger pointing at it.

Go find your own damn truth.

If one were to take the approach as sketched out above
then one would also have to categorically avoid anything connected to your tradition, namely GV.
One would have to purge out of one's system all the premises that can be traced to GV.

Given that a person normally learns about God from people, this puts one at the mercy of those people.
...
How can a person inquire about God, without falling into the machinations of interpersonal politics?


from recognizing the different political machinations pertinent to general categories of person : kannistha, madhyama and uttama.

I've been telling you that since day 1 when you first hinted at it.
LG, perhaps the issue is that you really have been telling Signal (and people in general) what to do rather than listening to what Signal is actually after?

then one would also have to categorically avoid anything connected to your tradition, namely GV.
One would have to purge out of one's system all the premises that can be traced to GV.

I don't think so...I think what the deal is, is that you recognize that there's different approaches, equally valid-depending on the wiring of the person in question...but they are guidelines, not laws?
And there's nothing that says you have to follow a guidebook-or, conversely, forge your own trail, so to speak...If what other people have written, or have to say is helpful, you can use it...but you don't need it or them, and you certainly shouldn't worship it.

People are absolutely not the gatekeepers.


And you must reject the "wisdom" of others as more valid, if it conflicts with your deepest intuitions and spiritual impulses.
I guess you could say... throw the bathwater out, but if there's a baby in there, keep it?

Eventually, you have to step beyond the teachings and the practices... and get to the essence, which is indescribable.

Anybody have a problem with the above?

Someday I won't just have glimpses of what is, provided I keep dinking away at it.

I don't think so...I think what the deal is, is that you recognize that there's different approaches, equally valid-depending on the wiring of the person in question...but they are guidelines, not laws?
And there's nothing that says you have to follow a guidebook-or, conversely, forge your own trail, so to speak...If what other people have written, or have to say is helpful, you can use it...but you don't need it or them, and you certainly shouldn't worship it.

People are absolutely not the gatekeepers.


And you must reject the "wisdom" of others as more valid, if it conflicts with your deepest intuitions and spiritual impulses.
I guess you could say... throw the bathwater out, but if there's a baby in there, keep it?

Eventually, you have to step beyond the teachings and the practices... and get to the essence, which is indescribable.

Anybody have a problem with the above?

Someday I won't just have glimpses of what is, provided I keep dinking away at it.

That is all fine and well - unless one already has a horrid religious/spiritual experience that one wishes to recover from.

If I had the chance to do it all over again, I would go about it differently.

But I don't, I have an experience, a knowledge that I cannot undo, that trouble me, and at the same time don't know how to deal with.

That is all fine and well - unless one already has a horrid religious/spiritual experience that one wishes to recover from.

If I had the chance to do it all over again, I would go about it differently.

But I don't, I have an experience, a knowledge that I cannot undo, that trouble me, and at the same time don't know how to deal with.

wait a minute! please clarify. your experience was religious, or spiritual? from what i recall, i've only heard you speak of a horrid religious experience, not a spiritual one...:confused:

There isn't really a difference, if by "religion" we mean 'service to God', which is what I mean here.

There isn't really a difference, if by "religion" we mean 'service to God', which is what I mean here.

YES THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. and if you were to ever realize that, we could stop having this conversation.

There is a difference between "service to God" and "spirituality"?

That is all fine and well - unless one already has a horrid religious/spiritual experience that one wishes to recover from.

If I had the chance to do it all over again, I would go about it differently.

But I don't, I have an experience, a knowledge that I cannot undo, that trouble me, and at the same time don't know how to deal with.

Sounds to me like you were involved with a borderline cultish type Christian movement, such as those that like to micromanage the lives of their members and lay on a heavy gilt trip when you try to leave. I've known a couple of people who have experienced temporary psychological breakdowns as a result of such practices/pressures. Then again, I'm just taking a stab in the dark here.

I understand that some of those experiences may have been very personal and/or are things you just generally don't feel inclined to talk about, but I'd be curious to hear anything you might feel inclined to share.

difference between a design diagram of a desk lamp and an actual desk lamp.

Religion being the wiring diagram, connection with spirit being the desk lamp.

Sorry I think in metaphors. Poet's avocational hazard?


I have an experience, a knowledge that I cannot undo, that trouble me, and at the same time don't know how to deal with.

Yeah, I don't think any of us can unwrinkle this without specifics.

Going through my own completely different sort of suffering ATM...and my suggestion is to sit with your feelings of profound discomfort without trying to change them, dodge them ,escape them, do anything else but breathe and feel them. Just calmly feel them and breathe steadily.

I have taken this up, and you'd be surprised what this can accomplish.

It may feel like you're disemboweling yourself, depending on what you're trying to move through. Life can be like that.

:shrug:

On semi-awake reflection, it seems someone, somewhere, has drilled very firmly into your head a set of preconceived notions about the nature of deity,and that you MUST go through some person-ideally them-to get to deity.

If I am correct...then, welcome to the lovely world of having been programmed. If actual abuse, beyond mere verbal abuse was involved of any sort the programming was set much harder.
If you were under 12 when it occurred, the programming is set harder, as the brain's wiring is actually being crafted rapidly, and the neurons are more pliable.

If all that's off-base, I apologize. I've had a shitty night.

YES THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. and if you were to ever realize that, we could stop having this conversation.

Even if we are to go with your understanding of "religion" (ie. 'institution', 'organized religion'), it's still not clear how one can have spiritual experiences that are separated from religion, what to speak of making spiritual progress.

* * *
DISCLAIMER:
This thread is meant primarily for theistic input.
Atheists are welcome to ask questions, provided those questions are not anti-theistic in nature.
* * *


Given that a person normally learns about God from people, this puts one at the mercy of those people.

The theistic discourse is embedded in psychological and social issues, thus effectively becoming a matter of interpersonal politics between the person who seeks God and the person who (presumably) knows God.

This political factor sets the scene for all kinds of abuse.


Is there a way to avoid it?

How can a person inquire about God, without falling into the machinations of interpersonal politics?
I can only speak for myself, but, in my experience, the following simple concept from scripture is true: “Seek and you shall find.” Somewhere in our seeking there must reside a nascent hope, a hope that an answer may just lie somewhere, an answer to a question we may not even be able to formulate completely, but the answer to the question of what this life is all about.

If there is no God, then I submit that no answers worth having are to be found. But I also submit that the answers do come when we earnestly seek, for no other reason than that there simply is a God who can -and desires to- answer them. Keep seeking-it doesn’t matter so much where we seek, but as we seek for truth we’re seeking our own integrity as well, because we’re also acknowledging, at least tacitly, that we’re not already whole-that we’re lost, after a fashion- that we don't already know.

God’s bigger than all religions and all attempts at describing Him, of course. I just happened-over time -to increasingly recognize the voice of truth-of the true Shepard-in the CC, where the clearest expression of Gods’ nature and will reside in her teachings, but not after straying very far and wide into other, mainly non-Christian religions. Just keep seeking-God will honor it, cuz He's there and that's what He wants us to do.

OP:

MoM how and why do you think your posts are answering the question? All you're doing is espousing someone's view (either your own or the church's) of how things are.
IOW you're a perfect example of Signal's original point.
Listen to me, because my view is that I'm right. :rolleyes:
I don't see any problem with responding to any posts from this thread. Besides, I responded to some posts of the thread creator. Please see post #53, my response to OP question.

It is also you yourself who keeps telling me, more or less directly, that I am disqualified!


where?

There is a difference between "service to God" and "spirituality"?

i guess it depends on how you define spirituality...

Definition of SPIRITUALITY
1: something that in ecclesiastical law belongs to the church or to a cleric as such
2: clergy
3: sensitivity or attachment to religious values
4: the quality or state of being spiritual

which definition are you referring to?


Even if we are to go with your understanding of "religion" (ie. 'institution', 'organized religion'), it's still not clear how one can have spiritual experiences that are separated from religion, what to speak of making spiritual progress.

if you take religion as a whole, you could say that about any experience, not just spiritual ones. i suppose that the majority of religions would describe all experience as spiritual, whether you recognize that or not, because you are a spirit, and there are spirits, and we are spiritually influenced, again, whether you recognize that or not.

it all comes down to whether you're being led by the spirit or by men who tell you what to do. which one are you seeking, because you can't serve both. the spirit doesn't tell you what to do as men do. the spirit changes you from the inside out, through interaction. that's what i call spiritual experience. it leads you to repentence, not out of fear, not of approval seeking, but out of understanding through experience. therefore, you can not rely on others to give you this understanding. you can't really know something without experiencing it. you can know about it, but it doesn't even seem like you're paying attention to that.

can you remember jesus ever having anything good to say about the religious people of his time? ever patting the on the back and saying, "you're doing a great job?" no. never. all he ever did was criticize and correct them. when he said to them, "you are the teachers, and you don't know this?", i think this was probably his expression...:confused:

and that conversation (with nicodemus) was about the EXACT SAME THING i and others are trying to explain to you right now.

you know how, according to the bible, the spirit is supposed to accomplish a work in you. in my experience that work had much to do with the annihilation of my fear and ego. you can't repent if you're afraid of what other people will think of you, and you can't repent if you're ego is in the way. it seems like you're so afraid of being wrong that you're paralyzed. and the first thing god's going to show you, and continue to show you, is how wrong you are all the time, and you will have to learn to be ok with that, and you will when you realize that god loves you anyway, and you'll learn to love yourself anyway, and you'll learn to love others anyway, and it will change you and your life.

But the problem is that an ignorant person per definition does not know where to look.

So why instruct them to go "to the right source", when they don't know what that is?

An ignorant person does not know whether the RCC is the right source or not.
So telling them to go to the RCC is useless.
Well, we're not going to get rid of our ignorance by standing still. The hope that I alluded to comes from a dim knowledge-a "measure of faith". We don't believe in or worship any Church-we're to believe in God- and the Church is merely the guide helping get us to Him. But whatever the voice we may be listening to at any point in time, it's our own internal measuring rod that must make the determination whether or not we're hearing the voice of truth-or a foreign one.

We, each of us, are "of God"-we're part of His being, made in His image, and so we're equipped already to know His voice. We're also equipped to remain in darkness, to reject that voice. Pope Benedict says that there is "a contradiction in our being"- that we easily fall into egoism and sin rather than pursue the good we know we should. But we're still the judge-we have to be-we have no choice, in fact. And just because the Church proposes something to be true doesn't make it true. From our own perspective we believe we're either navigating to the truth, to the Shepard's voice, and come to agree with it-or we don't-but either way we must remain honest-true to our own conscience.

St Augustine, to paraphrase, said that he didn't find God at first because he was looking on the outside for something which existed within. The Church's role is really only to lead us to the Father-to that something within. And every which way that we're willing to seek is another step closer to that end, IMO. I'm only saying that if we continue to look, aggressively so to speak, I believe we'll end up agreeing with the CC. And what's her central message? It's simply that our hope is not in vain after all. It's the message that God exists-God is!, God is love, and God, the foundation of the universe, has always desired that all live engulfed in this love-in an eternal happiness that only He can bring to realization in us. .

Looking within, one runs into the danger of solipsism - solipsism is short of insanity.

Looking without, one runs into the danger of being swallowed by interpersonal politics.


So where should one look?

Well i guess i will go back to my original answer. Talk to God direct.

I have managed to avoid interpersonal politics because i have never trusted in any theist to be my guild in my faith to God. That’s not so say that other theists have not had effects upon me.

I do not belong to any denomination. I am a person who read the Bible, sought guidance from God and believed.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I don't like looking at things that way.



Epistemology, even religious epistemology, doesn't simply reduce to power. Obviously interpersonal issues are going to intrude upon any sort of person-to-person discourse. But questions of 'who's on top' can't be allowed to obscure or replace the 'fact of the matter' issue. Ostensibly at least, that's what people are actually talking about.

I'm not a theist, nor am I "seeking God". But just in general, whenever I inquire about anything among other people, I consider myself an 'intellectual free-agent'. I always make my own decisions (I know of no way to avoid doing that). So intellectually, I treat other people as 'resource persons'. I decide whether or not particular individuals seem to know anythng that might be valuable to me. If I think that they can be helpful, I devote some time and effort reading/listening to what they say and then thinking carefully about it afterwards.

But I never give anyone a blank check. (I wouldn't give a blank check to Jesus Christ if he ever returns.)

I guess that I developed that approach in response to university professors. They may claim all kinds of intellectual authority and in many cases they deserve it. But whatever their intellectual authority, they are still just 'resource people' to me, people who can provide me with information that may or may not prove to be true, helpful or relevant. I still need to decide for myself what I think about what they say.

"Resource persons" I agree with your thoughts here.

When i talk to other people of faith i look upon them as being potential resource person. I have read many of their offerings but am always using the scriptures as a template testing them against the Word of God and seeking confirmation through the Holy Spirit.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Even if we are to go with your understanding of "religion" (ie. 'institution', 'organized religion'), it's still not clear how one can have spiritual experiences that are separated from religion, what to speak of making spiritual progress.
My ex wife told me that I was the least "spiritual" person she ever met. I am firmly rooted in the materialist perspective. But even I have had "spiritual" experiences.

They typically take the form of "understanding". Feeling my connection to events that have been in process for thousands of years, in terms of human civilzation. Billions of years in terms of the universe in it's current form. Eternity in terms of, well... eternity.

These insights, these glimpses of eternity, can be accompanied by feelings of ecstacy, peace and well-being. I actually chalk the "feeling" up to a rush of endorphines (or some sort of neuro transmitter). But that doesn't make it any less real.

Looking within, one runs into the danger of solipsism - solipsism is short of insanity.

Looking without, one runs into the danger of being swallowed by interpersonal politics.


So where should one look?

i'm pretty sure that your horrible religious experience was a christian one. did you pay attention to anything the bible said during that time? or were you too distracted by your desire to please others? or perhaps a desire for an easier answer than the one presented in the bible? who are you really trying to serve? yourself? your own need for approval? other people? their need to judge, condemn, and control? all of those needs firmly grounded in ego.

immanuel means god with us. not only by our side, but on our side as well. can you not stop and appreciate a flower without someone else around to validate your appreciation? can you not look at it and say "this is beautiful"? can you not smell it and say "this smells good"? without having to run to find some other human to tell you whether you're right about that or not? is that really insane, to think that you could appreciate something all on your own?

the way i see it, your problem is that you have no faith in god or in yourself.

...How can a person inquire about God, without falling into the machinations of interpersonal politics?

Science?;)

How can a person inquire about God, without falling into the machinations of interpersonal politics?Acquire balls.

This is to LG -




If one were to take the approach as sketched out above
then one would also have to categorically avoid anything connected to your tradition, namely GV.
One would have to purge out of one's system all the premises that can be traced to GV.
Its (at best) jnana
It (at best) doesn't serve a purpose beyond impersonalism

where?

I am not even a kanistha, as far as I know what you think of me.
And a kanistha cannot properly discern the spiritual attaiments of others, what to speak of the discerning abilities of someone like me.

it all comes down to whether you're being led by the spirit or by men who tell you what to do. which one are you seeking, because you can't serve both. the spirit doesn't tell you what to do as men do. the spirit changes you from the inside out, through interaction. that's what i call spiritual experience. it leads you to repentence, not out of fear, not of approval seeking, but out of understanding through experience. therefore, you can not rely on others to give you this understanding. you can't really know something without experiencing it. you can know about it, but it doesn't even seem like you're paying attention to that.

can you remember jesus ever having anything good to say about the religious people of his time? ever patting the on the back and saying, "you're doing a great job?" no. never. all he ever did was criticize and correct them. when he said to them, "you are the teachers, and you don't know this?", i think this was probably his expression...:confused:

and that conversation (with nicodemus) was about the EXACT SAME THING i and others are trying to explain to you right now.

you know how, according to the bible, the spirit is supposed to accomplish a work in you. in my experience that work had much to do with the annihilation of my fear and ego. you can't repent if you're afraid of what other people will think of you, and you can't repent if you're ego is in the way. it seems like you're so afraid of being wrong that you're paralyzed. and the first thing god's going to show you, and continue to show you, is how wrong you are all the time, and you will have to learn to be ok with that, and you will when you realize that god loves you anyway, and you'll learn to love yourself anyway, and you'll learn to love others anyway, and it will change you and your life.

How is this in line with what LG said here - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57085 -?

Lightgigantic, how can I know you are God's "dog" - and not someone else's?
All I "know about God", I know from you and people like you. How can I have any peace that I am not operating simply in a bubble of circular logic which will sooner or later burst and reveal there was nothing to it?
There is something to it and it is all about a personal relationship with the creator . Time alone with you and nature will guide you . You first have to wake up from the dream and understand the surreal aspect of creation . Listen to the birds chirp . Listen to your surroundings . The whole of it all is trying like hell to tell you something . I know it is hard to hear and confusion from the enormity of bombardment of events unfolding. There is an order to the chaos . Open your ears , wipe the sleet out of your eyes, embrace the natural you and you to will find your spot as a clog in the machine. Being the you, you were meant to be

How is this in line with what LG said here - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57085 -?
It is kind of long winded for eat shit. Got to fill out a form first and then wait in a line. You want to go to heaven ? You have to do the work to bring about heaven . Send out the laborers. Who da laborers? We are the laborers . Well not Me ? Graduation has come and gone , Summers here and the parties on . I am a Carpenter now , actually I was . Now Me been raised to Chief Musician.

Pow Wow smoke some Chief. The word for you to contemplate LISTEN

It is kind of long winded for eat shit. Got to fill out a form first and then wait in a line. You want to go to heaven ? You have to do the work to bring about heaven . Send out the laborers. Who da laborers? We are the laborers . Well not Me ? Graduation has come and gone , Summers here and the parties on . I am a Carpenter now , actually I was . Now Me been raised to Chief Musician.

Pow Wow smoke some Chief. The word for you to contemplate LISTEN

do you realize how cryptic you are? lol...

i'm pretty sure that your horrible religious experience was a christian one.

No. I used to think that my experiences with Christians were horrible. Until I saw, in another religion, that things can get a lot worse.



the way i see it, your problem is that you have no faith in god or in yourself.

Riiight. So I should grit my teeth and "have faith"?

do you realize how cryptic you are? lol...
Your spelling is slightly off.
It's correctly spelt incoherent.

Open your ears , wipe the sleet out of your eyes, embrace the natural you and you to will find your spot as a clog in the machine. Being the you, you were meant to be

Oh well. Funny that, novel, too.

do you realize how cryptic you are? lol...

What does that mean Mommy. I don't quite get it " Cryptic ? That is the same thing the people said on the maranatha site just before they banned me . Perma banned . I don't understand people that cry "Come Lord " and then they throw away the seed just before planting . The soil must not have been fertile enough. Wonder what they are going to do when Mikey takes up the sickle at harvest time and starts whacking off heads of the wheat. I suppose they will watch them roll like rocks down a cliff and say look at those rolling heads.

One thing about Mikeys is we eat anything . Shit is not that flavorlable . Salt goes a long ways to making it palatable. Sugar and spice almost makes every thing nice . Dogs eat cat shit and it tastes good to dogs , the other shit was like taking bad bad medicine and I still can't get the bad taste out of my mouth

Open your ears , wipe the sleet out of your eyes, embrace the natural you and you to will find your spot as a clog in the machine. Being the you, you were meant to be


Oh well. Funny that, novel, too.

Not as novel as all that.
Clog = wooden shoe, known in France as a sabot.
These were deliberately thrown into machines (mill wheels specifically, IIRC) to cause them to break down.
(Ringing any bells yet?).
Hence the word saboteur.

A serendipitous slip on Me-Ki-Gal's part, not only amusing (at the superficial level), but also historically and etymologically correct. Plus, it's a viable philosophy: push the machinery to failure - test its limits, force improvements.

Your spelling is slightly off.
It's correctly spelt incoherent.

What are you doing here? Didn't you read primarily for theist ? You are like a white man in an all black church . There is a root theme in my rhetoric and no I don't mean my god delusion either all though that does manifest. It is all about dignity for the common person . You too!! except I like to think of you as being more than common good or bad.

What are you doing here?
I'm everywhere.


Didn't you read primarily for theist?
Yep. I also know what primarily means. Plus, of course, I'm trying to contribute: see post #27.


You are like a white man in an all black church.
Got it. I should accept your rules because, er.... give me a clue here.


There is a root theme in my rhetoric
Quite possibly. But the expression of that theme is somewhat lacking.


You too!! except I like to think of you as being more than common good or bad.
I'm not common anything.

Ok...
We're being cryptic (I believe) because of the nature of spiritual experience?

But basically what we're saying here is that the idea that you MUST seek connection with God through religion-through other people- is wrong.

If other people and/or their books help you? good. Useful=use it.

If they or the beliefs they are peddling hurt you? then bad.

You've said you don't believe in internet support, but if you could be less cryptic in private...I keep my mouth shut to others . My mind's open enough to accommodate ocean liners.

My pm box is there. If talking about the particulars will be of assistance...:shrug: It would probably be easier to try to help you with this, as well as more-effectively done, if I understood what the hell the problem was in the first place.

Not as novel as all that.
Clog = wooden shoe, known in France as a sabot.
These were deliberately thrown into machines (mill wheels specifically, IIRC) to cause them to break down.
(Ringing any bells yet?).
Hence the word saboteur.

A serendipitous slip on Me-Ki-Gal's part, not only amusing (at the superficial level), but also historically and etymologically correct.

Wow.



Plus, it's a viable philosophy: push the machinery to failure - test its limits, force improvements.

Somehow, like a cog in a machine, this is precisely what I ended up being, even if I never specifically intended to be so (in fact I desired nothing else more than to fit in).

Not as novel as all that.
Clog = wooden shoe, known in France as a sabot.
These were deliberately thrown into machines (mill wheels specifically, IIRC) to cause them to break down.
(Ringing any bells yet?).
Hence the word saboteur.

A serendipitous slip on Me-Ki-Gal's part, not only amusing (at the superficial level), but also historically and etymologically correct. Plus, it's a viable philosophy: push the machinery to failure - test its limits, force improvements.

Clog morphed. A clog to an American is a gear. It was the Jetsons that created the new imagery. We sell clogs and widgets in America. Interesting the shoe thing . Haiti has a third name , Foot I think or it could be shoe . Pretty sure it is Foot . We say wrench . That is funny to me how if you take out the r in wrench ? Constantine's mother was a wench. So what is your take on the greasy spoon versus green and clean. Should the leader follow in battle or hide out in a hole in the ground ?

I was thinking about serendipitous the last few days . I would really be stupid if it was not for that .

It would probably be easier to try to help you with this, as well as more-effectively done, if I understood what the hell the problem was in the first place.

It is very simple:

A person who inquires into spiritual matters, sooner or later comes into a situation where in order to have X, one first needs X, whereby X is of vital importance and one doesn't have it yet.

X can be insight, it can be good qualities, it can be qualification, faith, connections, friends, influence, ...

It is a double bind, catch 22 situation.

So far, I haven't seen a promising way to resolve it, other than to avoid it altogether, and try to go without X (whatever that X may be in a given situation).

There are post-dated cheques in spirituality too.

OP:

MoM how and why do you think your posts are answering the question? All you're doing is espousing someone's view (either your own or the church's) of how things are.
IOW you're a perfect example of Signal's original point.
Listen to me, because my view is that I'm right. :rolleyes:

I like it when you say Listen to Me . I get a warm fuzzy feeling when you do .

Clog morphed. A clog to an American is a gear.
I think you mean cog.
It's not always a ship. ;)

How is this in line with what LG said here - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57085 -?

ouch. that hurt my brain.

you have to at least believe in the possibility of god existing before you could ever justify reaching out to it, or endeavoring to experience, understand, and know it. you would have to assume some characteristics to believe that god would be capable of delivering, and worthy of this endeavor and worship.

What does that mean Mommy. I don't quite get it " Cryptic ? That is the same thing the people said on the maranatha site just before they banned me . Perma banned . I don't understand people that cry "Come Lord " and then they throw away the seed just before planting . The soil must not have been fertile enough. Wonder what they are going to do when Mikey takes up the sickle at harvest time and starts whacking off heads of the wheat. I suppose they will watch them roll like rocks down a cliff and say look at those rolling heads.

One thing about Mikeys is we eat anything . Shit is not that flavorlable . Salt goes a long ways to making it palatable. Sugar and spice almost makes every thing nice . Dogs eat cat shit and it tastes good to dogs , the other shit was like taking bad bad medicine and I still can't get the bad taste out of my mouth


i think i mean you talk like an artist. :)

ouch. that hurt my brain.

If you can't relate to what he is saying there, then you probably don't understand the problems I am talking about either, or at least you are not able to talk to me in a language I would understand.

in order to have X, one first needs X, whereby X

Yes...and you already have IT in there somewhere...it's a matter of finding it inside yourself.

You won't just magically get it. It will be very unpleasant. And frustrating. And slow.
You will have to wade through garbage that's in there too.
Spiritual quests are just like that.

Please note...you may be looking for an intellectual answer, you strike me as an intellectual person.
It's NOT an intellectual thing, connection to spirit.

But secondhand connection to God(s) doesn't work.

If I could wave my magic wand (which I need to resume working on)...but I can't give it to you.
Only you can, because it's like Ragu...it's in there.

Yes...and you already have IT in there somewhere...it's a matter of finding it inside yourself.

You won't just magically get it. It will be very unpleasant. And frustrating. And slow.
You will have to wade through garbage that's in there too.

Spiritual quests are just like that.

But secondhand connection to God(s) doesn't work.

If I could wave my magic wand (which I need to resume working on)...but I can't give it to you.
Only you can, because it's like Ragu...it's in there.

Did you read LG's thread that I linked to above?

It is very simple:
A person who inquires into spiritual matters, sooner or later comes into a situation where in order to have X, one first needs X, whereby X is of vital importance and one doesn't have it yet.

So far, I haven't seen a promising way to resolve it, other than to avoid it altogether, and try to go without X (whatever that X may be in a given situation).
Then, if at all possible, you put the question to one side.
Ignore it. Work round it.
One day, if the premise has any validity, it will crop up in other aspects of life. Another piece of the puzzle is handed to you (or the shape of the question is better outlined).
Don't bang your head against walls, go round them!

I suppose there comes a time when one needs to quit, right?

I suppose there comes a time when one needs to quit, right?
Quit? No. (Not necessarily, at least).
Put aside, for now.
Let it stew. Let it mature and settle in the back of your mind.
Let the connections form without you pushing them.

If you can't relate to what he is saying there, then you probably don't understand the problems I am talking about either, or at least you are not able to talk to me in a language I would understand.

i didn't say i couldn't relate; i did relate. i just meant it was difficult to read.

are you telling me that you don't understand what i'm saying?

I don't understand what you're saying for the most part.
To me, in order to follow up on the instructions that you give, would require that I first become enlightened (in the Buddhist sense).

I don't understand what you're saying for the most part.
To me, in order to follow up on the instructions that you give, would require that I first become enlightened (in the Buddhist sense).

i don't know much about buddhism signal, but i know what happened to me. i did have to make some assumptions before i could seek god like the possibilty of it's existence, and it's capability to present itself to me, and that it should be worth knowing. i had to consider what that knowledge would mean for me in form of consequences, and the reasons i wanted to know, examine my own intentions, and determine my own desire. iow i had to have some faith in god and in myself before i ever could have sought god. do you understand that?

To me, it sounds like a lot of rationalization. Very mental, very heady. Very abstract.

Let it mature and settle in the back of your mind.
Let the connections form without you pushing them.

This is excellent advice.

I skimmed LG's post, and disagree. Just because someone has a religious pedigree a yard long, does not mean you have to accept them as an authority, whole-cloth.

Everyone's connection to That which is is personal.

Going through a religion may help. It may not. Think of religious texts as self-help books pointing to the interior connection you already have and need to bring into better view. Use what works, discard the rest, and be ruthless.

You talk about serving God. In what ways does your heart/spirit/innermost self move you to do this?
Perhaps that's your path.

You talk about serving God. In what ways does your heart/spirit/innermost self move you to do this?

Um, you quoted my post yet this question is, I think, directed toward Signal.

The only way I can relate to it is "God! It's about time I got served another Guinness". :p

In what ways does your heart/spirit/innermost self move you to do this?

I don't speak this language ...

To me, it sounds like a lot of rationalization. Very mental, very heady. Very abstract.

rationalization for what?

does it sound that way for you because you're looking for someone to say instead...

do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that, do believe this, don't believe that, and you'll be right, you'll be "safe", you'll go to heaven, we'll like you...

and that's just not how it works. you're going to have to dig deeper, inside yourself if you want god and you want answers. you said above that you don't speak that language, but that is the language god speaks. god's not going to dictate rules to you, tell you who to be friends with, where to go to church and when, how to dress, yada yada.

it seems like you're looking for an easy out, and there isn't one.

"God! It's about time I got served another Guinness".

From your lips to God's ear;):D

But yeah, I was talking to Signal...


Lori7 said:
do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that, do believe this, don't believe that, and you'll be right, you'll be "safe", you'll go to heaven, we'll like you...
Some people can achieve real connection through main-line religion.

Signal, if you could get your answer(as opposed to someone else's) from a regular church, a book, a guru, or even some workshop somewhere... I suspect we all wouldn't be having this conversation.

Which means your answer is probably complicated.

Hmm...another question...have you ever had an experience of looking at something and being awestruck, stunned?

I skipped from page 1 to page 10 (10 posts per page)..
so forgive me if i answer with someone else's answer.

test all things, hold on to what is good..

ask everyone their opinion of God, do not assume anyone is the absolute authority when it comes to God.IOW don't stop asking, do not take any one mans opinion, seek multiple opinions, if you are truly seeking God he will show himself through those testimonies.

it is my belief that God shows us what we need to see, that is different from person to person..

reading the bible only helps when you are in a bible study (the ones that actually study it and not dictate what it means.),i mean you can get some ideas about God without bible study but bible study helps to put things in context. (specially when the bible study has historical context)

the more i study the bible and the more i learn about God,the more i believe God is not supposed to be dispensed by the church, we are all capable of knowing God without the church.
(but the Right church does help)

This is excellent advice.

I skimmed LG's post, and disagree. Just because someone has a religious pedigree a yard long, does not mean you have to accept them as an authority, whole-cloth.

Everyone's connection to That which is is personal.

Going through a religion may help. It may not. Think of religious texts as self-help books pointing to the interior connection you already have and need to bring into better view. Use what works, discard the rest, and be ruthless.

You talk about serving God. In what ways does your heart/spirit/innermost self move you to do this?
Perhaps that's your path.

Even if a person is promoting "you can be your own religious authority" it still establishes them as a person whose advice on religious matters is valid.

Kind of like persons who write several books about how one doesn't need a guru.

Even if a person is promoting "you can be your own religious authority" it still establishes them as a person whose advice on religious matters is valid.


Actually...I'm only speaking from personal experience...and everyone's advice has the potential to be as useful as anyone else's.
Spiritual training may help with this.

But consider the opposite message, amplified for comedic effect:
"You follow these teachings or you're going to God's eternal barbecue pit and making like a brisket, bucko!"

The test of validity is in the view of the reader...:shrug:
Since Signal isn't getting it, apparently I'm not providing him with the message he needs at this particular moment to get him past the stuck place.

I am not even a kanistha, as far as I know what you think of me.
And a kanistha cannot properly discern the spiritual attaiments of others, what to speak of the discerning abilities of someone like me.
Can you find any instance where I called you a kannistha?


How is this in line with what LG said here - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57085 -?
If your discernment is a flat zero, why cite a thread that is primarily identifying individuals on (at least) the madhyama side of uttama?

Hmm...another question...have you ever had an experience of looking at something and being awestruck, stunned?

i'm going to add to this question just for fun...

to signal or anyone,

have you ever tried to look at yourself through someone else's eyes? some objective person who doesn't know all your baggage and what makes up your perception, and therefore couldn't possibly understand why you behave the way you do? it's fun but difficult. i was forced into it once when some guy i was dating wouldn't see me, not even to tell me why. i watched the sun come up several mornings, mind ticking. so if you think about the concept of god, and if god made itself known to you in a very personal way, can you imagine the affect that would have on you? you could try to.

the thing is, god makes himself known to you in such a personal way, that there's no doubt that god knows your baggage, and everything else about you, like your future. don't think that doesn't blow your mind. he knows things about you that you don't even know. and he sees you the way you REALLY are, and he still loves you, no matter what. that interaction and realization enables you, to see you, the way you REALLY are. and it's your challenge to be ok with that. it's not easy, but it's absolutely worth it. you'll come out of it empowered, and you won't be afraid.

I think you mean cog.
It's not always a ship. ;)

Thanks my serendipitous fellow S.F. person . I think I did mean cog , but I like the clog thing of throwing a wrench in the machine just as well . Change by rebellion is not so bad and rebellion can take on other forms than violent protest . Hippies , flower children , flipped things upside down pretty good . This science forum reminds me of the communal thinking of the Hippies in a way . Lots of people voicing opinions and all, the outlet for thought is great .

Course Mikey's row boats , so now I got to go see what kind you are talking about

Actually...I'm only speaking from personal experience...and everyone's advice has the potential to be as useful as anyone else's.
sure

hence offering potentially is what places one in the position of (attempted) spiritual authority



But consider the opposite message, amplified for comedic effect:
"You follow these teachings or you're going to God's eternal barbecue pit and making like a brisket, bucko!"
Surely you can see the way you are contextualizing the message (putting aside the soundness of the message for just a moment)


The test of validity is in the view of the reader...:shrug:
the test of authority is in the mind of the speaker (although how many persons consider it valid and for what reasons is another question ...)

If someone is offering a context for the comprehension (or even rejection) of spiritual texts, they are operating out of an authority (or at least an ideological continuum, since our ideas tends to be the consequence of a long history of thesis and antithesis documented through social discourse)


Since Signal isn't getting it, apparently I'm not providing him with the message he needs at this particular moment to get him past the stuck place.
Whether an individual considers one valid or invalid in no way takes away from the act of another's attempt to contextualize spiritual teachings

hence offering potentially is what places one in the position of (attempted) spiritual authority

Do not lead, for I may not follow.
Do not follow, for I may not lead.
Do not walk beside me either.
In fact, just get away from me

-Jack Handey

I mean, seriously, I don't feel comfortable being an authority over anybody. Really. That makes me responsible.

Jeebus, it's hard enough to be responsible for myself right now!!!!:splat:

I was thinking of it more like midwifing, popping someone's spine so that their back isn't jammed, or stretching another's leg to get a really nasty cramp out.

I don't think in hierarchy, because I don't consider hierarchy truly valid.
If I can help I can help. I generally enjoy helping, so I generally do...or at least make the attempt...since I'm not perfect it doesn't always work.

Helping is not pulling rank.

Personally, I never fully believe that anyone won't harm me just because they can, and I triply believe this of authority figures.
Therefore most religions just weren't going to work, at least not going to a church/mosque/temple


our ideas tends to be the consequence of a long history of thesis and antithesis documented through social discourse

You're intellectual. You're thinking about it.

I'd definitely define myself as a mystic...and a solitary Pagan, and I have a hard time socializing(why I like the internet, the people in the box are not a threat)...and so, some of it's from books, but most of my spiritual practice comes from something that is entirely without words.

Even for a Pagan I'm weird...I make up every magickal working on the fly.
I play pick and mix with deities. I have a bad habit of not getting off my butt for even the major sabbats. I have blessed lighter fluid when I couldn't get a sacred fire started.

So...um...If Signal needs an intellectualized answer here, then I'm pretty useless.
If he needs a mystic's view on things...maybe I can help. But maybe not. Not so far anyway.
Why are you whacking me with your godstick anyway?

Can you find any instance where I called you a kannistha?

You are the one promoting KC, and its resources. So anything that is said there, is as if you said it.

NoI5 describes the levels of devotees. I don't live up to even a kanistha.



If your discernment is a flat zero, why cite a thread that is primarily identifying individuals on (at least) the madhyama side of uttama?

I don't understand what you mean by that?
Anyone can read and cite various materials.

I mean, seriously, I don't feel comfortable being an authority over anybody.

And yet the moment one steps into a situation, even as a helper, one presumes such authority.
With it comes the responsibility.



Helping is not pulling rank.

If you think that helping isn't steeped in issues of interpersonal politics (and thus issues of pulling rank) ...
Sometimes, there is more of this, other times less, but it is there, and it is how it works.
The person who is being helped would have to be without any sense of indebtedness if they were to avoid issues of interpersonal politics in the process of helping.



Why are you whacking me with your godstick anyway?

I am surprised you say that. If you are so sure of your spiritual path, then why does other people's spirituality bother you?

Signal, if you could get your answer(as opposed to someone else's) from a regular church, a book, a guru, or even some workshop somewhere... I suspect we all wouldn't be having this conversation.

I don't think it is impossible to receive an answer from a "regular" church etc.
But as it is, this path requires more faith, more submission, more resources and more discernment than I currently have.

"Regular" sources cannot be written off simply because so far, one has not obtained from them what one is looking for.



Hmm...another question...have you ever had an experience of looking at something and being awestruck, stunned?

Sure. But if by this you mean to suggest to indulge in such "speechless awe" - that doesn't work on me.
The usual relaxation techniques, Louise Hay spirituality and such have just the opposite effect on me as desired.

rationalization for what?

does it sound that way for you because you're looking for someone to say instead...

do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that, do believe this, don't believe that, and you'll be right, you'll be "safe", you'll go to heaven, we'll like you...

and that's just not how it works. you're going to have to dig deeper, inside yourself if you want god and you want answers. you said above that you don't speak that language, but that is the language god speaks. god's not going to dictate rules to you, tell you who to be friends with, where to go to church and when, how to dress, yada yada.

it seems like you're looking for an easy out, and there isn't one.

Okay, Lori. I have the choice to either follow you unequestioningly as my guru, or to avoid you like the plague.

With people who profess to know God (such as those who say things like "but that is the language god speaks"), there is no middle way and no friendship.

You are the one promoting KC, and its resources. So anything that is said there, is as if you said it.

NoI5 describes the levels of devotees. I don't live up to even a kanistha.
then that's you identifying as a kannistha ... and even then, nothing in the purport or related material about how being a kannistha banishes one from any issue of spiritual discrimination





I don't understand what you mean by that?
Anyone can read and cite various materials.
if the content is thoroughly unintelligible for you, why cite it as reference material?

Do not lead, for I may not follow.
Do not follow, for I may not lead.
Do not walk beside me either.
In fact, just get away from me

-Jack Handey
you can't hold such a view and publicly contextualize ideas at the same time


I mean, seriously, I don't feel comfortable being an authority over anybody. Really. That makes me responsible.

Jeebus, it's hard enough to be responsible for myself right now!!!!:splat:

I was thinking of it more like midwifing, popping someone's spine so that their back isn't jammed, or stretching another's leg to get a really nasty cramp out.

I don't think in hierarchy, because I don't consider hierarchy truly valid.
If I can help I can help. I generally enjoy helping, so I generally do...or at least make the attempt...since I'm not perfect it doesn't always work.

Helping is not pulling rank.
"helping" has contingent issues of responsibility ... otherwise it can quickly become "harming"





You're intellectual. You're thinking about it.

I am discussing how we arrive at our current world views, whatever they are.



I'd definitely define myself as a mystic...and a solitary Pagan, and I have a hard time socializing(why I like the internet, the people in the box are not a threat)...and so, some of it's from books, but most of my spiritual practice comes from something that is entirely without words.
books and the internet hardly exist in a vacuum


Even for a Pagan I'm weird...I make up every magickal working on the fly.
I play pick and mix with deities. I have a bad habit of not getting off my butt for even the major sabbats. I have blessed lighter fluid when I couldn't get a sacred fire started.

So...um...If Signal needs an intellectualized answer here, then I'm pretty useless.
If he needs a mystic's view on things...maybe I can help. But maybe not. Not so far anyway.
Why are you whacking me with your godstick anyway?
I don't know why you feel you are being whacked, much less why it is a god stick in particular.

Anyone who places ideas in a context is doing two things :


operating out of a social continuum (IOW their ideas are a consequence of the ideas that have come before them)

Establishing an authority/benchmark/standard for rendering texts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_%28literary_theory%29) meaningful (regardless whether hardly anyone or absolutely everyone considers the standard valid).


simply saying "I am my own authority" or "there are no authorities", far from placing one outside of such a system, conforms to it.

You are the one promoting KC, and its resources. So anything that is said there, is as if you said it.

NoI5 describes the levels of devotees. I don't live up to even a kanistha.
then that's you identifying as a kannistha ...

I never said I was as much as a kanistha.
But I certainly do not live up to the criteria for a kanistha. That is obvious enough (I have not received hari-nama initation, am not interested in worshiping deities at the temple etc.).



and even then, nothing in the purport or related material about how being a kannistha banishes one from any issue of spiritual discrimination

It is said that a kanistha is someone "who does not know how to behave toward devotees or people in general." So if even a kanistha does not know that, then what about people like me who are not even on kanistha level?
How are we, the run-of-the-mill people supposed to have any spiritual discernment??



if the content is thoroughly unintelligible for you, why cite it as reference material?

What you are stating there are merely truisms to me.
I do not know how they apply to actual people and situations.
Which is practically the same as if I would not (grammatically, theoretically, intellectually) understand what you are saying there.

I am surprised you say that. If you are so sure of your spiritual path, then why does other people's spirituality bother you?

alright, let's see if I can figure out why it bothers me...I guess it's a matter of tone, not his beliefs. It's like, rather than accepting the validity of my beliefs, he puts them down and instead advances his own?

I often feel my path is discounted because it's highly personal, idiosyncratic, inconsistent, and not stamped with any external approval.

Not so much that I question its' validity...but that most others do.

Sorry.

I was made fun of for admitting I was a Buddhist in high school...First they laughed at me, then told me I was going to hell...and they were happy about it, too.



Originally Posted by chimpkin
Do not lead, for I may not follow.
Do not follow, for I may not lead.
Do not walk beside me either.
In fact, just get away from me

-Jack Handey

Light Gigantic said:
you can't hold such a view and publicly contextualize ideas at the same time

Aaand that whoosh was my sense of humor going right over your head...I mean Jack Handey? a Saturday Night Live character? Dude...



"helping" has contingent issues of responsibility ... otherwise it can quickly become "harming"

Guess what? Every action has issues of responsibility...there's a whole lot that radiates outward from your choice to suck oxygen everyday alone.

I do my very best not to run around harming people...I'm very guilt-driven...so harm is something that would really haunt me for a long time.

I don't feel better than someone else if something I say helps them or something I do helps them. Nor do I feel that they ought to be indebted...that bothers me too..it's like,"Don't you understand it just made me really happy to do that for you?"

How it makes me feel? Useful. Needed. I like feeling useful and needed. It makes me think I have value, something I have constant trouble believing.

Too, I want to create the sort of world where people get help because they need help through my actions...as I can, considering I'm one person.
Because sometimes you just need help regardless of your ability to reciprocate.
*closes eyes*..Because I once needed help...and I had to sell my soul for it.(Not literally LG, but both metaphorically and pretty close).

So I don't sit idly by if someone asks me for help, unless they're just being a sponge.

I also know from personal experience that you only take that advice which you're ready, willing, and able to take. I will tell Signal or anyone else what I think might help...but the agency is still their very own, as I can't take their actions for them.

Besides that, I'm telling Signal that he has to find his own answers...which would include not accepting myself as an authority, I'd say...

You view spirituality as thoughts and concepts more, I'm guessing. I view it as something you do.

When I run I visualize first drawing the energy of the earth through me and out the top of my head, then the energy of the sky in the opposite direction.
I can also do it standing still, of course...and managing to do it long enough without getting distracted will make me high. Put me into a state of ecstasy.

But it does not sound like Signal can use anything I'm giving him anyway.
He's a thinker, not a feeler, I gather.

So I will leave him to figure out what's obviously going to be a very different path than mine, and wish him luck.

Okay, Lori. I have the choice to either follow you unequestioningly as my guru, or to avoid you like the plague.

With people who profess to know God (such as those who say things like "but that is the language god speaks"), there is no middle way and no friendship.

that's horrible, and that's the way YOU make it. it's a problem (the topic of this thread), and it's one that you're apparently not willing to solve, so why keep complaining about it?

BE HONEST

you don't want to know god. you don't want a damn thing to do with god. this is an exercise in ego for you, and for whomever is wicked enough to feed and enable your codependency, and to lie to you.

and might i add that while some others are blowing sunshine up your butt about your path, your path is a circle.

Lori,

Could you please make I-statements, instead of you-statements?
What exactly are you trying to communicate?

Lori,

Could you please make I-statements, instead of you-statements?
What exactly are you trying to communicate?

observations of you, and my qualified opinion.

With people who profess to know God (such as those who say things like "but that is the language god speaks"), there is no middle way and no friendship.

Signal, would you mind explaining that in more detail?

Second...I've asked you what makes you feel awe, and you indicated you do not. So I have a question...when you think about God, what feelings does this thought bring up for you?
Third question...what is the emotional driving force behind your spiritual quest? is there one?

See, I find myself frustrated because I'm not currently able to offer you something you find useful.
I gather I'm not understanding the problem correctly,

Signal, would you mind explaining that in more detail?
It's quite simple: if someone professes to know god so well (but can't actually show that they do) then one is left with the choice of either taking them at their word, and subsequently following that word (after all, they are privy to god) or you decide that they're talking bullshit and stay away from them (as far as advice/ learning goes).

Hmm, I wonder which option I'd go for if I ever came across such a person. ;)

observations of you, and my qualified opinion.
Qualified opinion? :eek:

Oh, sorry, I just realised you meant it in the sense of "limited or restricted" as opposed to "meeting the proper standards and requirements".
My bad, just ignore this.

Dwyddyr said
It's quite simple: if someone professes to know god so well (but can't actually show that they do) then one is left with the choice of either taking them at their word, and subsequently following that word (after all, they are privy to god) or you decide that they're talking bullshit and stay away from them (as far as advice/ learning goes).

Basically, I follow advice if it feels like something I need to do.
The way I can tell if I need to follow said advice is that it acts like a brainworm...gets in there and BUGS me until I do it.

So far there's only been a few people I saw who, as I put it, "had the light on them," and the one guy I was sporadic friends with wasn't taking any disciples.

When I say someone "has the light on them," what I mean is that the very first time I set eyes on them I see them surrounded by a white nimbus of light. When I see that, I know I'm looking at someone special...and I've confirmed this by talking to the person in question-they're always something very good and special.:)

While I'm not christian, Lori seems to be on the level.

How would somebody show you they know a god anyway? Not just a rhetorical question...I'm really trying to see how that could conceivably be done.

While I'm not christian, Lori seems to be on the level.
Depends what you mean by "on the level". I accept that Lori believes she talks directly to god (and he talks to her), but I don't accept that she actually does so.


How would somebody show you they know a god anyway? Not just a rhetorical question...I'm really trying to see how that could conceivably be done.
First of all you'd have to eliminate all other possible explanations for what they've experienced (or claim to have experienced).

Belief plays a big part in interpretation...
Percy: Look, look, I just can't take the pressure of all these omens any more!
Edmund: Percy...
Percy: No, no, really, I'm serious! Only this morning in the courtyard I saw a horse with two heads and two bodies!
Edmund: Two horses standing next to each other?
Percy: Yes, I suppose it could have been.

Black Adder, the Witchsmeller Pursuivant episode.

First of all you'd have to eliminate all other possible explanations for what they've experienced (or claim to have experienced).
Unless you were there, they could be lying. Or more likely, delusive.
Your own inner sense of truth still has to be the test.


I accept that Lori believes she talks directly to god (and he talks to her), but I don't accept that she actually does so.

I accept that Lori has a connection to something. :shrug: But I don't know what it is.
You certainly don't have to...I mean, after all, aren't you an atheist anyway?

My wife asked me about something I did, if it had a magickal purpose. I said yes. She was really surprised when I didn't tell her what that was...so she asked. And I said,
"You're an atheist now. You don't believe in any of that nonsense anyway."

I mostly like atheists, but when it comes to my own practice, I generally think I'm being judged negatively by them as well, as with most other religions.

Except Sikhs. As far as I know, Sikhs are pretty chill.

Qualified opinion? :eek:

Oh, sorry, I just realised you meant it in the sense of "limited or restricted" as opposed to "meeting the proper standards and requirements".
My bad, just ignore this.

i meant the latter in regards to signal's standards and requirements.

Unless you were there, they could be lying. Or more likely, delusive.
Or mistaken. Or not aware of/ not considering other options.


Your own inner sense of truth still has to be the test.
Hardly, er, objective, is it? :p


I accept that Lori has a connection to something. :shrug: But I don't know what it is.
The inside of her own head?


My wife asked me about something I did, if it had a magickal purpose. I said yes. She was really surprised when I didn't tell her what that was...so she asked. And I said,
"You're an atheist now. You don't believe in any of that nonsense anyway."
Pfft, category error. Atheists don't believe in god.
Loony magical practices are something else altogether. :p

Lori,

Could you please make I-statements, instead of you-statements?
What exactly are you trying to communicate?
observations of you, and my qualified opinion.

I have asked you for I-statements (http://www.traumacentral.net/i-statements.htm), though.

From what you are saying, I have no idea what you want from me, or otherwise, but I have the impression that you do want something.


When you said -


that's horrible, and that's the way YOU make it. it's a problem (the topic of this thread), and it's one that you're apparently not willing to solve, so why keep complaining about it?

BE HONEST

you don't want to know god. you don't want a damn thing to do with god. this is an exercise in ego for you, and for whomever is wicked enough to feed and enable your codependency, and to lie to you.

and might i add that while some others are blowing sunshine up your butt about your path, your path is a circle.

I had the impression that you wanted me to stop talking about this topic (of the OP) at the forums.
I also had the impression that you expect me to feel ashamed for my apparent slowness and lack of understanding.

I have asked you for I-statements (http://www.traumacentral.net/i-statements.htm), though.

From what you are saying, I have no idea what you want from me, or otherwise, but I have the impression that you do want something.


When you said -



I had the impression that you wanted me to stop talking about this topic (of the OP) at the forums.
I also had the impression that you expect me to feel ashamed for my apparent slowness and lack of understanding.

i'm sorry, but i don't really care if you would prefer "i" statements, that's not what i wanted to say.

i don't want anything from you necessarily, but to be honest, i'm beginning to think you're trolling with this ongoing desperate dilemma of yours, just so you can stick it to people who say they know god.


and this has nothing to do with "slowness and lack of understanding". it has to do with a catch 22; an illogical and an impossible request. i think it's a set up.

With people who profess to know God (such as those who say things like "but that is the language god speaks"), there is no middle way and no friendship.
Signal, would you mind explaining that in more detail?

Someone who professes to know God is nominally (but potentially also factually) on a level of spiritual attainment that is beyond the comprehension of the person who professes not to know God. As such, they are like people from different Universes, they have nothing in common, they cannot communicate, they cannot have meaningful exchanges each being as they currently are.
So one would need to change for the other, in order to have a meaningful exchange.
The one who professes to know God is in the position where they see no need to change for the other; and if the other wants to know about God, and hear about God from the one who professes to know God, then he himself needs to change, which, in this case means to unquestioningly submit to the other.



Second...I've asked you what makes you feel awe, and you indicated you do not.

I do feel awe. Like a few years ago, we had a hailstorm and the hail broke the window while I was about a meter away. It was thick, strong, double glass.



So I have a question...when you think about God, what feelings does this thought bring up for you?

Nothing really. Kind of numb and blank.



Third question...what is the emotional driving force behind your spiritual quest? is there one?

Misery, and not wanting to be miserable.



See, I find myself frustrated because I'm not currently able to offer you something you find useful.

I can feel your frustration! :o



I gather I'm not understanding the problem correctly,

It happens.

i'm sorry, but i don't really care if you would prefer "i" statements

That is too bad.



i don't want anything from you necessarily, but to be honest, i'm beginning to think you're trolling with this ongoing desperate dilemma of yours, just so you can stick it to people who say they know god.

and this has nothing to do with "slowness and lack of understanding". it has to do with a catch 22; an illogical and an impossible request. i think it's a set up.

I don't think you understand my plea.
Theists are often placing before us double binds, catch 22 situations. And when we ask for clarification/resolution, we don't receive it. And then those same theists are blaiming us for insisting in those double binds ...

That is too bad.




I don't think you understand my plea.
Theists are often placing before us double binds, catch 22 situations. And when we ask for clarification/resolution, we don't receive it. And then those same theists are blaiming us for insisting in those double binds ...

i do think i understand your plea, and as i said, and as you seem to have gone on to clarify here, i think your plea is trolling.

what catch 22 situation am i and others in this thread putting you in by advising you (in our knowledge of god) to go directly to god with your plea?

i don't believe you're that "slow". focus on what i'm saying to you...

those of us who know god, have sought god. you are not seeking god, you are seeking us. you're not accepting our answer because it's not what you want to hear, but the truth is that no one who knows god is going to advise you to seek a guru instead of god. you'd be a perfect candidate for a cult.

i do think i understand your plea, and as i said, and as you seem to have gone on to clarify here, i think your plea is trolling.

what catch 22 situation am i and others in this thread putting you in by advising you (in our knowledge of god) to go directly to god with your plea?

i don't believe you're that "slow". focus on what i'm saying to you...

those of us who know god, have sought god. you are not seeking god, you are seeking us. you're not accepting our answer because it's not what you want to hear, but the truth is that no one who knows god is going to advise you to seek a guru instead of god. you'd be a perfect candidate for a cult.

...

you may know G-d.

But I know reality. And reality is greater then G-d.

...

you may know G-d.

But I know reality. And reality is greater then G-d.

i know both, and reality is god, but surely you're aware that we're covered in lies.

The only problem here is that LG either doesn't have the time or the desire to have this conversation, while he is currently the only one here who has the philosophical means to do so ...


And I really do not think God is like that

http://www.hippocart.com/bush_sucks_tshirts/images/buddy_jesus.jpg

so that one could approach Him directly.

i do think i understand your plea, and as i said, and as you seem to have gone on to clarify here, i think your plea is trolling.
If, as you have claimed more than once, you do understand Signal's plea why do you insist on posting replies that make it abundantly evident that you don't?

Exempli gratia:

those of us who know god, have sought god. you are not seeking god, you are seeking us. you're not accepting our answer because it's not what you want to hear, but the truth is that no one who knows god is going to advise you to seek a guru instead of god. you'd be a perfect candidate for a cult.

The only problem here is that LG either doesn't have the time or the desire to have this conversation, while he is currently the only one here who has the philosophical means to do so ...


And I really do not think God is like that

http://www.hippocart.com/bush_sucks_tshirts/images/buddy_jesus.jpg

so that one could approach Him directly.

well then how in the hell do you think anyone knows god?

and no, he's not like that. he's no joke.

If, as you have claimed more than once, you do understand Signal's plea why do you insist on posting replies that make it abundantly evident that you don't?

Exempli gratia:

i'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, just in case.

and no, he's not like that. he's no joke.
Makes me chuckle...

well then how in the hell do you think anyone knows god?

You really think it is a good idea to try to approach the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Source of All, the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe
directly?

Do you ever prostrate yourself before God, Lori?

Makes me chuckle...

he does have a sense of humor. i'd bet he thought that movie was funny. but he's not like that.

You really think it is a good idea to try to approach the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Source of All, the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe
directly?

Do you ever prostrate yourself before God, Lori?

yeah i've been there.

and yeah it's a damn good idea when communion is the whole point. what do you think the holy spirit is for?

you should revisit the bible, seriously. you obviously don't understand it at all.

but he's not like that.
So you say, anyway.

So you say, anyway.

on the level, yes i do.

on the level, yes i do.
One more insupportable claim?

One more insupportable claim?

you don't have to believe me, but i doubt you think i'm dishonest.

you don't have to believe me, but i doubt you think i'm dishonest.
Huh? Where and when did "dishonesty" come into it?
I stated the facts: you cannot support this claim.

Someone who professes to know God is nominally (but potentially also factually) on a level of spiritual attainment that is beyond the comprehension of the person who professes not to know God. As such, they are like people from different Universes, they have nothing in common, they cannot communicate, they cannot have meaningful exchanges each being as they currently are.
So one would need to change for the other, in order to have a meaningful exchange.
The one who professes to know God is in the position where they see no need to change for the other; and if the other wants to know about God, and hear about God from the one who professes to know God, then he himself needs to change, which, in this case means to unquestioningly submit to the other.
The Misery thing . You have not been doing Me thing have you ? Shit why why why , something about this guy. Every morning look in the mirror and say I love you ! I am Great ! I will do great things today , When I greet a person I will greet them with love in my heart . OK now when you greet someone say to your self about them " I Love you . Do it , and stop f--cking off . Your misery will be gone for good and people will love you . Your community will change just by you changing . You f--ckers out there that think this is bull shit F---ck you in your ass. You don't know ! Only by doing it will you know . Come back after doing it then make your comments



I do feel awe. Like a few years ago, we had a hailstorm and the hail broke the window while I was about a meter away. It was thick, strong, double glass.

One of Me customers last year had 2 windows blow out for no reason . It happened at different times . One window one week and the other the following week . I I built the house original and the house was about 10 years old . I checked the Clarence to the frame and all fine and dandy . The glass company says it just happens some times . Some hocas pocus about the surface tension on the glass. I think it was the tension from there divorce my self


Nothing really. Kind of numb and blank.




Misery, and not wanting to be miserable.




I can feel your frustration! :o




It happens.

Go do something wild and crazy . Get some pussy from some horny willing women . That always cheers Me up

Huh? Where and when did "dishonesty" come into it?
I stated the facts: you cannot support this claim.

i think i've supported it just fine, proof being that you don't think i'm dishonest.

i think i've supported it just fine, proof being that you don't think i'm dishonest.
No, you've made repeated claims. Which you have not shown to be true. Therefore: unsupported.
And wrong: I don't question your honesty so much as your, er, perspicacity (and sanity). See my comment on post #123.

No, you've made repeated claims. Which you have not shown to be true. Therefore: unsupported.
And wrong: I don't question your honesty so much as your, er, perspicacity (and sanity). See my comment on post #123.

i don't think you question my sanity either. i think you just say that because you can't some up with anything else.

i've never been diagnosed with any mental illness, mr. scientific foundation. :bugeye:

You really think it is a good idea to try to approach the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Source of All, the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe
directly?

Do you ever prostrate yourself before God, Lori?

I do . You kicking dogs got know idea . When you do you will fall to your knees and cry like baby's . You will see what you been doing to fuck it all up . Follow the leader is for the majority . The brave pioneer new waters . People can be lazy butts in there meditative states of false grace all they want . It don't make it so. I work to achieve a state of grace . You gots to go threw the motions in real life and not just in your head . O.K. I talk a lot about thoughts controlling you and what you think is what you become . That is only part of the equation. The other part is getting off the old ass hoolio and doing the job. Theory and Practice. There are plenty of people forced to there knees . Me being one . When you are forced to your knees and the heavy hand of creation touches you you will know what I am talking about here. Couple bites from a mountain lion or better yet . Do you remember the guy that cut his own arm off to save him self . That my friends is the spark of life

The last time I cut my arm off, it just hurt like hell.

Such is the loneliness of the long-distance approach to the eternal godhead. Ah well.

i don't think you question my sanity either.
Oops, wrong again.


i think you just say that because you can't some up with anything else.
Nope. Like I said, I think you believe absolutely what you say. But I very much doubt it has any foundation in fact.


i've never been diagnosed with any mental illness, mr. scientific foundation. :bugeye:
Your point being?

Oops, wrong again.


Nope. Like I said, I think you believe absolutely what you say. But I very much doubt it has any foundation in fact.


Your point being?

point being, that according to your own standards, your assumption and/or supposition regarding my sanity is invalid.

my dear, you have just been served. you're welcome. :)

Dwy said:
I stated the facts: you cannot support this claim.

I have yet to meet a religious person that can.
Unless I start producing miracles out of my ass like flying monkeys, neither can I.
And nah, I'm just not that good.

The one big sign that I got? You-all weren't there...and looking back on it I view it as more ambiguous than I did when I was a 12-year-old and observed that I had a prayer answered instantly.

As far as my sanity? I think I lost that a long time ago.


Signal said:
You really think it is a good idea to try to approach the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Source of All, the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe directly?


Why not? The worst that could happen is death...in some form or fashion.
Death of the body, death of the personhood too-a very painful experience. Guess what? none of us get out of here alive anyway.You could have your personality shattered, your mind broken, and your life turned upside down.

Think of it as an adventure.
After all...
If where you are sucks, and what you're doing isn't working...


Someone who professes to know God is nominally (but potentially also factually) on a level of spiritual attainment that is beyond the comprehension of the person who professes not to know God. As such, they are like people from different Universes, they have nothing in common, they cannot communicate, they cannot have meaningful exchanges each being as they currently are.

I would not put it as quite so different...more like people who speak a very different language. Very hard to talk. Not totally impossible.


So one would need to change for the other, in order to have a meaningful exchange.

Actually, one presumes that the one who is in contact with God or spirit or whatever is more advanced and flexible than the one who doesn't know yet, and therefore more effectively able to adapt to the needs of the person requesting information.


The one who professes to know God is in the position where they see no need to change for the other; and if the other wants to know about God, and hear about God from the one who professes to know God, then he himself needs to change, which, in this case means to unquestioningly submit to the other.
Firstly, see above.
Second...I thought we all changed for our own sake anyway, mostly...at least inspired mostly by internal impulse.
I mean, people only change when they are ready, and in the way they are ready to change. Sometimes they need an external tap, but if they weren't already ready to shift, they are not shifting...
Third...
It's the part about unquestioning submission that I find very disturbing and baffling. That does not feel necessary to me.

That whole thing about a teacher is a guide and helper, but you still get to do all the work yourself?

On the offhand chance this quote will help?:


Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-sakyamuni buddha (from http://www.philosophersnotes.com/quotes/by_teacher/buddha, but I have read it elsewhere.)

point being, that according to your own standards, your assumption and/or supposition regarding my sanity is invalid.

my dear, you have just been served. you're welcome. :)
Yet another failure of comprehension on your part I see.
At least you're consistent.

Signal said:
I do feel awe. Like a few years ago, we had a hailstorm and the hail broke the window while I was about a meter away. It was thick, strong, double glass.


Hmm...how do I explain this?
I worship nature because I feel awe for it, love for it, a very deep joy when I am in it and looking at it.
Since this is the same feeling I got in church as a child, only far stronger...it seemed very natural and logical to start doing so.

See...I guess it's rather a bootstrap issue, isn't it?
The reason I looked for spiritual things is because I felt them...and I wanted more than just the very occasional random punctuation of the general gloom. I wanted to induce that sort of ecstasy consciously...but I already knew the scent and track of it.

So, again with the questions:rolleyes::
What makes you feel wonder?
What makes you feel delight?
What gives you contentment?
What do you love?

Dwy said:
Pfft, category error. Atheists don't believe in god.
Loony magical practices are something else altogether.

Do not make me turn you into a newt again...
(He got better)

Yet another failure of comprehension on your part I see.
At least you're consistent.

you are so full of crap. what specifically did i not comprehend?

you are so full of crap. what specifically did i not comprehend?
That your "point" means nothing:

i've never been diagnosed with any mental illness
So what?
I've never had a speeding ticket. It doesn't mean I've never broken the speed limit, simply that I haven't been caught doing so.
Get the picture?

Have you ever been examined for mental illness?
Have you ever mentioned your delusion talks with god to anyone qualified to do such a diagnosis?

Lori said:
to signal or anyone,

have you ever tried to look at yourself through someone else's eyes?

I find that an absolutely terrifying idea, Lori. I expect other people to find my flaws and be disgusted at me for them.

Do not make me turn you into a newt again...
(He got better)
I always get better. Every single day...
By now I'm waaay past awesome.

Hmm...how do I explain this?
I worship nature because I feel awe for it, love for it, a very deep joy when I am in it and looking at it.
Define worship...

Not that I have any problems with it. I am in awe of nature/the universe too. I just don't see any evidence that it desires to be worshipped.

I just don't see any evidence that it desires to be worshipped.
Meh, no, but I desire to do it, and it makes me feel what I believe to be a highly spiritual experience to do so.

Worship?
Observe with wonder, meditate in, work energy in, leave offerings to occasionally, work with.

I'm not asking you to believe in it, you know...it's whatever greases your personal gears...quite frankly, the atheist position is the most logical one.

But when I adopted it I felt very sad and lonely.
So if I'm deluding myself (highly possible) I'm okay with that. Life's hard.

It's quite simple: if someone professes to know god so well (but can't actually show that they do) then one is left with the choice of either taking them at their word, and subsequently following that word (after all, they are privy to god) or you decide that they're talking bullshit and stay away from them (as far as advice/ learning goes).
how bout the choice of 'i still don't believe,you haven't convinced me, but i can respect your opinion of God..'
AND

taking them at their word, and subsequently following
are not mutually inclusive.
AND
so you are saying that if you were to believe someone when they say they speak for God,you would do as he told you? i find that very hard to believe for you Dyw..
i believe if that were the case, you would contemplate seriously what he told you to do, then do things you own way anyway..as well it should, if God wanted to tell you to do something, he will tell you himself, not through some other person.

Other ppl can only try to show you were to look, God has his own ideas for you, if he wants you to be the 'christian' he will put it into your heart to be that..till then he likes you right where you are.



Hmm, I wonder which option I'd go for if I ever came across such a person. ;)
hmmm..

-----------


have you ever tried to look at yourself through someone else's eyes?
an attempt in futility..
unless the other person is there telling you what he see's,it is all supposition.


i know both, and reality is god, but surely you're aware that we're covered in lies.
This is Reality,God?

if God wanted to tell you to do something, he will tell you himself, not through some other person.



Or she will, or they...just had to add the other pronouns, yanno...:D

Apropos of nothing in particular...

When I bought my first car...I sat in it with a giant grin on my face... and I heard a female voice in my mind, older, and a little sarcastic, say " You're gonna wreck it." With this I got a feeling of presence, and...blue, the color blue.

I asked "Is there any way I can stop that?"
She said "No."
"Will I be hurt?" I asked
She said "Yep," and then stopped answering my questions.

Ten months later I totalled that car in a ditch, and I still have hardware in my arm from that...

Or she will, or they...just had to add the other pronouns, yanno...:D

God will be whatever it needs to be...

(i would love to have God show herself to me..:D)

how bout the choice of 'i still don't believe,you haven't convinced me, but i can respect your opinion of God..'
There's a difference between having a belief in god and claiming that he talks directly to you, so much so that you feel you can make absolute declarations of what god is and is not.


so you are saying that if you were to believe someone when they say they speak for God,you would do as he told you? i find that very hard to believe for you Dyw..
i believe if that were the case, you would contemplate seriously what he told you to do, then do things you own way anyway..as well it should, if God wanted to tell you to do something, he will tell you himself, not through some other person.
Yeah? Why so? If I truly believed that this person did, in fact, speak for god then surely I'd follow them.


Other ppl can only try to show you were to look
No, other people can claim they know where I should look, or, possibly, say where they looked and found.

Meh, no, but I desire to do it, and it makes me feel what I believe to be a highly spiritual experience to do so.

Worship?
Observe with wonder, meditate in, work energy in, leave offerings to occasionally, work with.

I'm not asking you to believe in it, you know...it's whatever greases your personal gears...quite frankly, the atheist position is the most logical one.

But when I adopted it I felt very sad and lonely.
So if I'm deluding myself (highly possible) I'm okay with that. Life's hard.
I was just curious. The pantheist concept of god makes sense to me. Not that I "believe" the universe is "conscious". Although I leave room for the idea - after all, I'm conscious and I am a small part of the universe...

But I usually refer to myself as an atheist or agnostic, simply because it's easier than trying to explain to most people how my idea of god is not their idea of god.

Not that I "believe" the universe is "conscious". Although I leave room for the idea - after all, I'm conscious and I am a small part of the universe...

http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa431/NMSquirrel/Misc/urhere.jpg

That your "point" means nothing:

So what?
I've never had a speeding ticket. It doesn't mean I've never broken the speed limit, simply that I haven't been caught doing so.
Get the picture?

yes i get the picture, it's the same one you present to me when i say i've interacted with god. (dumbass)


Have you ever been examined for mental illness?
Have you ever mentioned your delusion talks with god to anyone qualified to do such a diagnosis?

yes, and yes, and yet, no diagnosis has been made. therefore your assumptions or suppositions or assertions regarding my sanity are unfounded in science, and therefore by your own standards are invalid.

I find that an absolutely terrifying idea, Lori. I expect other people to find my flaws and be disgusted at me for them.



an attempt in futility..
unless the other person is there telling you what he see's,it is all supposition.

it's still extremely educational. you'll find that no one knows more about yourself than you do (until you introduce god into the picture). something signal should consider i think.



This is Reality,God?

yes. you can see the lies. i know you can. the only reason they are lies is because truth exists.

yes i get the picture, it's the same one you present to me when i say i've interacted with god. (dumbass)
So you're still missing the point... Never mind.


yes, and yes, and yet, no diagnosis has been made. therefore your assumptions or suppositions or assertions regarding my sanity are unfounded in science, and therefore by your own standards are invalid.
Um, wrong again.
I haven't made any assertions or suppositions about your sanity.

Define worship...

Not that I have any problems with it. I am in awe of nature/the universe too. I just don't see any evidence that it desires to be worshipped.

That is funny Ha Ha . You need to live with wolves for a while . You might change your mind . Maybe not . I worship all of nature on earth and Moon . I run away when I see a tornado burning down on me too . Like the animals of the forest we run away from the fire , Well smoke jumpers don't . My Navy seal buddy Tim the smoke jumper now he just dives right in from the air like fucking super man and puts the shit out .

http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa431/NMSquirrel/Misc/urhere.jpg

Wow is that real . It looks like path ways . Like city lights of human development. Strange indeed

That is funny Ha Ha . You need to live with wolves for a while . You might change your mind .
Now that you mention it, my ex wife had cats.

Wow is that real . It looks like path ways . Like city lights of human development. Strange indeed

Squirrel's image looks distinctly like a representation of the gravitational clumping together of matter in the early universe, much like you see in this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW7BvabYnn8&feature=player_detailpage#t=540s) video about black holes (skip to the 9min mark if the link doesn't do it automagically).

The last time I cut my arm off, it just hurt like hell.

Such is the loneliness of the long-distance approach to the eternal godhead. Ah well.

I wonder if LG would comment on this.
Although I doubt he will ...

On the offhand chance this quote will help?:


Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.

-sakyamuni buddha (from http://www.philosophersnotes.com/quotes/by_teacher/buddha, but I have read it elsewhere.)

Yes, this is a popular rendition of the Kalama Sutta, but it is not what the Buddha said.




Translator's note: Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche for following one's own sense of right and wrong, it actually says something much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise. The ability to question and test one's beliefs in an appropriate way is called appropriate attention. The ability to recognize and choose wise people as mentors is called having admirable friends. According to Iti 16-17, these are, respectively, the most important internal and external factors for attaining the goal of the practice. For further thoughts on how to test a belief in practice, see MN 61, MN 95, AN 7.79, and AN 8.53. For thoughts on how to judge whether another person is wise, see MN 110, AN 4.192, and AN 8.54.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html

Actually, one presumes that the one who is in contact with God or spirit or whatever is more advanced and flexible than the one who doesn't know yet, and therefore more effectively able to adapt to the needs of the person requesting information.

That is interesting. But it is not my experience of people who claim to know God.

Well...as I said, I have an extreme distrust of authority...or really anybody for that matter. Or rather I trust perforce to keep from going insane(r), but I expect them to take a pound of flesh or two for the service.

That's kind of why I don't mind talking about personal stuff on the 'net, I suppose. It hurts less to be stabbed by complete strangers than by those whom I care about deeply, and since I expect it to be a natural consequence of trusting anyone...and without trusting anyone I go insane(r)...

Another really good reason I'm uncomfortable being an authority...I've just had glimpses. I have too many problems to be that advanced...although the problems have driven me in on myself... which probably led to me being much more spiritual.

Thanks for the corrected translation... and as I said, good luck with things.

I wish I could have been of help, but either I'm sucky at explaining, or we don't think enough alike.:(

And so LG again puts me in a double bind and leaves ...

And so LG again puts me in a double bind and leaves ...

He could have ate, shot, and left. Could be worse.:D

I dunno, I think the whole point of Zen Koans is that they aren't solvable by the conscious mind...so you just sort of whap your head on them until something gives...:shrug:

http://galerija.najportal.com/data/media/136/panda14.jpg

or

http://victorkuo.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/grizzly.jpeg

-?

