My Fundy Ex-Wife

[Antlerman]

continuing...

 

Christianity and its symbols are not the gate to this. This is experienced and realized the world over. You can say it's because of your religious figure Jesus who performed some magic in heaven to make it happen (mythological thinking), but it can't be denied that this is a Universal truth known and experienced throughout time and culture, no matter what stage they were at: magical; mythical; rational, etc. This transcends Christianity and all religions.

Probably the very reason I am participating in this conversation, as I have met at least two people in my life that profess an "experience" outside of Christianity.

You'd be surprised how many actually have. How someone processes it, or if they even talk about it for fear of it seeming out of place or like something was wrong with them, is likely why you haven't heard it even more.

 

Are we talking about the Christian God? What are all the gods talking about? What level, what layer of "God" do you mean? The cultural layer, the social layer, the natural world layer, the spiritual layer? Which one? And at what stage of our evolution? The problem I see with how you are processing all this, is that it either is this, or it is not. Nothing is so simple, let alone ideas about the world framed in transcendent terms.

 

Well, I have to laugh at this point, because there seems to be difficultly regardless of framing this transcendence. And I would be lying if I said I wasn't biased, but I do see some "universal" in humanity....and it's joyful to watch and participate in.

And the beginning of realization is to see that it is not the providence of any system of religion. Christianity is not the end all truth for the world, and its claims of providence is egotistical, and that state is hardly capable of realizing or expressing spirituality. It all comes down to putting God in a box, and that is the providence of the Church. "God our way".

 

It's any wonder anyone within it can ascend above that. Like a plant pushing up through a slab of concrete. For me I just flipped the concrete slap over so I can access the sun, rain, and the elements without that burdensome monolith riding on top of my being.

 

Looking forward to that experiencial discussion should you have time.

Sure. Are you going to start a topic on it?

[Legion]

It's any wonder anyone within it can ascend above that. Like a plant pushing up through a slab of concrete. For me I just flipped the concrete slap over so I can access the sun, rain, and the elements without that burdensome monolith riding on top of my being.

Antlerman I hate to be the one to tell you this. But your concrete slab is the floor inside of a bunker.

[Antlerman]

It's any wonder anyone within it can ascend above that. Like a plant pushing up through a slab of concrete. For me I just flipped the concrete slap over so I can access the sun, rain, and the elements without that burdensome monolith riding on top of my being.

Antlerman I hate to be the one to tell you this. But your concrete slab is the floor inside of a bunker.

How gloomy. Oh well, then there must be something pretty powerful above the bunker to pull the plant all the way up through the floor only to have one more slab ceiling to break through. That must be the ceiling of materialism. Yes?

[Guest end3]

OK, I can understand your use of the word obedience here as meaning being 'in sync' to something inside you.

As much as I would like to agree, I see the sync as me becoming in tune with it that is outside me.

 

Shama would be the word translated to obedient.....to hear would imply another's "voice".

1) to hear, listen to, obey

 

a) (Qal)

 

1) to hear (perceive by ear)

 

2) to hear of or concerning

 

3) to hear (have power to hear)

 

4) to hear with attention or interest, listen to

 

5) to understand (language)

 

6) to hear (of judicial cases)

 

7) to listen, give heed

 

a) to consent, agree

 

to grant request

 

8) to listen to, yield to

 

9) to obey, be obedient

 

(Niphal)

 

1) to be heard (of voice or sound)

 

2) to be heard of

 

3) to be regarded, be obeyed

 

c) (Piel) to cause to hear, call to hear, summon

 

d) (Hiphil)

 

1) to cause to hear, tell, proclaim, utter a sound

 

2) to sound aloud (musical term)

 

3) to make proclamation, summon

 

4) to cause to be heard

 

n m

2) sound

 

 

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 1159 AV — hear 785, hearken 196, obey 81, publish 17, understand 9, obedient 8, diligently 8, shew 6, sound 3, declare 3, discern 2, noise 2, perceive 2, tell 2, reported 2, misc 33

 

Just as Deva has certain words that carry negative connotation for her from the Christian world, 'obedience' is one of those for me. My repeated exposure to it was in the context of legalism, being sure to not break the rules of the demanding, legalistic God. I can grant your use of it, but it may be easier in conversation for me to express it like 'being in tune with', or 'listening to', etc.

I agree, disobedient doesn't describe a loving relationship.

 

But what's interesting here is the shift in you focus to 'being born of the Spirit'. Yes, I've been saying all along for years here that there is a difference between religion and spirituality. Having a religious belief says nothing about ones heart of soul. And moreover, the spiritual reality of it does not come from religion, or mental assent to theological languages, or adoption of religious doctrines. IMO, all of those things stand in the way. They stand in the way for a long list of reasons, not the least of which is because they describe God, they define God, they give it an individualized personality like a character in a play. That is extraordinarily limiting and confusing to the Spirit or the Heart with the mind.

Maybe if you have time you can detail a short list. I do not find Christianity offensive now. I did when I was younger for various reasons.

 

I think we may be having another word choice difficulty here. I accept that certain disciplines being employed in spiritual development are valid. But what I mean by mechanistic, is that the methods, the rituals, the forms, etc - become the definition of the experience. That is a mechanized reality, not a means to that reality. That is replacing spirituality with religion.

Yes, I think people sometimes group by your definition based on comfort, but then still sometimes morphs into legalism.

What I was trying to describe is Christianity as a whole, the explanation for the human experience, as well as the transcendent.

[Guest end3]

Christianity and its symbols are not the gate to this. This is experienced and realized the world over. You can say it's because of your religious figure Jesus who performed some magic in heaven to make it happen (mythological thinking), but it can't be denied that this is a Universal truth known and experienced throughout time and culture, no matter what stage they were at: magical; mythical; rational, etc. This transcends Christianity and all religions.

Yes, it is hard to deny the sovereignty of the Christian God ...teasing. You are going to have to exercise grace for awhile on that note K.....probably for the rest of my life, but I will keep my eyes open!

 

You'd be surprised how many actually have. How someone processes it, or if they even talk about it for fear of it seeming out of place or like something was wrong with them, is likely why you haven't heard it even more.

My sister professes one and uses different language than both of us as she has never been a Christian.

 

What are all the gods talking about? What level, what layer of "God" do you mean? The cultural layer, the social layer, the natural world layer, the spiritual layer? Which one? And at what stage of our evolution? The problem I see with how you are processing all this, is that it either is this, or it is not. Nothing is so simple, let alone ideas about the world framed in transcendent terms.

I hear you, but the bible covers many bases of explanation, as well as my own experience verbatim. I couldn't put it away but for a few.

 

And the beginning of realization is to see that it is not the providence of any system of religion. Christianity is not the end all truth for the world, and its claims of providence is egotistical, and that state is hardly capable of realizing or expressing spirituality. It all comes down to putting God in a box, and that is the providence of the Church. "God our way".

 

Have to provoke back out of spirit....I see providence by grace.

 

It's any wonder anyone within it can ascend above that. Like a plant pushing up through a slab of concrete. For me I just flipped the concrete slap over so I can access the sun, rain, and the elements without that burdensome monolith riding on top of my being.

You can choose to look at it like that....it a choice where you place your brother.

 

Sure. Are you going to start a topic on it?

I will give it a whirl.

[Antlerman]

But what's interesting here is the shift in you focus to 'being born of the Spirit'. Yes, I've been saying all along for years here that there is a difference between religion and spirituality. Having a religious belief says nothing about ones heart of soul. And moreover, the spiritual reality of it does not come from religion, or mental assent to theological languages, or adoption of religious doctrines. IMO, all of those things stand in the way. They stand in the way for a long list of reasons, not the least of which is because they describe God, they define God, they give it an individualized personality like a character in a play. That is extraordinarily limiting and confusing to the Spirit or the Heart with the mind.

Maybe if you have time you can detail a short list. I do not find Christianity offensive now. I did when I was younger for various reasons.

Short list of the traditional Christian concepts about God I feel limit ones access to the spiritual:

 

1. Judge on a Great White Throne
   
2. Requires blood spilled in order to forgive sin
   
3. Exhibits human behaviors such as vengeance and retribution
   
4. Demands obedience to his sovereignty
   
5. Demands obedience to his sovereignty under threat of death
   
6. Destroys the disobedient through war, pestilence, and eternal damnation
   
7. Access to God must be through Christian methods alone
   
8. Culture tied to God as divine revelation that must not change
   
9. God has behaviors and performs deeds like a human
   
10. God tied to the Bible as authoritative representation and revelation
    

 

There are also some positive things within Christianity that would conflict with the above brief list of describers of God, but the fact that there is the contradiction within the system is one more thing to add to that list: A confused presentation and teaching about God.

 

 

I think we may be having another word choice difficulty here. I accept that certain disciplines being employed in spiritual development are valid. But what I mean by mechanistic, is that the methods, the rituals, the forms, etc - become the definition of the experience. That is a mechanized reality, not a means to that reality. That is replacing spirituality with religion.

Yes, I think people sometimes group by your definition based on comfort, but then still sometimes morphs into legalism.

What I was trying to describe is Christianity as a whole, the explanation for the human experience, as well as the transcendent.

I will still contend that Christianity as a whole is inadequate to address the demands of the human experience. It offers 'explanations', but they're very limited and antiquated, in that there is such a broader and deeper understanding of the world in which to try to find some system of understanding.

 

One brief example is the whole notion of homosexuals being deviants, the result of disobedience to God. Clearly the factual evidence shows it to be normal variations within species, yet the religious devotee will be forced to ignore evidence like this in favor of the Bible's 'explanation'. That is not growth in understanding or the human spirit. It's religious doctrine and dogma, warring against Spirit. It fails as the definitive perspective on human affairs. And the same is true of the transcendent in its anthropomorphic representations of deity.

 

We have evolved from the mythic way of thinking and our understanding of the natural world occurs through more developed means. The same thing needs to occur with spiritual understanding. It too needs to differentiate from the mythic level in order to develop and integrate with Reason in the whole person.

 

 

(more following)

[Antlerman]

Christianity and its symbols are not the gate to this. This is experienced and realized the world over. You can say it's because of your religious figure Jesus who performed some magic in heaven to make it happen (mythological thinking), but it can't be denied that this is a Universal truth known and experienced throughout time and culture, no matter what stage they were at: magical; mythical; rational, etc. This transcends Christianity and all religions.

Yes, it is hard to deny the sovereignty of the Christian God ...teasing. You are going to have to exercise grace for awhile on that note K.....probably for the rest of my life, but I will keep my eyes open!

I dislike the term sovereignty. I should add that to the above brief list. Sovereignty suggests subservience to a Potentate. I find that view of God to be anything but liberating to Spirit. We are not the property of the said Potentate. Instead, I see us as expression of Spirit. That is a very different way of evaluating ourselves, than one of a subservient dog before its Master.

 

Language is extremely powerful in defining reality to us and subsequently our experience of it.

 

You'd be surprised how many actually have. How someone processes it, or if they even talk about it for fear of it seeming out of place or like something was wrong with them, is likely why you haven't heard it even more.

My sister professes one and uses different language than both of us as she has never been a Christian.

You see? You didn't have to even leave home to find one.

 

What are all the gods talking about? What level, what layer of "God" do you mean? The cultural layer, the social layer, the natural world layer, the spiritual layer? Which one? And at what stage of our evolution? The problem I see with how you are processing all this, is that it either is this, or it is not. Nothing is so simple, let alone ideas about the world framed in transcendent terms.

I hear you, but the bible covers many bases of explanation, as well as my own experience verbatim. I couldn't put it away but for a few.

I found the Bible to not rise to the questions or the needs with where I was at. As I said, those systems have their place for some - as it did for myself for a time. But things change, people and societies evolve. And the explanation I would typically hear from those still in that system would be that I "fell away" or "backslid". Those of course do not fit the reality of what my leaving was about. I was seeking something that worked for me in the pursuit of understanding the spiritual in a rational world.

 

I learned too much. I outgrew my teachers. But I certainly didn't fall backwards! On the contrary. For me, to 're-convert' would require me to forfeit all the gains in both reason and spirit, in order to be submissive to the authority of the Church's notions of a mythical God. It would be like you going back as an adult to believing in elves and banshees as you did when you were 8 years old. That was a way of looking at the world for where you were at then, but you've moved past that now. The same holds true for me in looking at the natural world and the spiritual reality of our nature.

 

And the beginning of realization is to see that it is not the providence of any system of religion. Christianity is not the end all truth for the world, and its claims of providence is egotistical, and that state is hardly capable of realizing or expressing spirituality. It all comes down to putting God in a box, and that is the providence of the Church. "God our way".

 

Have to provoke back out of spirit....I see providence by grace.

But you still have the Church and its doctrines and theologies defining it to you.

 

I don't dislike the word grace too badly, but it does suggest, especially coming from the Christian context, then notion of our 'unworthiness', and subsequently God's generous nature in showing us any favor whatsoever. Again with the notion of sovereignty and lordship over his property. I find that idea not so good.

 

We are worthy, by virtue of existing alone. We are part of this Universe, and access to it is ours by choice. It is not denied us because some anthropomorphic God says "no" to us because of our natures. It is a matter of Realization on our part alone. If we find obstacles to that within ourselves, such as distractions of worries, angers, excess in behaviors, etc, those are nothing that some deity out there is saying you have to get rid of in order for "him" to accept you.

 

It's no different than you learning what works for you in order to get a good night's sleep. You can't stay up all night slugging down alcohol and partying ever day and expect to remain healthy. There are practices that are conducive to good health physically, just as there are in nurturing your spiritual nature. You can't be pissed off and worried all the time and expect to have peace and centeredness in yourself.

 

These have nothing to do with that God's pleasure or displeasure of you. It's about you and your nature. There is nothing withheld because of sin, but certainly you and your choices will in fact affect the realization or apprehension of it in your life.

 

It's any wonder anyone within it can ascend above that. Like a plant pushing up through a slab of concrete. For me I just flipped the concrete slap over so I can access the sun, rain, and the elements without that burdensome monolith riding on top of my being.

You can choose to look at it like that....it a choice where you place your brother.

I'll put it another way, the Church offered a small seed bed for plants, but as some begin to outgrow it, instead of them transplanting it to a larger area for the growth of its roots and branches, they deny there is a garden beyond their box and at first attempt to curtail its growth, and when that fails they overturn the bed on top of the plant to keep it from accessing the sun.

 

It's that punching through the ceiling because of the power of nature to move upward that I'm talking about. My plant got too big for the seed bed, but at one point it served a purpose.

[Guest end3]

But what's interesting here is the shift in you focus to 'being born of the Spirit'. Yes, I've been saying all along for years here that there is a difference between religion and spirituality. Having a religious belief says nothing about ones heart of soul. And moreover, the spiritual reality of it does not come from religion, or mental assent to theological languages, or adoption of religious doctrines. IMO, all of those things stand in the way. They stand in the way for a long list of reasons, not the least of which is because they describe God, they define God, they give it an individualized personality like a character in a play. That is extraordinarily limiting and confusing to the Spirit or the Heart with the mind.

Maybe if you have time you can detail a short list. I do not find Christianity offensive now. I did when I was younger for various reasons.

Short list of the traditional Christian concepts about God I feel limit ones access to the spiritual:

 

1. Judge on a Great White Throne
   
2. Requires blood spilled in order to forgive sin
   
3. Exhibits human behaviors such as vengeance and retribution
   
4. Demands obedience to his sovereignty
   
5. Demands obedience to his sovereignty under threat of death
   
6. Destroys the disobedient through war, pestilence, and eternal damnation
   
7. Access to God must be through Christian methods alone
   
8. Culture tied to God as divine revelation that must not change
   
9. God has behaviors and performs deeds like a human
   
10. God tied to the Bible as authoritative representation and revelation
    

 

There are also some positive things within Christianity that would conflict with the above brief list of describers of God, but the fact that there is the contradiction within the system is one more thing to add to that list: A confused presentation and teaching about God.

 

 

I think we may be having another word choice difficulty here. I accept that certain disciplines being employed in spiritual development are valid. But what I mean by mechanistic, is that the methods, the rituals, the forms, etc - become the definition of the experience. That is a mechanized reality, not a means to that reality. That is replacing spirituality with religion.

Yes, I think people sometimes group by your definition based on comfort, but then still sometimes morphs into legalism.

What I was trying to describe is Christianity as a whole, the explanation for the human experience, as well as the transcendent.

I will still contend that Christianity as a whole is inadequate to address the demands of the human experience. It offers 'explanations', but they're very limited and antiquated, in that there is such a broader and deeper understanding of the world in which to try to find some system of understanding.

 

One brief example is the whole notion of homosexuals being deviants, the result of disobedience to God. Clearly the factual evidence shows it to be normal variations within species, yet the religious devotee will be forced to ignore evidence like this in favor of the Bible's 'explanation'. That is not growth in understanding or the human spirit. It's religious doctrine and dogma, warring against Spirit. It fails as the definitive perspective on human affairs. And the same is true of the transcendent in its anthropomorphic representations of deity.

 

We have evolved from the mythic way of thinking and our understanding of the natural world occurs through more developed means. The same thing needs to occur with spiritual understanding. It too needs to differentiate from the mythic level in order to develop and integrate with Reason in the whole person.

 

 

(more following)

 

You seem adamant and today I take that as authentic. I think our discussion will become divergent if we don't approach understanding from a different direction.

 

The basic theme, and I suck at "theme", seems to be an internal vs. external view of "it".

 

From my external view, I will admit to an incomplete understanding of God, which there exists an explanation for this in the bible.

 

My only internal view exists through reality as presented to me through the stages of my life. As a teenager, I possessed a "feeling" of internal power exceeding any obstacle I encountered....I "can" if I desired. As a 20-44, it has been a growing in understanding of Christianity. Within these years, insights to understanding, answers to very difficult situations, and requested insight has been "given" to me. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would have rated them a 7 at least. Recently, after having an extremely transcendent experience, these once 7's I can see as acknowledgements of Presence, boosts of faith compared to a level 9 experience. These 7's I see now as 5's nearabout.

 

I can only internalize them through an understanding that they came to me from an external source. Regardless of how adamant you are, and I believe you, I cannot grasp your understanding without it being evident and real to me. I gather that this is common from both directions of pursuit.

 

One of the biggest things that has come to me from this experience is that God is allowing at this time the bad stuff to happen without intervention...this is a very general statement, so I would request not beating me with specifics. The main point: The rest/peace for me that I didn't have came with the understanding that our choices, intentional and even unintentional can effect this peace. Peace not being a cure of the troubles, peace being the assurace of a God...the knowing there is a God. Now, I find that the bible and Holy Spirit are given to us to guide us past the deception, the cause for the troubles, lack of aquisition of this peace.

 

I don't know why I have been given peace. I don't know. I would give it to anyone at anytime given the authority.

 

Perhaps I could have done it myself...but that is not my present understanding.

[Antlerman]

You seem adamant and today I take that as authentic.

Do you ever take anything I say as inauthentic? What does your perception of me being 'adamant' have anything to do with my level of sincerity? Did you take what I said the other days as not? Not sure why you stated this. Please explain.

 

One of the biggest things that has come to me from this experience is that God is allowing at this time the bad stuff to happen without intervention...this is a very general statement, so I would request not beating me with specifics.

I won't beat you on specifics, but just a general comment to this. It was the sort of thinking that placed God 'out there' "allowing" things to happen that caused a great deal of spiritual and intellectual consternation for me. This whole notion of trying to understand "what" God is doing, is a complete exercise in futility and emotional frustration. It reduces God to a puppet-master, trying to 'show us' this or that, or 'teach us' this lesson or that.

 

"God" is no such thing. I can appreciate recognizing some ultimate Source of spirituality in the Universe, or even as the Source of all manifestation in the material world. But it's the mythic idea of God as pulling the strings of fate in our lives for our edification or lessons through pain that basically forced my hand to reject it in favor of something that offered more than the frustration of trying to guess what "God was up to" in my life.

 

Add that to my list above as to reasons the Christian theology places a ceiling on spiritual growth. It cuts off access to God by making him some entity up there trying to 'teach you lessons'. By not imagining God as this sort of being, Spirit is directly accessible to the individual through choice and pursuit. No guessing what "God's up to now".

 

Think of it like going to get a drink of pure water when you thirst. Do you have to question what the will of the Water is?? Do you wonder if it's OK with the Water if you have a drink? Do you imagine the Water is trying to teach you a lesson?

 

The main point: The rest/peace for me that I didn't have came with the understanding that our choices, intentional and even unintentional can effect this peace. Peace not being a cure of the troubles, peace being the assurace of a God...the knowing there is a God.

What you are describing here is kind of what I was talking about earlier how if you want to have a healthy body, you have to not abuse it. No of course, peace isn't about problems going away. It's a state of being that allows trouble to addressed with less internal disruption, which usually results in a more effective response to actually fixing the problem, if possible.

 

Now, I find that the bible and Holy Spirit are given to us to guide us past the deception, the cause for the troubles, lack of aquisition of this peace.

I still dislike the whole 'given to' notion. Think of drinking pure water to refresh the soul. It's not given to you. It's available. It's a matter of openness to it.

 

I don't know why I have been given peace. I don't know. I would give it to anyone at anytime given the authority.

To say you would have to have authority to give it to someone, shows that you understand it as actively withheld, needing authorization to release it! No. Come back to the principle of being 'in tune' with it, and then through you it is manifest to others. You have both the access and ability to manifest it, without needing permission from the God 'out there'.

 

Again, these are basic spiritual principles that Christianity dressed up in its myths in order to teach them to its audience; its culture.

 

Perhaps I could have done it myself...but that is not my present understanding.

Well, maybe this will help you?

[Guest end3]

Do you ever take anything I say as inauthentic? What does your perception of me being 'adamant' have anything to do with my level of sincerity? Did you take what I said the other days as not? Not sure why you stated this. Please explain.

No, don't take it harshly.....you remaining undeterred in your thinking has only struck me today as, "Ok, this is really what AM believes". Maybe shortsighed on my part. I have thought less of you before , but don't let it have any effect on you bearing....as you seem not to need help with that.

 

 

One of the biggest things that has come to me from this experience is that God is allowing at this time the bad stuff to happen without intervention...this is a very general statement, so I would request not beating me with specifics.

I won't beat you on specifics, but just a general comment to this. It was the sort of thinking that placed God 'out there' "allowing" things to happen that caused a great deal of spiritual and intellectual consternation for me. This whole notion of trying to understand "what" God is doing, is a complete exercise in futility and emotional frustration.

 

I would ask was the frustration due to what He was doing, or what you were doing.

 

But it's the mythic idea of God as pulling the strings of fate in our lives for our edification or lessons through pain that basically forced my hand to reject it in favor of something that offered more than the frustration of trying to guess what "God was up to" in my life.

I was trying to express that I believes He watches the direction of our lives as dictated by our decisions. Intervention at this point is through the bible and HS. I believe the unrest of our lives is tied to our own misdirection.

 

Add that to my list above as to reasons the Christian theology places a ceiling on spiritual growth. It cuts off access to God by making him some entity up there trying to 'teach you lessons'. By not imagining God as this sort of being, Spirit is directly accessible to the individual through choice and pursuit. No guessing what "God's up to now".

"Teach us lessons"? Why is it not our choice to recognize truth? And I stated that it can even be unintentional. Remain faithful it says, right?

 

Think of it like going to get a drink of pure water when you thirst. Do you have to question what the will of the Water is?? Do you wonder if it's OK with the Water if you have a drink? Do you imagine the Water is trying to teach you a lesson?

Ok, but the water is external...we will die if we do not drink....and we cannot poke a straw into ourselves. But that is the very point K....PURE water in nature comes from only one source....the sky....Heaven?? Is not the rest contaminated in some form? The lesson is Heaven brings you unquestionable Purity.

 

I still dislike the whole 'given to' notion. Think of drinking pure water to refresh the soul. It's not given to you. It's available. It's a matter of openness to it.

I know you don't. It rains on everyone, but not everyone catches the runoff.

 

I don't know why I have been given peace. I don't know. I would give it to anyone at anytime given the authority.

To say you would have to have authority to give it to someone, shows that you understand it as actively withheld, needing authorization to release it! No. Come back to the principle of being 'in tune' with it, and then through you it is manifest to others. You have both the access and ability to manifest it, without needing permission from the God 'out there'.

 

See, we are damn close thanks to this analogy. I can be play an active role for those that choose not to catch the rain, but I am not the Rain, nor make it.

 

Well, maybe this will help you?

 

I would rather it help us.

[Guest I Love Dog]

I suppose in a way that smoking is like religion and Christianity. It can be hard to let go.

 

I gave away Chrsitianity and belief in a god or gods when I was 12 then took up smoking when I was 15.

 

I gave away Christianity and god belief because I figured it was bad for my mind and it was delusional and wasn't the truth.

 

I stopped smoking 4 years ago. I gave that away because it was bad for my body and people saying that it wasn't bad for you wasn't the truth.

 

Cold turkey with either is definitely the way to go! Trust me!

[Antlerman]

I won't beat you on specifics, but just a general comment to this. It was the sort of thinking that placed God 'out there' "allowing" things to happen that caused a great deal of spiritual and intellectual consternation for me. This whole notion of trying to understand "what" God is doing, is a complete exercise in futility and emotional frustration.

 

I would ask was the frustration due to what He was doing, or what you were doing.

I would say in my mind at the time it was trying to understand what God wanted or was doing, or not doing. Put it this way, it was far better, far healthier for me to conclude that God had nothing to do with anything going on in my life, or the world for that matter - and I'm am referring specifically to events, and not some 'general light that shines'. It's that whole business of 'what is God trying to show you thing', or "God has a plan for you in this" stuff.

 

To think that way about God leads someone to an irreconcilable conflict of reason, emotions, and faith. It was vastly simpler to say "everything that happens is in my control, or what isn't is just the events of life. God has no dealings in it as an active player." The alternative was to end up hating God, which was not in me to do. It would be to say I hate beauty, which is what God was to me before and beyond the whole anthropomorphic myth definition of God. The perception had to go to preserve the spirit of the Heart that I embraced in me and the world.

 

But it's the mythic idea of God as pulling the strings of fate in our lives for our edification or lessons through pain that basically forced my hand to reject it in favor of something that offered more than the frustration of trying to guess what "God was up to" in my life.

I was trying to express that I believes He watches the direction of our lives as dictated by our decisions. Intervention at this point is through the bible and HS. I believe the unrest of our lives is tied to our own misdirection.

If you want to speak of intervention as more 'influence', sort of like a light shining to help you see the path for you to follow and you to act upon, then I won't offer much of an argument. I just wouldn't say there are any specifics things that God 'puts in front of you' so to speak as lessons, or tests, or whatever. I'm interpreting your language of speaking of 'intervention through the Bible and HS,' to be expressing the influence of good in the world through others. I just can't literally see some cosmic being pulling strings and whatnot. Again, I accept that there is Beauty in the world, that there is a positive draw to it, and that that does directly affect the world and our experience of it. But I consider that its essence, Spirit, not a cosmic person. That's a mythological way of talking about it.

 

"Teach us lessons"? Why is it not our choice to recognize truth? And I stated that it can even be unintentional. Remain faithful it says, right?

A lot of our difficulty lies in language. By saying 'teach us lessons', I mean as I said above something like doing certain things actively to 'show us something'. Not passively being there shining a light, and it becomes up to us to see it or not. I'm talking about some traditional notion of a god pulling strings of specific events in our lives to 'get our attention', and such other language. If I had a hundred dollars for each time I head this language in the churches I went to, "God is trying to show me...", I would have a million dollars. That language reflects that very anthropomorphic idea of deity that I find vastly more a hindrance than help to spirituality. It makes you focused on what he 'thinks or wants', rather than the being the nature of God. It's a carnal God.

 

 

Think of it like going to get a drink of pure water when you thirst. Do you have to question what the will of the Water is?? Do you wonder if it's OK with the Water if you have a drink? Do you imagine the Water is trying to teach you a lesson?

Ok, but the water is external...we will die if we do not drink....and we cannot poke a straw into ourselves. But that is the very point K....PURE water in nature comes from only one source....the sky....Heaven?? Is not the rest contaminated in some form? The lesson is Heaven brings you unquestionable Purity.

The Water is Source. Water is in us from the Source, and we need to drink of it in our form of Water and from Water. It is both in us and outside us. We are not dry sacks with no water. The ultimate state is being Ocean.

 

 

I still dislike the whole 'given to' notion. Think of drinking pure water to refresh the soul. It's not given to you. It's available. It's a matter of openness to it.

I know you don't. It rains on everyone, but not everyone catches the runoff.

Agreed. It rains because it is the nature of this world. Not because a god orders it's distribution on this field or that field, but not others he doesn't like (like those who withheld tithes in the book of Malachai).

 

 

 

See, we are damn close thanks to this analogy. I can be play an active role for those that choose not to catch the rain, but I am not the Rain, nor make it.

I would disagree. If you are manifesting Rain, then you are Rain.

[NotBlinded]

I love this exchange!

[Antlerman]

I love this exchange!

I was wondering where you were.

 

Yes, this is what a good discussion is. I'm quite pleased with it.

 

 

BTW, I'm being asked to lead a topic at the Secular Bible Study group I've been participating in as a non-Christian, due to some changes in leadership recently and the need for leaders. It's a great group of diverse views that groups around the country and into Canada are trying to emulate its success. Atheists and Christians dialoging without warring ideologies. I'm not sure what would be a good topic at this point. Any suggestions?

[Legion]

Any suggestions?

Um, maybe you could talk about myths and metaphors. Maybe you could address their value and their dangers. But then that might be too broad.

 

Just throwing some ideas out there.

[Antlerman]

Any suggestions?

Um, maybe you could talk about myths and metaphors. Maybe you could address their value and their dangers. But then that might be too broad.

 

Just throwing some ideas out there.

Yeah that is one topic that came to mind. The fear would be to get too academic about it or that people would interpret the word 'myth' as either a 'lie' or see it as an attack of comparison to the other 'silly gods' of other cultures. But I think authors like Burton Mack or Karen Armstrong who are Christians but look at the Bible as myth, yet containing spiritual value would be great for across the board discussion.

 

I like this idea, and it's something I'm pretty versed in. What else works is as part of this, to discussion social formation and the use of myth in this. After all the group is there to discuss things like the history and origins of the Bible and its influence on culture today. That seems a perfect discussion topic, doesn't it? We could talk of the Gospel of Q as part of that as well. Hmmm....

 

 

BTW, I hope YoYo comes back...

[Legion]

I’m almost certain you’ll do a great job Antlerman. I just worry about your fat head and being invited to this thing.

 

Please do me a favor. As you speak please throw in a few “in my opinion”s and “the way I see it”s. After all, you will be representing all of us ex-Cs.

 

Edit: yeah I hope Yoyo comes back too.

[Guest end3]

I don't know what to add K. I see some relationships in your last post that can be reconciled to mine, but I feel like you can see from here my prospective should you wish. Great conversation.

[Shyone]

Any suggestions?

Um, maybe you could talk about myths and metaphors. Maybe you could address their value and their dangers. But then that might be too broad.

 

Just throwing some ideas out there.

Yeah that is one topic that came to mind. The fear would be to get too academic about it or that people would interpret the word 'myth' as either a 'lie' or see it as an attack of comparison to the other 'silly gods' of other cultures. But I think authors like Burton Mack or Karen Armstrong who are Christians but look at the Bible as myth, yet containing spiritual value would be great for across the board discussion.

 

I like this idea, and it's something I'm pretty versed in. What else works is as part of this, to discussion social formation and the use of myth in this. After all the group is there to discuss things like the history and origins of the Bible and its influence on culture today. That seems a perfect discussion topic, doesn't it? We could talk of the Gospel of Q as part of that as well. Hmmm....

