Post Reply
Page 1 of 11  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 Next
2 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 5:00PM #1
Buggsy
Posts: 4,732

Last night I was flipping through the channels and caught


www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yJP9cuKNqI


Right around the 30 minute mark this guy starts in with the tired old Shirley McLean mantra that You are God, We are God . . .

I don't know about you but I think this is the biggest load of shyte since pet rocks.  Watch the audience they all hang on everything this shyster talks about, with blank zombie stares.


I can't help thinking about the original temptation / sin:


“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.  “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”


Gen 3:4-5

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 6:43PM #2
cherubino
Posts: 7,277

I resemble Dyer's remarks. Until 23 years ago, I was a bare-asseed, emptyhanded, puking & incoherent alcoholic and not expecting to live til the age of 50. I was bitterly disappointed with life and I just wanted to die. But owing to experiences such as Dyer descibes and through perseverence to the lessons learned therefrom, I've had a second life that has been a walk in the park by comparison. So I'll give the pagmatist William James the last wordhere: "Truth is what works."

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 7:08PM #3
Buggsy
Posts: 4,732

Cherubino


What I'm referring to are the tag lines: You are God, I am God.  Who knows what those mean? If they're just sentiments then he should say so. But he theologizes and blurs self-help and living with religion concepts.


I'm not referring to his self-help ideas themselves - they're fine.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 7:11PM #4
Buggsy
Posts: 4,732

Jun 5, 2012 -- 6:43PM, cherubino wrote:


 Until 23 years ago, I was a bare-asseed, emptyhanded, puking & incoherent alcoholic and not expecting to live til the age of 50.  I was bitterly disappointed with life and I just wanted to die.




Holy shit! No offense but . . . talk about f*&ked upFrown  Maybe there is something to Dyer?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 7:33PM #5
cherubino
Posts: 7,277

Jun 5, 2012 -- 7:08PM, Buggsy wrote:


Cherubino


What I'm referring to are the tag lines: You are God, I am God.  Who knows what those mean? If they're just sentiments then he should say so. But he theologizes and blurs self-help and living with religion concepts.


I'm not referring to his self-help ideas themselves - they're fine.




There's still nothing new here. I may not be manstream Judaeo-Christian theism, but it is definitely Eckhartian:



"So we say that a man should be so poor that he neither is nor has in himself any place where God can act. Where a man keeps a place in himself, he keeps distinctions. Therefore I ask God to make me empty of 'God,' for my essential being is above God, insofar as we conceive God as the source of all creatures. In that very being of God where God is above being and above distinctions, I was myself, I wanted myself and understood myself in order to make this man that I am. That is why I am my own cause according to my own being, which is eternal, and not according to my becoming, which is temporal. And therefore I am unborn, and according to my unbornness I can never die. According to my unbornness, I have eternally existed and am now and will eternally remain. What I am according to my bornness will die and turn into nothing, for it is mortal; therefore it must in time be destroyed. In my birth all things were born, and I was the cause of myself and all things; and if I had willed it, I would not exist nor would anything exist; and if I didn't exist, 'God' too would not exist. I am the cause that God is 'God'; and if I did not exist, God would not be 'God.'"


~Meister Eckhart

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 7:43PM #6
Buggsy
Posts: 4,732

Jun 5, 2012 -- 7:33PM, cherubino wrote:



"So we say that a man should be so poor that he neither is nor has in himself any place where God can act. Where a man keeps a place in himself, he keeps distinctions. Therefore I ask God to make me empty of 'God,' for my essential being is above God, insofar as we conceive God as the source of all creatures. In that very being of God where God is above being and above distinctions, I was myself, I wanted myself and understood myself in order to make this man that I am. That is why I am my own cause according to my own being, which is eternal, and not according to my becoming, which is temporal. And therefore I am unborn, and according to my unbornness I can never die. According to my unbornness, I have eternally existed and am now and will eternally remain. What I am according to my bornness will die and turn into nothing, for it is mortal; therefore it must in time be destroyed. In my birth all things were born, and I was the cause of myself and all things; and if I had willed it, I would not exist nor would anything exist; and if I didn't exist, 'God' too would not exist. I am the cause that God is 'God'; and if I did not exist, God would not be 'God.'"


~Meister Eckhart




Yeah it sounds okay.  He's saying that he doesn't need the concept of God (the one Dyer refers to) to understand what life is all about - specifically his.  He can make things happen through his own will and motivation rather than through others and by doing so he feels timeless with no fear of death.   Like a  teenager - they feel like they can live forever


I happen to agree with that!



What I don't get is Wayne Dyer taking simple solutions to life's problems and making them into theological concepts that confuse and seduce people into believing something completely meaningless and confusing as 'You are God!   All the puffed up terminology doesn't make his point any clearer. Why not just give some good solid common sense advice?


People who lose faith because an authority figure let them down don't need another authority figure to restore it.  It's another set up

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 8:09PM #7
cherubino
Posts: 7,277


Apr 24, 2012 -- 7:08PM, Goodtobehomestill wrote:



But you see, mrjordan, many of us don't believe in God as a fact, any more than truth, beauty or justice are facts.





I want to decipher this.





Surely you believe beauty and truth and justice exist, but you don't believe these 'things' exist as 'facts,' of so it appears.




I imagine you mean that they exist as 'concepts.'   So you are saying, the Divine is a concept, and not a person?----and do feel free to expand and correct me if I am misinterpreting you.





