Post Reply
Page 2 of 12  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 2:29AM #11
Namchuck
Posts: 11,639

Mar 29, 2012 -- 10:36AM, BBarton wrote:


"know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you."


-Jesus, The Gospel of Thomas, along with sages across the ages.


What one attributes to God may very person to person.  Some may see it as knowledge; external, internal knowledge.


What is "sin" to one, may be a miss-take to learn from, rather than a personality trait.  It is the judging of "unworthy" we give to one another, ourselves, or each others views; which cuts the fruit before it has ripened.  -Not near as sweet, succulent, or refreshing, but hard, bitter or sour and left to rot.


 




My only question is, why make the assumption of God in the first place?


And I'm surprised to see you cherry-picking the 'Gospel of Thomas', BBarton!


It contains some pretty wacky stuff that I'd have thought you'd find fairly repellent. Take, for instance, the occasion in which Simon Peter asks Jesus to 'Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life'. Jesus' supposed response is, 'Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven'.


It is this kind of thinking that has been rather too common among the 'sages' across the ages. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 3:26AM #12
Namchuck
Posts: 11,639

Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:20AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 26, 2012 -- 11:17PM, Erey wrote:


Namchuck,



Namchuck - Yes if you are actually going to go to the effort to discuss how people relate to God then you have already made the assumption that God exists.  Or at least you are willing to put aside the questions of existance to discuss relationship.  Why would I be interested in discussing how people relate to God if I don't believe God exists?  Why would you?  By joining in a discussion of how people relate to God then the assumption is already made that God exists. 


You are quite mistaken in this.


A discussion about how people relate to God does not necessarily involve believing that the God-hypothesis has any grounding in reality.


 


I am not sure what the above was all about.  I am left with the assumption that you come here, the Mysticism board to tell people that whatever they think might be about relationship with God is really nothing more than a neuro phenomenon devoid of any God.  That you are so concerned that people don't believe their own experiences have anything to do with God that you come here to tell them it does not.  Which IMO would be fine if this were the skepticism board or the atheism board.  I don't want to have those same tired debates here.  Just like I don't want to discuss climate change on the abortion board. 



I'm simply here to share with people that there are far better and more reasonable explanations for the so-called 'mystical experience' that do not require that need to embrace insupportable notions based on elaborate and unjustified assumptions.


Still, this is clearly a wasteland of Bnet and after several weeks you are the only person interested in engaging anyone on these subjects.  So I guess I can't complain too much, even if your motives are inappropriate.



"Inappropriate" to you because given of your own emotional investments, but not necessarily inappropriate otherwise.







Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 12:00AM #13
Erey
Posts: 18,690

Yes Namchuck,


I do have "emotional investments" into what I percieve as mysticism.  That is why I came to this board.  I came to the mysticism board to hear MORE about MYSTICISM, how others experience MYSTICISM.  I really did not come here to be told that I am an gulibile idiot and I need you to enlighten me that mysticism does not exist. 


But hey, at least you also seem to have an emotional investment in the subject of mysticism, a negative investment.  Otherwise you would not be here. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 2:33AM #14
Namchuck
Posts: 11,639

Apr 2, 2012 -- 12:00AM, Erey wrote:


Yes Namchuck,


I do have "emotional investments" into what I percieve as mysticism.  That is why I came to this board.  I came to the mysticism board to hear MORE about MYSTICISM, how others experience MYSTICISM.  I really did not come here to be told that I am an gulibile idiot and I need you to enlighten me that mysticism does not exist. 


But hey, at least you also seem to have an emotional investment in the subject of mysticism, a negative investment.  Otherwise you would not be here. 




Keep your shirt (or blouse) on, Erey! Smile


I have never ever claimed that 'mysticism' doesn't exist, only that there far better and more natural explanations for the phenomenon.


I don't doubt for a moment that people have such experiences - I've had one or two myself - only that they don't point to anything outside of the brain or to any transcendental realm.


So, no, I don't have a "negative investment" in mysticism. I simply have a meritocratic and more realistic view of it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 12:03PM #15
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,695
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 1:44PM #16
BBarton
Posts: 1,670

Mar 31, 2012 -- 2:29AM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 10:36AM, BBarton wrote:


"know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you."


-Jesus, The Gospel of Thomas, along with sages across the ages.


What one attributes to God may very person to person.  Some may see it as knowledge; external, internal knowledge.


What is "sin" to one, may be a miss-take to learn from, rather than a personality trait.  It is the judging of "unworthy" we give to one another, ourselves, or each others views; which cuts the fruit before it has ripened.  -Not near as sweet, succulent, or refreshing, but hard, bitter or sour and left to rot.


 




My only question is, why make the assumption of God in the first place?


Because I've got enough sense to realize there's something greater than me, mine, yours or theirs!


And I'm surprised to see you cherry-picking the 'Gospel of Thomas', BBarton!  I pick thought(s), my friend.  -Thoughts of those gone before, passing now, and your own.   


It contains some pretty wacky stuff that I'd have thought you'd find fairly repellent.  [Not at all.  Of course I don't storm through like the thought police with an irreverant nor unappreciative attitude.  I already explained I think "attitude = spirit"  I take it like a box of chocolates, meditating on a thought, connecting dots, chewing on each bit, even squirreling away to take out again another day.]


 Take, for instance, the occasion in which Simon Peter asks Jesus to 'Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life'. [I find it relevant to the common societal thought of the day.  If you recall, the Greeks occupied Israel before the Romans.  Both were misogynistic in their attitudes toward women.  There's a whole host of Fathers, besides "Church" Fathers.  There're "Patriarchal" Fathers.  Whenever ruling together, even if they disagree, they'll come together on dissing what they don't understand nor appreciate, including (though not limited to...) women.  Plato passed his limp wit toword womanity to those who honor him more than their mothers, wives, sisters, or daughters.]   


Jesus' supposed response is, 'Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males.  [Still, 'have no problem.  He knows to what mindset he's speaking and doing so, in their language.  The first creation story, says We created man; male and female created we them.  (Note: First person and plural)  Jesus is simply stating that women share in the same inheritance; therefore, I am a son of God.  I've no problem with it.  I don't see why you should worry for me.  It's a silly waste of time! ]  For every female who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven'.


It is this kind of thinking that has been rather too common among the 'sages' across the ages. 





There's where you and I differ.  I am interested in stories and timeless dynamics.  The things those who went before, even the Ancients passed or died trying to pass onto us.  We, none of us stand alone.  We are all dependent on what went before, and examining it for oursleves.  Many things can become muddled, but to give up instead of pressing on is like giving up on an archeological dig.  We live in the perfect window of time, and I should not look?  That would be foolish; not the looking, nor even climbing through!  


What I'm not interested in is tmewasters for the sake of vanity.  My own included!  


Happy Spring.  May peace and joy befriend you.   

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 2:07PM #17
BBarton
Posts: 1,670

Apr 2, 2012 -- 2:33AM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 2, 2012 -- 12:00AM, Erey wrote:


Yes Namchuck,


I do have "emotional investments" into what I percieve as mysticism.  That is why I came to this board.  I came to the mysticism board to hear MORE about MYSTICISM, how others experience MYSTICISM.  I really did not come here to be told that I am an gulibile idiot and I need you to enlighten me that mysticism does not exist. 


But hey, at least you also seem to have an emotional investment in the subject of mysticism, a negative investment.  Otherwise you would not be here. 




Keep your shirt (or blouse) on, Erey! Smile


I have never ever claimed that 'mysticism' doesn't exist, only that there far better and more natural explanations for the phenomenon.


I don't doubt for a moment that people have such experiences - I've had one or two myself - only that they don't point to anything outside of the brain or to any transcendental realm.


So, no, I don't have a "negative investment" in mysticism. I simply have a meritocratic and more realistic view of it.





Ahh, that was real sweet Eray and Namchuck!  That showed me sides of you both I could hug.  Okay,  Namchuck can seem like a wet towel on a campfire, but he can make some good points too.  He won't let any away with lazy thinking, and charletans don't stand a chance!  I appreciate him.  There's too many making suckers out of the sweet.   

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 2:26PM #18
BBarton
Posts: 1,670

Apr 2, 2012 -- 12:00AM, Erey wrote:


Yes Namchuck,


I do have "emotional investments" into what I percieve as mysticism.  That is why I came to this board.  I came to the mysticism board to hear MORE about MYSTICISM, how others experience MYSTICISM.  I really did not come here to be told that I am an gulibile idiot and I need you to enlighten me that mysticism does not exist. 


But hey, at least you also seem to have an emotional investment in the subject of mysticism, a negative investment.  Otherwise you would not be here. 





Hi, Eray.  I get busy with life and come and go.  I'm reading a book that gives me much enjoyment, "Forbidden Faith".  I like to research the things that did't make it into empirial religion, when it absorbed "Christianity". 


I am very interested in the similar learnings souls make while here; regardless of religion.  I'm interested in the religious aspect as to what was thought, taught, and realized.  What I have found is that there seems to be similar dynamics in play, but expressed differently, not just through words, but translations.  In other words, thought filters effect translation.  What may be an angel in one religion  becomes a demon in translation of the other's language, etc...


What I keep finding is the "Tree of Life".  -The branches the transcending soul climbs, challenges -or forms of wrath it faces on the sourjourn through this realm, of thought and being simultaneously realizing; like life breathing.  


My quest isn't finished, but I'm ever more amazed at what hides in plain sight if we but lift the veil that clouds our thoughts.


Hope you have a wonderful spring.  Blessings, B       

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 2:44PM #19
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

Apr 2, 2012 -- 2:26PM, BBarton wrote:


I am very interested in the similar learnings souls make while here; regardless of religion.  I'm interested in the religious aspect as to what was thought, taught, and realized.  What I have found is that there seems to be similar dynamics in play, but expressed differently, not just through words, but translations.  In other words, thought filters effect translation.  What may be an angel in one religion  becomes a demon in translation of the other's language, etc...





One image I like to use is visible light. The various colors are embedded in a color called "white"


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 8:59PM #20
Erey
Posts: 18,690

Apr 2, 2012 -- 2:33AM, Namchuck wrote:






I don't doubt for a moment that people have such experiences - I've had one or two myself - only that they don't point to anything outside of the brain or to any transcendental realm.




Are you sure?  I can't speak to what you experienced but can you speak to what other people experienced?  I am sure the brain absorbed, transmitted and made meaning of what you experienced. But are you sure it origionated in the brain? 


Some people make the mistake of thinking the voices that come out of their mobile phone origionate in that mobile phone.  And not from another living person, possibly thousands of miles away.  The phone is the TOOL by which we hear the voices, but that is not where the voices came from.  The brain also is the tool where we hear the voices or feel the whatever and get the insight.  But perhaps it is a mistake to always assume the brain created it?



This is comming from a girl who had a childhood full of vivid waking night terrors where I would night after night conciously say to myself "I know I am wide awake and I am really seeing that monster or that ghost."  I can still remember much of what I saw vividy and still remember checking myself if I was really awake.  That I know was some kind of neuro-fart.  I know that my brain created those monsters.  That what I experienced is pretty common for people, some more than others.  Acutally, it still happens to me from time to time.    I also think many people who claim some kind of special connection to God are full of it.  Sometimes it does seem to be quite real and does seem to come from God. That is what I want to talk about.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 12  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook