10 replies to this topic

[stryper]

http://truthloveener...e=msg_com_forum

This was a thread which was started by the resident channel at truthloveenergy.com. Now I know that the simple fact of me following this makes a few on here chuckle. It's fine cause I know how crazy some of it sounds.

My purpose in posting this here was to get some input from a different group of people.

Quote

That means that even those people who claim to have a direct relationship to "God" may, indeed, have that relationship to some personified aspect of existence that is irrelevant to us, but wholly relevant to them. We may never understand, or care to relate to, their God, or that person's Guides, or the entity they claim to channel, unless the existence of that is somehow relevant to us, somehow meaningful and valuable, and therefore valid. This same "God" might be "Nature," "The Universe," "Love," "Satan," or Self to someone else, but its existence is relative.

The entire thread is the community talking about the "reality" or not of the entity Michael. As you'll see in my signature that Michael has stated often to question everything.

So to an ex-christian as the quote states "God" has lost his relevance. Yet to a christian he still is relevant. Therefore, he does exist to a christian but not to a ex. But that any being, guide, person, what have you can be put in the place of "god" as it is relevant to that person.

This seems to be point of Troy's post. I admit I have tried to read this several times and really feel like most of this is beyond me at the moment. Thus asking for opinions from others.

So what do you think?

[oddbird1963]

I think Troy has a point in the excerpt that you quoted. He goes on to say, and I paraphrase, that "relevancy determines truth." But I don't think so. I think he focuses too much on the subjective aspects of reality. If I convince myself that something is true because it feels good or right or powerful to me, but don't do any checks against "real world" statements that are derived out of those statements of truth, then I set myself up for disillusionment, discouragement and depression in the future.

And that's the thing about such purely subjective approaches to spirituality ,philosophy or truth (of there are any purely subjective approaches at all). They can become retreatist.

Eventually, those experiences of the divine are going to cause us to talk about the real world. Are we so in love with the feelings that the subjective experience gives us that we won't be accepting of any feedback that doesn't help us sustain the feelings of profundity or elation we get when contemplating the subjective or the "divine?"

Is there any system of belief, philopsophy or practice that is purely subjective? In other words, is there a truly separate "magesteria" that we can experience that won't eventually make statements about the world we are in that are testable by empirical means or subject to rational inquiry?

[stryper]

oddbird1963, on 06 February 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Eventually, those experiences of the divine are going to cause us to talk about the real world. Are we so in love with the feelings that the subjective experience gives us that we won't be accepting of any feedback that doesn't help us sustain the feelings of profundity or elation we get when contemplating the subjective or the "divine?"

Is there any system of belief, philopsophy or practice that is purely subjective? In other words, is there a truly separate "magesteria" that we can experience that won't eventually make statements about the world we are in that are testable by empirical means or subject to rational inquiry?

I think Oddbird, that Christianity tries to accomplish this. Yet it runs into problems when people stop falling in love with the feelings and start seeing how what is being taught actually applies to the real world.

I guess to answer a what appears to be a semi-rhetorical question, that Buddhism seems to be the closests to being that....though every philosophy has to address the physical world because that is where the conscience personality exists.

However, even that would fall short. Every philosophy has to have some connection to the physical world. I don't see how it could have any validity otherwise.

But then I am really in the deep end thinking about this, because it's not usually the end of thought pool I like to play in.

[oddbird1963]

stryper, on 06 February 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

I guess to answer a what appears to be a semi-rhetorical question, that Buddhism seems to be the closests to being that...

It wasn't really rhetorical. It's just an open issue with me. I'm guessing that the closest that one can come to a spirituality that is purely subjective is the practice of Zen where (from my limited understanding) you "experience experiencing" and attempt not to make any statements about "it." Or, you at least realize from the start that any statements you make about that reality are analogical and only reflective of that reality the way that a tiny shard from a completely shattered mirror are able to reflect the world into our eyes.

[Margee]

Stryper, I read a book not long ago called:''The Mind of Mankind''by Donald Hamilton which was a good read because he tells us that we would be nothing, accomplish nothing without imagination. Without imagination, we could not form our philosophies of life.
http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0964926512

The problem of the human imagination is to get humans to 'line up' with loving, kind philosophies where we could evolve to make the world a better place. It seems that nothing 'supernatura'l can actually be proven,(not even our imaginations can be 'proven'!) so we must go on the beliefs we form from our own imaginations or from what other conclusions or 'truths' have been imagined by someone else. They then become our 'truth' and reality....but,they must be relevent for us. They must 'sit right' and resonate in our hearts.

Unfortunetely, bad doctrines that have been taught over the years (writings from other imaginations) do sit OK in a lot of people hearts. I often wonder if they stopped 'cherry picking' verses out of these 'holy texts' and preached some of the 'nastiness' that we EX christians know......Would they start to question what they were believing, as some of us have? If Micheal taught genocide or promoted rape and eternal hell - wouldn't you Stryper - get out as fast as you could?

So if anyone's belief system or philosiphy works for them and it leads to helping mankind...it wouldn't have to be revelant, although there isn't a human alive that wouldn't want proof of the 'mind'(or imagination) where the philosiphy comes. Most of us want to know that what we believe is truth, so we're always asking for proof.

This may make no sense at all... I know what I'm trying to say, but can't seem to get it out this morn.......

[stryper]

oddbird1963, on 06 February 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

stryper, on 06 February 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

I guess to answer a what appears to be a semi-rhetorical question, that Buddhism seems to be the closests to being that...

It wasn't really rhetorical. It's just an open issue with me. I'm guessing that the closest that one can come to a spirituality that is purely subjective is the practice of Zen where (from my limited understanding) you "experience experiencing" and attempt not to make any statements about "it." Or, you at least realize from the start that any statements you make about that reality are analogical and only reflective of that reality the way that a tiny shard from a completely shattered mirror are able to reflect the world into our eyes.

Apologies...I did mean to be offensive with the rhetorical comment....I was still trying to figure out how to respond as I typed.

Zen Buddhism was exactly what I was thinking of. So I think we are thinking along the same lines if coming in from different directions.

[stryper]

Margee,

The Michaels have much to say on the use of imagination. Mainly they point to the fact that in the Western World it is generally discounted. There is far less of this in the East. I think because of practices like Zen. I do agree that without it we are missing the point in how powerful conciseness is.

I kinda agree with second paragraph. Though I would say it isn't so much of a lining up as more of a lack of use. As you well know, it can be very hard to see outside of the mental box you put yourself in. Religion does this. And sometimes science can too. I know in economics there is a constant resistance to anything that suggests the economy could work without money or be not debt dependent. The harder sciences have their sacred cows too, which occasionally must be kicked. Anyway, Lack of use leads to stratified thinking. Such as, this is the way it's always been.

Quote

So if anyone's belief system or philosiphy works for them and it leads to helping mankind...it wouldn't have to be revelant, although there isn't a human alive that wouldn't want proof of the 'mind'(or imagination) where the philosiphy comes. Most of us want to know that what we believe is truth, so we're always asking for proof.

I bold-ed the part that I have an issue with. My response is the one under Christian. I use my real name there because I have know them for at least a decade now.

My point was the proof of the existence of Michael or you or me or God is in the teachings.

To paraphrase what I said there, Bibilical teachings tell you to pray and if you are worthy then you will be rewarded. Yet everytime I prayed for something, it never happened. Yet there are all these examples in the holy texts of just such a thing happening. Further more the Bible as it is taught, says that Jesus/God will take away all your burdens. Or at least give you the strength to deal with them. Thus when the Bible and god get applied to reality things fall apart.

But by the same token, there are many people inspired by the bible to go things to help humanity. There are countless thousands who go out and collect food for the poor and homeless because of religious convictions. The example of Jesus helping the poor and healing those considered unclean is relevant to them.

So to my mind, the teaching is what matters. The teaching is the tool. And if the tool is used properly and within its limits it will function very well. When not the tool is destroyed and becomes something unrecognizable from what is was.

In my, and many people on this sites, experience the teachings of religion didn't work with the real world. Something was wrong with. So what we saw before as an amazing creation of god becomes equal amazing because god didn't do it.

I have no idea if any of this is making sense. I know I am working through it in public here. And I've got a headache now.

Hopefully there is something there...and it makes sense to someone.

[oddbird1963]

stryper, on 06 February 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

oddbird1963, on 06 February 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

stryper, on 06 February 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

I guess to answer a what appears to be a semi-rhetorical question, that Buddhism seems to be the closests to being that...

It wasn't really rhetorical. It's just an open issue with me. I'm guessing that the closest that one can come to a spirituality that is purely subjective is the practice of Zen where (from my limited understanding) you "experience experiencing" and attempt not to make any statements about "it." Or, you at least realize from the start that any statements you make about that reality are analogical and only reflective of that reality the way that a tiny shard from a completely shattered mirror are able to reflect the world into our eyes.

Apologies...I did mean to be offensive with the rhetorical comment....I was still trying to figure out how to respond as I typed.

Zen Buddhism was exactly what I was thinking of. So I think we are thinking along the same lines if coming in from different directions.

I wasn't offended at all. I can understand why you would think it was a rhetorical question. Plus, I wasn't quite clear on what I was trying to say as I typed. It's all good. No issues . Just giving you a peek into my stream of consciousness as I grapple with post-christian spiritual issues.

[stryper]

oddbird1963, on 06 February 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

. No issues . Just giving you a peek into my stream of consciousness as I grapple with post-christian spiritual issues.

LOL .....that's exactly what I am doing here too. Funny how things work out sometimes.

[Noggy]

I think by growing up as a christian, I will never be able to completely hardwire out of my brain the idea of an existant personal God. I know it's bullshit (probably) and I at least know Christianity is bullshit (definitely), but it still seems like a nice idea.

But why is it a nice idea? Why do people WANT someone to lord over them? Don't we, as americans, by nature, love our freedom? Isn't liberty what we want the most? Why do we keep looking into the sky for our answers?

I'm not really sure, I think its a cultural thing, and probably a bit of a biological one. Some people replace this loss of 'God' with another 'God'. Some people replace it with Zennish type ideas. Some people replace it with logic. Some people a combination of all of them. The people that I see that haven't seemed to replace it with anything at all seem to have something in common. They all appear to be pretty sad. Weird.

[Deva]

Ideas are powerful, and this site is really in its entirety an example of the power of belief - mostly not for good.

If you find a good idea, something positive, that doesn't hurt others and that helps you deal with the circumstances that life throws at you, I see no reason not to persue it. Make it a part of you. Work it out, examine it, and then apply it. It is a lifelong process. I don't know how people live that don't have this sort of guiding star.

If something doesn't work, replace it with something better that does.