 

 

BTW, I hope YoYo comes back...

A thought occurred to me...

 

One major factor in my rejection of the Bible as an authoritative source for knowledge of God was the inclusion of passages from ancient civilizations. You know, those ones with "silly gods" that no one believes in anymore.

 

I was struck that if people writing passages (lamentations, flood myths, wisedom - think proverbs) to praise these non-existent gods were wrong, and the same passages wound up in the Bible, then - the Bible was at least partly written by people whose gods were false.

 

Without drawing any obvious parallels, the parallels will draw themselves to anyone familiar with Biblical passages.

 

That was my key. Might not work for anyone else.

[Antlerman]

I don't know what to add K. I see some relationships in your last post that can be reconciled to mine, but I feel like you can see from here my prospective should you wish. Great conversation.

I can see it from your perspective. I often argue the case that it's the truths behind the language, underneath the system, the nature of reality to the participant as expressed through the symbols that we need to try to hear and through that find common truth together. I hear you expressing an existential truth to you through a system of symbols that helps connect it for you to your reasoning mind. "How do we talk about it to ourselves, how do we talk about it to others?"

 

At the same time, I hear you hearing me express that from in me with how I am trying to frame an understanding of it and/or communicate its essence existentially to me, likewise using a system of language to understand it within. What we are largely talking about are the ways of talking about it, not really the nature of the experience itself. Why I like to talk about the ways of understanding/approaching discussion of it, to ourselves and with others, is because I am a keenly aware of the power of a system of language to either help or hinder our understanding and subsequently affect our experience to one degree or another.

 

Why I focus on the difference between the mythic and the rational systems is because of where we are at as participants together in our societies and within our culture. The problem with the rational systems is that in its break from the mythic systems, where the pursuits of art, culture, and science (subjective, inter-subjective, objective) were all processed and consequently limited through that umbrella system of myth, is that it not only differentiated from that mythic system, and subsequently split these 'big three' into separated fields of interest, it chucked out the baby of spirituality with the bathwater of mythological thinking. Ways of talking about spirituality subsequently are now either seen as regressive (going back to systems of magic or systems of gods), or pseudo-scientific jargon (New Age). In other words, there is little room to talk about spirituality within the current context of a modern age of reason and science.

 

So what I see, what I hear, is that people such as you who experience spiritual connections with the world around them and in them, is that the strength of that outweighs the gains that might come from changing systems because it helps connect the experience of that to themselves that they would loose if they abandoned the system altogether. It 'makes sense' to them, it is 'true', through the virtue that it offers them a system to talk about it, to have a somewhat functional system in order to frame some understanding of it for them within. There really isn't a lot of other relatively cohesive functional systems out there established to the degree that it can accommodate a larger society, or even influence greater culture. And hence, why there is in part such a struggle to move ahead in our evolution as society and culture and individuals within those.

 

So it's from within that perspective in dialogs such as we're having, that listening to the existential heart within the other person, not simply objectively evaluating the 'facticity' of the language, but the 'truthfulness' of the heart through subjective interpretation, I feel will be what plays a vital part in our moving forward together as a society and as a species itself. It seems to be a symptom of our culture that we have collapsed the art of listening, and reduced it down to a simple evaluation of objective facts, of scientific reality as opposed to 'untrustworthy' subjective 'truth'. That is easier by far than subjectively interacting, but is itself out of step with *real* reality.

 

Where we are at, hopefully anyway, is to begin to loosen our grips on our systems of language as representing absolute reality, and talking diaolgically, as opposed to monologically. I feel it's important for us to progress in our language in how we talk about spirituality in the individual and society, in order to move us past sociocentric and ethnocentric mindsets that keep us alienated from each other (and from something in ourselves), just as much as it was important to move away from heliocentric and geocentric language in understanding the natural world.

 

That's my interest in arguing for my point of view in this, but it requires recognizing that literalness in interpretation is harmful and unnecessary. Hopefully it will catch on, but I think an important part of people's willingness to do so will revolve around an openness to the importance and validity of the spiritual nature of existence for many people, regardless of the systems used to express it.

[Antlerman]

Please do me a favor. As you speak please throw in a few “in my opinion”s and “the way I see it”s. After all, you will be representing all of us ex-Cs.

Oh, we're way too diverse to be represented by one face. But as one face of many I can represent a part of the whole. Also, I never identify myself as representing the site, though I have mentioned my participation here. I'm really there as an interested individual who has something to contribute and get out of it. There's a number of ExChristians there, as well as never-been Christians, as well as a couple fundamentalists, and other Christians of various flavors - one gay Mormon as well, who spoke last week.

 

By the way, when are you going to get over this who need to see me incessantly injecting "in my opinion," "in my view", etc in how I write? It's ALL my opinion, unless specifically referencing factual things. It's completely unnecessary for communication in a public discussion forum, though sometimes I do choose to use under special circumstance for special reason. But for the norm, it's completely redundant, in my opinion - if you couldn't tell from the context.

 

What is it about me stating my points of view that you see as misrepresenting anything that it needs to be qualified in every other breath that I'm sharing my point of view? I don't get it. And by the way, no one else in the 5 plus years, and 5700 post here, or anywhere else in my whole life for that matter, has ever raised this to be an issue in how I communicate - except for you. Seems to me, to be something about you?

[Legion]

If I have singled you out Antlerman then it’s only because I think your posts are excellent.

 

I was speaking with someone, who shall remain unnamed, a while back. And she had the chance to witness an intellectual skirmish between you and me on these forums. She told me in private after watching this that she had never before thought of you as arrogant. Something about the exchange between you and me gave her this impression. I can only guess that it’s because I am generally careful these days to label my opinions and perspectives for what they are.

 

I realize that everything we say is our opinion or perspective. And so I can see why it seems redundant and verbose to explicitly label our opinions. But let me try to point out the rhetorical value of these labels.

 

“Ancient myths have no value to modern people.”

 

“In my view ancient myths have no value to modern people.”

 

To my mind the difference between these two statements is significant. In the first one it is not at all clear that the author can distinguish between fact and opinion. In the second one we see an author who clearly can. The first is more arrogant and less true; the second is humbler and technically truer. At least that’s how I see it.

 

But it’s all really no big deal man. Be careful with your language, or not. Please do as you see fit. I just see that the already excellent content of your posts could be improved with a slight rhetorical flourish.

[Guest end3]

So what I see, what I hear, is that people such as you who experience spiritual connections with the world around them and in them, is that the strength of that outweighs the gains that might come from changing systems because it helps connect the experience of that to themselves that they would loose if they abandoned the system altogether. It 'makes sense' to them, it is 'true', through the virtue that it offers them a system to talk about it, to have a somewhat functional system in order to frame some understanding of it for them within. There really isn't a lot of other relatively cohesive functional systems out there established to the degree that it can accommodate a larger society, or even influence greater culture. And hence, why there is in part such a struggle to move ahead in our evolution as society and culture and individuals within those.

 

One of the best statements I have seen in a time. As I understand this, one of the things I would have asked you had we progressed would have been, "show me your language". Certainly some of the launguage "preached" is not, IMO, the best interpretation of my recent experience....and it shows in the generations of growing "hate", which is contrary to what I believe God wants.....the deception of gossip comes to mind.

 

Good stuff.

 

So it's from within that perspective in dialogs such as we're having, that listening to the existential heart within the other person, not simply objectively evaluating the 'facticity' of the language, but the 'truthfulness' of the heart through subjective interpretation, I feel will be what plays a vital part in our moving forward together as a society and as a species itself. It seems to be a symptom of our culture that we have collapsed the art of listening, and reduced it down to a simple evaluation of objective facts, of scientific reality as opposed to 'untrustworthy' subjective 'truth'. That is easier by far than subjectively interacting, but is itself out of step with *real* reality.

 

Where we are at, hopefully anyway, is to begin to loosen our grips on our systems of language as representing absolute reality, and talking diaolgically, as opposed to monologically. I feel it's important for us to progress in our language in how we talk about spirituality in the individual and society, in order to move us past sociocentric and ethnocentric mindsets that keep us alienated from each other (and from something in ourselves), just as much as it was important to move away from heliocentric and geocentric language in understanding the natural world.

 

That's my interest in arguing for my point of view in this, but it requires recognizing that literalness in interpretation is harmful and unnecessary. Hopefully it will catch on, but I think an important part of people's willingness to do so will revolve around an openness to the importance and validity of the spiritual nature of existence for many people, regardless of the systems used to express it.

 

And here's the funny thing, I don't think I could have had this understanding except through my interpretation of being touched just for seconds by Jesus. Interesting, huh.

 

Way to go AM....it's a good day brother.

[Antlerman]

And here's the funny thing, I don't think I could have had this understanding except through my interpretation of being touched just for seconds by Jesus. Interesting, huh.

 

Way to go AM....it's a good day brother.

If you understand the universal nature of it like this, to the point you extend it to those beyond the religion, then I'd say you have seen it. I just wouldn't call it Jesus, but that's OK if it's how you want to call it. People often interpret it with cultural symbols, but the important bit isn't the symbol, but the content. None of those experiences 'prove' ones religion 'the right one'. The religion creates the symbols, and the person interprets the experience through those, most times. Ask OM to expand on that, as I've heard her do so before.

 

Sounds interesting End.

[NotBlinded]

I love this exchange!

I was wondering where you were.

 

Yes, this is what a good discussion is. I'm quite pleased with it.

 

 

BTW, I'm being asked to lead a topic at the Secular Bible Study group I've been participating in as a non-Christian, due to some changes in leadership recently and the need for leaders. It's a great group of diverse views that groups around the country and into Canada are trying to emulate its success. Atheists and Christians dialoging without warring ideologies. I'm not sure what would be a good topic at this point. Any suggestions?

I've been here reading and enjoying. There isn't really anything I can say that would add any understanding that you aren't saying already. When I think of a way to say the samething another way, I'll usually post it.

 

I think what you mentioned below would be great to talk about at your meeting (I wanna go!!) )

 

I can see it from your perspective. I often argue the case that it's the truths behind the language, underneath the system, the nature of reality to the participant as expressed through the symbols that we need to try to hear and through that find common truth together. I hear you expressing an existential truth to you through a system of symbols that helps connect it for you to your reasoning mind. "How do we talk about it to ourselves, how do we talk about it to others?"

 

Legion mentioned myth and I would agree that talking about the interpretation of mythological symbols as having meaning externally or internally and which carries more impact would be a wonderful topic. The psychological undertones that present these symbols in the first place and the meaning they are trying to express.

 

Pick me up at 7:00? I'm just a little south of you I believe...