That is the question.

http://galerija.najportal.com/data/media/136/panda14.jpg

or

http://victorkuo.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/grizzly.jpeg

-?

That is the question.

why don't you stop judging others and focus on yourself for a while?

oh right, that would defeat the whole point. :rolleyes:

why don't you stop judging others and focus on yourself for a while?

oh right, that would defeat the whole point. :rolleyes:

What are you talking about?
You are saved, you are superior, you know.

So why would you fret and complain?

What are you talking about?
You are saved, you are superior, you know.

So why would you fret and complain?

i'm not superior. that's just excuse #388! i'm not buying it and neither is god.

i'm not superior.

Of course not. I am just supposed to believe you. Implying that you are superior.

Of course not. I am just supposed to believe you. Implying that you are superior.

no, you're supposed to find out for yourself, implying that i am not superior.

no, you're supposed to find out for yourself, implying that i am not superior.


Even if a person is promoting "you can be your own religious authority" it still establishes them as a person whose advice on religious matters is valid.

Kind of like persons who write several books about how one doesn't need a guru.


hence offering potentially is what places one in the position of (attempted) spiritual authority
...

the test of authority is in the mind of the speaker (although how many persons consider it valid and for what reasons is another question ...)

If someone is offering a context for the comprehension (or even rejection) of spiritual texts, they are operating out of an authority (or at least an ideological continuum, since our ideas tends to be the consequence of a long history of thesis and antithesis documented through social discourse)

...
Whether an individual considers one valid or invalid in no way takes away from the act of another's attempt to contextualize spiritual teachings


...

...

god is the authority.

god is the authority.




Even if a person is promoting "you can be your own religious authority" it still establishes them as a person whose advice on religious matters is valid.

Kind of like persons who write several books about how one doesn't need a guru.


hence offering potentially is what places one in the position of (attempted) spiritual authority
...

the test of authority is in the mind of the speaker (although how many persons consider it valid and for what reasons is another question ...)

If someone is offering a context for the comprehension (or even rejection) of spiritual texts, they are operating out of an authority (or at least an ideological continuum, since our ideas tends to be the consequence of a long history of thesis and antithesis documented through social discourse)

...
Whether an individual considers one valid or invalid in no way takes away from the act of another's attempt to contextualize spiritual teachings


...

...

signal ffs, snap out of it!

how much more obvious can this be?

if god isn't the authority, then it's not god!!

then it's not god!!
NOW you're getting it.

signal ffs, snap out of it!

how much more obvious can this be?

if god isn't the authority, then it's not god!!

No, Lori, one more time:




Even if a person is promoting "you can be your own religious authority" it still establishes them as a person whose advice on religious matters is valid.

Kind of like persons who write several books about how one doesn't need a guru.


hence offering potentially is what places one in the position of (attempted) spiritual authority
...

the test of authority is in the mind of the speaker (although how many persons consider it valid and for what reasons is another question ...)

If someone is offering a context for the comprehension (or even rejection) of spiritual texts, they are operating out of an authority (or at least an ideological continuum, since our ideas tends to be the consequence of a long history of thesis and antithesis documented through social discourse)

...
Whether an individual considers one valid or invalid in no way takes away from the act of another's attempt to contextualize spiritual teachings

No, Lori, one more time:

signal,

i see a lot of intelligent, enlightened people here trying to give you some good advice, and you don't want good advice.

you want to be spoonfed. you don't want to take any responsibility for yourself.

:shrug:

You are incapable of philosophical discussion.
You just twist my topic around in an effort to "help", which changes the interpersonal dynamics from equal/on cooperative terms to superior vs. inferior.
Which then makes it easy for you to criticize me and dismiss me (you do it to others too).

You are incapable of philosophical discussion.
You just twist my topic around in an effort to "help", which changes the interpersonal dynamics from equal/on cooperative terms to superior vs. inferior.
Which then makes it easy for you to criticize me and dismiss me (you do it to others too).

there is no philosophical discussion to be had here signal. get off your ass and do what it takes to know god yourself or shut up.

you're never going to philosophize your way to god.

Even I have a limit to quoting LG ...

Even I have a limit to quoting LG ...

good. perhaps one day you'll come up with something to say all on your own.

relevant music break courtesy of shinedown. signal, i serenade thee vicariously once again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hez6tDpiWDA


and dywy this is for you...

stallone + explosions + shinedown = yay

Wow is that real . It looks like path ways . Like city lights of human development. Strange indeed

i always thought it looked like a neural network...

and dywy this is for you...

stallone + explosions + shinedown = yay
:shrug:
The music? Seen/ heard better.
The movie? Seen much better.

:shrug:
The music? Seen/ heard better.
The movie? Seen much better.

you're compulsively cantankerous.

God as authority?

Lori are you saying if God tells you to do something you will obey without question?

this is why i say if God were to be undeniable ppl would lose there sense of free will, they would think they will have no choice but to obey..

God made us with the ability to choose,why would he take that away from us?

God will give advice, he will advise us where to go, what to do,(specially if we ask) but we can ignore his advice, he doesn't punish, the perceived punishment is a result of our action/inaction.. usually what God asks is beneficial to someone you may not even know.

changes what it means to 'believe or goto hell', its not a threat,the punishment we do to ourselves if we don't listen to God..

so Lori Why is God Authority?

you're compulsively cantankerous.
Or simply eclectic and catholic in my viewing/ listening.

God as authority?

Lori are you saying if God tells you to do something you will obey without question?

this is why i say if God were to be undeniable ppl would lose there sense of free will, they would think they will have no choice but to obey..

God made us with the ability to choose,why would he take that away from us?

God will give advice, he will advise us where to go, what to do,(specially if we ask) but we can ignore his advice, he doesn't punish, the perceived punishment is a result of our action/inaction.. usually what God asks is beneficial to someone you may not even know.

changes what it means to 'believe or goto hell', its not a threat,the punishment we do to ourselves if we don't listen to God..

so Lori Why is God Authority?

because it's god. it's inherent in what god is. i can still choose, but i know that i don't determine the consequences of my actions. it's not as if god's bossing me around like some drill sergeant. but i've come to trust god from experience. he's proven to me that he's right, and that he's on my side. i believe that god is good.

Or simply eclectic and catholic in my viewing/ listening.

you're catholic? no wonder you're so grumpy.

you're catholic?
No. I'm not Catholic. :rolleyes:

but i know that i don't determine the consequences of my actions.
determine = choose?
wouldn't that be nice..(if we could choose the consequences)


it's not as if god's bossing me around like some drill sergeant. but i've come to trust god from experience. he's proven to me that he's right, and that he's on my side. i believe that god is good.

me too also..

No. I'm not Catholic. :rolleyes:

If what you know about God is through Catholic sources and teachings, wouldn't you be considered a catholic? (where do atheist get their ideas about who/what God is?):p

If what you know about God is through Catholic sources and teachings, wouldn't you be considered a catholic?
I suppose. But that's not where I got my ideas of god from.


(where do atheist get their ideas about who/what God is?):p
Er, society?

you're compulsively cantankerous.

Yes he is, isn't he?:D

*Runs screaming from Dwyddyr's lawn*

Some people seem to think it is impossible to be two opposing things at the same time; enjoy science and religion. Most often, arguments falls down the dividing lines. But some people are wired to induce the polarization within themselves.

An analogy might be jocks and knerds. These may appear to be two very distinct groups at school, but some people can do both at the same time. Sweating will not hurt the brain nor reading make you weak. What such people bring to the table is the best and worse of each world, into the other world. The knerd-jock may bring extra technical analysis to the skills of his sport, which could make the pure jock feel a power wedgie is needed to snap him out the knerd trance. The jock-knerd may bring his loud aggressive team spirit to the soft spoken knerds, who think they are about to be lockered. But in the final analysis, the inner polarization brings something new that can benefit both of the monopoles.

If one could handle an inner polarization of accepting both science and religion, what appears to be mutually exclusive to most and needs to remain separared, will not stay isolated as poles within the brain. What will appear will be an overlap to form religious-scientist and the scientitific-religious and things in the middle. Getting stuck that way is not in the cards, since within the polarization is electricity as the poles try to merge.

Someone who is monopole needs to maintain separation. The talking points of each group helps this, But if you are a dipole, you need to figure how to merge. There is no group hug for this, so you need to be creative. The polarization supplies the energy.

determine = choose?
wouldn't that be nice..(if we could choose the consequences)



no, i don't think that would be a good idea. i'm quite satisfied with god's ability to determine consequence.

no, i don't think that would be a good idea. i'm quite satisfied with god's ability to determine consequence.

i can still argue with the word determine..

sure i can believe God had set the universe up with all its laws,
but i also can believe that God has no desire to mess with those laws, (why spoil a good thing.)
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. (http://bible.cc/genesis/1-31.htm)
(ALL translations say 'good' most say 'very good')

so the consequences are already predetermined, if you touch a flame your finger will always get burnt.(unless you stick something else in the flame)

as far as the human nature, if you wrong someone(perceived),prepare to be hurt(Mental/Emotional/Physically and/or Spiritually.)

as far as scripture;
They will bear the consequences of their sin.
they will bear the consequences of their sin and will die.
that they must bear the consequences of their sin.
(all from this page. (http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=consequence&x=12&y=11))

it doesn't say they will bear the consequences of Gods wrath..
it says it is their own fault..just cause they choose not to listen to God when he told them they would get burnt, does not mean it is Gods fault that they got burnt.

(If you lost my point, then we are on the same page..:bugeye:)

i can still argue with the word determine..

sure i can believe God had set the universe up with all its laws,
but i also can believe that God has no desire to mess with those laws, (why spoil a good thing.)
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. (http://bible.cc/genesis/1-31.htm)
(ALL translations say 'good' most say 'very good')

so the consequences are already predetermined, if you touch a flame your finger will always get burnt.(unless you stick something else in the flame)

as far as the human nature, if you wrong someone(perceived),prepare to be hurt(Mental/Emotional/Physically and/or Spiritually.)

as far as scripture;
They will bear the consequences of their sin.
they will bear the consequences of their sin and will die.
that they must bear the consequences of their sin.
(all from this page. (http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=consequence&x=12&y=11))

it doesn't say they will bear the consequences of Gods wrath..
it says it is their own fault..just cause they choose not to listen to God when he told them they would get burnt, does not mean it is Gods fault that they got burnt.

(If you lost my point, then we are on the same page..:bugeye:)

That's what I meant. I definitely don't think he's making this up as he goes along. After all, he's not constrained by time.