Here's my own trippy 'metaphysical' thought that entered my brain a couple of years ago. 




Some mystics say 'love' holds everything together.




Scientists say energy holds everything together.




Theologists say God holds everything together.





But the Bible does say God is love, and the Bible identifies God with 'energy' (Isa 40:26) and certainly love can be described as a force, or an energy.  We might end up realizing they were all talking about the same 'thing', and didn't know it.





This is what I do believe, God is the Source.  If love exists, he is the source, beauty, he is the source, justice, he is the source, truth, he is the Source of All.  The source of 'concepts' and 'facts' and 'matter' and the binding force that keeps it all going, is not himself a 'concept.'  (But of course, I cannot prove that.)








I believe, as did such thinkers as Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts, Thomas Merton, Carl Jung and Michael Polanyi, that people have whatever God they're capable of having. And speaking only for myself, I'm incapable, and have been as far back as I can remember, of conceiving of God as gigantic person or an axiom in a concept system. In other words, He is not a falsifiable hypothesis, which also means He isn't verifiable either. I believe He can be apprehended only in the tacit dimension of the mind, that part of ourselves where we intuitively grasp the meaning of an allegory or recognize a melody. Consequntly, I believe theology is nothing but poetry explained by bureaucrats.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 8:09PM #8
StephenK.Adams
Posts: 1,793

Jun 5, 2012 -- 6:43PM, cherubino wrote:


I resemble Dyer's remarks. Until 23 years ago, I was a bare-asseed, emptyhanded, puking & incoherent alcoholic and not expecting to live til the age of 50. I was bitterly disappointed with life and I just wanted to die. But owing to experiences such as Dyer descibes and through perseverence to the lessons learned therefrom, I've had a second life that has been a walk in the park by comparison. So I'll give the pagmatist William James the last wordhere: "Truth is what works."




Well old chap, without really asking for a psychological profile of your life, I am going to take a stab at it anyway.  First let me start with a tepid joke.


Judge:   I sentence you to 2 years in jail.


Defendant:  What's the charge?


Judge:  There's no charge, everything is free.   


______________________________


You wanted to join the Monastery or Friars or whatever you tried to join because you didn't like the way your parents acted as Catholics and there were many other aspects of the religion that you believed that you could help to correct.   Then when you told the truth, they, (the Catholic Church), pretended they were proud of you for speaking up. But then after a certain amount of time to let things cool off, they surreptitiously suggested that you were not suited for the Catholic Priesthood or whatever and let you go.


With your life's dreams shattered and residing in the wastebasket, and further because your father and mother drank heavily, you followed in their footsteps drowning your sorrow for the next God knows how many years.  Finally, at death's door, and because of the skill of the medical profession, you were given a second chance at life.


In one way or another, you have decided to just tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.  And you know what, they have fallen in such a way that has demonstrated to all those who read your ideas, --- that you have much to offer.  Keep it up old chap, and that does not have a double meaning.  Keep up with the good work. 

We have nothing to fear except our lack of understanding of fear itself.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 8:41PM #9
mokantx
Posts: 3,817

Jun 5, 2012 -- 8:09PM, cherubino wrote:



I believe, as did such thinkers as Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts, Thomas Merton, Carl Jung and Michael Polanyi, that people have whatever God they're capable of having. And speaking only for myself, I'm incapable, and have been as far back as I can remember, of conceiving of God as gigantic person or an axiom in a concept system. In other words, He is not a falsifiable hypothesis, which also means He isn't verifiable either. I believe He can be apprehended only in the tacit dimension of the mind, that part of ourselves where we intuitively grasp the meaning of an allegory or recognize a melody. Consequntly, I believe theology is nothing but poetry explained by bureaucrats.





Cher


I think your post on the thoughts of those men leads me to a variant thought on the nature of theology and spirituality. 


Regardless of how we say it, much of human happiness seems to come from the sense that you are doing the best you can with the gifts you've been given.   (How we interpret that, and what we deem to be our "gifts" is as unique as each of us.)


I think the thoughts of Campbell et al. then suggest for a growing part of society, that we must strive to grow, and that now that many of the animal needs of most of us are met, spirituality is rising in importance.  This suggests to me two things: the first is that the RCC is not perceived to be a religion that seeks to grow in its understanding, nor in that of its adherents.  Stated a bit differently, despite a long history of at least occasional intellectual growth, the current church seems to be all about "reverting" and "protecting/conserving"  longstanding "truths."  In that environment, to those who think and search like the authors you mentioned, this neocon approach is tantamont to asking people to leave their brains at home, and they will truly not be happy there for very long.  Whether or accurate or not, this perception (or something like it) seems to be growing.


And that leads me to my second thought: the SBNR (Spiritual but not religious) folks out there are very likely feeling this, and that may well be what they are trying to say.  Despite all of the perjoratives thrown at them by the neocons, I see the grown of the SBNR folks as a tacit reaction to the growing failure by the church to be able to explain WHY it holds what it does, and the sense (because of events like the silencing of guys like Kung, the American Nuns, etc.) that the RCC is NOT a place that tries to "be all it can be" intellectually speaking. (to steal a motif from the commericals by the Marines...)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 8:46PM #10
Buggsy
Posts: 4,732

Mo


Good points. 


I'm reminded of this you tube lecture


Here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfI9H1ZajLs&feat...


Worth watching no matter what your views - the new age against the RCC



Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 11  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook