Question For The Christians

[Antlerman]

Do you exclude Islam as a real system? What about Atheism? What about your own system do you exclude?

Yes, they would all be real systems. Within my own system, I natually exclude those things that would bring me suffering, embarrassment, things that would let others know my true self.

You exclude things that don't provide a proper means of translating the world for you. It has nothing to do with hiding your ego. The language and culture of Islam is not one you speak, so you exclude it as much as you do speaking Arabic. It doesn't provide translation you can use. For them, it does, which incorporates and translates all those "embarrassing" bits as well as the good. Think of it as a language system.

 

I don't think you really grasp why people use systems, and why people outgrow them. Why are you a theist, instead of an atheist? Why are you a Christian instead of a Secular Humanist?

 

Ultimately, there is A "system". Our experiential identification of that system, or System, most likely dictates our subscription to any definition. How can we outgrow being a human?

I utterly disagree. The use of the capital letter indicating a state of ultimate or absoluteness, such as God, is completely nonsense when speaking about a system. Systems are used to help translate the parts of the world we interact with with a current state of mind, a state of consciousness. For instance, someone who sees the world as controlled by magic use a system that incorporates a symbolic world that reflects that understanding and allows the the means to interface with the world through that symbolic language. Rituals and practices arise to support that view, stories, art, etc. It's all about translation. Someone who sees that powerful beings, entities that control the world are how the world works, develops and uses a system of mythology - such as the OT god fighting off other gods with his prophets and fire from heaven. That language helps translate their state of consciousness, their world view. Someone who sees the world as entirely governed and influences by strictly natural processes, create a system of signs and symbols that reflect that view of reality for them. It helps translate their experience of the world with that state of conscious mind.

 

My point is that if you are talking about a state of Absolute awareness, God, or God-Consciousness, there would be no need for translating anything, no need for any system. You would have absolute awareness and know all things directly. Instead of trying to translate the mind of God, you would posses it. It would be pure gnosis. Anything about that, translating that downward would be soteriological, and that would require a system. Your use of System, with a capital letter makes no sense at all.

 

If you wish to speak of an absolute in knowledge, then say Gnosis.

 

Suffering for others? I'm trying to grasp what you're getting at in any of this. Try spelling it out. I don't care to speculate.

 

For example, if you have a non-theistic view that you are certain is the truth via your life experience, and I have a theistic view that I am certain of as well,.... if you or I will choose to discern, with wisdom, the necessity of the other individual to state their view, and understand the need for their view for them as individuals, regardless of the ultimate truth, and in doing that, "suffer" our need to be right or dictate our own necessity, then the validation of the other person manifests itself as trust and love to that individual....which IS the true System.

Again, by very definition there can be no such a thing as a True System, as much as you may wish that to be the case. But what's remarkable here is what you call suffering. You are saying that growing beyond the need to be right is suffering. What is actually suffering is having to live with that belief itself. Showing respect, being humble, being open minded, is not suffering at all. It's a sign of a mature mind.

 

The apologist doesn't have that yet. They need others to be wrong.

 

When we suffer, sometimes in obedience, to make the other systems known, then this is unltimately how the System knows us, and in doing that, we manifest the System.

This is nonsense. People avail themselves of whatever system supports what they are drawn to existentially. If you grasp that, then you would be more concerned with that then some notion about some self-contradictory True System, let alone one that "knows us". This is nonsensical.

 

I don't think Unity does exist in the truest sense of the word in any of these systems. The best you have is a general agreement around certain loose beliefs. It approximates, or imitates Unity. I have never seen any system anywhere where true Unity exists - and most certainly not within Christianity.

 

No, the greater unity now at hand is the fact that we exist in a real/natural sense. All the competing systems, whether "real" or "spiritual" are existing together right now.....to the extent that they know each other...a quazi unity.....but still everthing is unified within the universe itself.

Unity is the interconnection of things towards an ultimate Unity. There is no way that a system such as what Rayskidude or LNC is talking about looks at all things together that way. No way. That view is exclusive, not inclusive. The unity is through abandoning individuality to a monlogical reality of a single belief. There is no interconnection towards anything going on that can be understood on a truly global, universe level. The fact that Ray has to deny knowledge, deny Evolution, to support that mode of thought is a hugely clear indicator of that stage of disconnect from the greater whole.

 

Originally Christianity was more inclusive than its predecessors, which indicates a movement towards greater inclusiveness moving towards absolute inclusiveness. But they are stuck at the mythic-membership level. Unity is by joining the group. Not the group joining the All. It fails to work as a system towards that greater end anymore, in this context. They become as a result of placing dogma above God, a millstone around the neck of the human reach for "God", or Absolute Unity.

 

The systems within can only have as much unity as they are able to know each other......via a relationship. How can a flower know a bee?

And how are people like LNC or Ray who are steeped in Dogma as God going to see that? What relationship is that? With their Bibles?

[Guest end3]

....

 

I am going to respond to each thought in a bit, but let me ask you this.....through the last three years of you and I "knowing" each other and "suffering" to accomplish that, has it not yielded increased trust and understanding and tolerance and friendship, and on and on. And can we not equate trust, understanding, tolerance and friendship as love to some degree? Unity through a relatioship? Is this not God?

[Antlerman]

....

 

I am going to respond to each thought in a bit, but let me ask you this.....through the last three years of you and I "knowing" each other and "suffering" to accomplish that, has it not yielded increased trust and understanding and tolerance and friendship, and on and on. And can we not equate trust, understanding, tolerance and friendship as love to some degree? Unity through a relatioship? Is this not God?

I guess to me the word 'suffer' is a tad strong, but that could just be semantics. As to the latter, I would say what you are describing is accomplished by listening to a different level of truth that transcends any of these systems and their dogmas. The only way for you to hear me, is to hear beyond the symbols. And all this is my very point. "God" to people like Ray equals his theology. It's how he can imagine them as lost and hell-bound. His heart is deaf.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Prove me wrong.

 

You were wrong Ray, here.

 

The Kalaam Cosmological argument is irrefutable.

 

BAA - point well taken, You are correct and I was incorrect. The word 'irrefutable' cannot be used in conjunction with an argument. I was mistaken in the statement that I made, thank you for pointing out my mistake - I'll try to be more circumspect in the future.

 

Ok Ray, I know that the words, "Prove me wrong" weren't written by you as a catch-all invitation to all and sundry. Nevertheless, it seemed like a good opportunity to remind you of the unfinished business between us - pertaining to the KCA. This dates from Oct 25. Perhaps you're wrong about more than the 'irrefutability' of the KCA? Why not find out by getting back to me on the questions and points I outlined?

I reproduce them here...

 

BAA - point well taken, You are correct and I was incorrect. The word 'irrefutable' cannot be used in conjunction with an argument. I was mistaken in the statement that I made, thank you for pointing out my mistake - I'll try to be more circumspect in the future.. However, I would maintain that the KCA is a valid argument for the existence of God, being very strongly supported by all we know of the 'caused universe."

What do you mean, 'caused universe'?

You and I have NOT agreed that the universe is 'caused'. All I have done so far, regarding the KCA, is to draw attention to your incorrect wording (see above) , point out what kind of argument the KCA is and what it's remit is. We are not in agreement over wether the universe is caused or not, so please do not try and insert your conclusions into as yet unresolved issues.

And I acknowledge that the "proof" about God's existence is not the same type of proof we would pursue in solving a mathematical problem or determining in a physics experiment - but more along the lines of the proof sought in a court room trial. We're looking for the preponderance of evidence that points to the most plausible explanation.

What are you acknowledging here?

Nothing from me, that's for sure. I did not introduce this dichotomy (court room evidence vs. math/physics data), you did. Are you are trying to wrest control of this debate by inserting your terms, concepts and conclusions where they are neither applicable or welcome? If so, please desist and confine yourself strictly to the issues at hand. Please note that I will not yield one inch, when it comes to anything suspect in your postings. I will call you out and demand clarification or retraction, on even the smallest detail and I will not relent until I am satisfied.

Quote

The cause is U-N-I-D-E-N-T-I-F-I-E-D.

I concur that the KCA says nothing about the cause, or the Uncaused Cause.

But we look at the universe that exists, and then we justifiably draw the conclusion (or maybe certain implication) that there must be a sufficient cause. No.

No, we do not justifiably draw that conclusion. You do. But I have not yet declared that I do. Who do you mean by 'we'?

What would be a sufficient cause for a universe of such majesty and complexity? The issue of cause has not been settled in this thread. Therefore it is premature to ask this question. Perceived majesty and complexity will have to wait. So will plausibility.

What is most plausible? See above.

An infinite God with gracious designs for His Glory and our good? See above.

Or random chance generating a universe which is completely meaningless with no purpose? See above.

Which is the more plausible? See above.

I simply maintain that the Biblical God is the most plausible explanation, and ultimately the only logical explanation - by a long shot - over against any atheistic explanations.

Yes Ray. You maintain this position.

On the subject of the fine-tuned universe, I note that everything I wrote about this separate issue has been deftly 'snipped' out of your reply to me. To avoid having to respond to it, perhaps? Such a maneuver would be consistent with your debating style.

Yet, you were happy to talk about, when you responded to Dethl? Hmmm...?

 

...so that you can't change the parameters of the questions put to you, as you did in our (now closed) Earth/Mars canyon debate.

 

I won't stoop so low as to ask you if you've got the 'nads to respond. Nor will I insult your intelligence by suggesting that you're clueless about these matters. No. You'll reply to the above questions when you're ready. If 'ready' is never, then so be it.

 

BAA.

[centauri]

God came in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, never sinned, and yet died to pay the just debt of own sin before a Holy God. He took our guilt and punishment; we receive His righteousness - that we may be in God's presence forever. The life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Messiah is the greatest demonstration of love ever displayed.

These endlessly repeated Christian talking points are propaganda and do not represent reality for anyone outside the cult.

They also contradict scripture.

Jesus was not God, Jesus was not sinless, and Jesus was not a king messiah.

God cannot die at any time, which reduces your first talking point to wishful thinking.

A human sacrifice is not a legal sin sacrifice according to God's law.

Jesus didn't even pay the price according to Christian mythology because he's in heaven not hell.

[Guest end3]

You exclude things that don't provide a proper means of translating the world for you. It has nothing to do with hiding your ego. The language and culture of Islam is not one you speak, so you exclude it as much as you do speaking Arabic. It doesn't provide translation you can use. For them, it does, which incorporates and translates all those "embarrassing" bits as well as the good. Think of it as a language system.

 

There are certainly things that I can exclude from my own system through ego. What you express here are also valid exclusions.

 

I utterly disagree. The use of the capital letter indicating a state of ultimate or absoluteness, such as God, is completely nonsense when speaking about a system.

 

I understand, but what other means do we have or are to have to express God?

 

Systems are used to help translate the parts of the world we interact with with a current state of mind, a state of consciousness. For instance, someone who sees the world as controlled by magic use a system that incorporates a symbolic world that reflects that understanding and allows the the means to interface with the world through that symbolic language. Rituals and practices arise to support that view, stories, art, etc. It's all about translation.

 

I just said that. Is the Buddhist going to teach everyone to meditate? The "suffering to know" yields the manifestation of God, IMO.

 

Someone who sees that powerful beings, entities that control the world are how the world works, develops and uses a system of mythology - such as the OT god fighting off other gods with his prophets and fire from heaven. That language helps translate their state of consciousness, their world view. Someone who sees the world as entirely governed and influences by strictly natural processes, create a system of signs and symbols that reflect that view of reality for them. It helps translate their experience of the world with that state of conscious mind.

 

Give me a universal methodolgy that speaks to everyones experience and I will consider it.

 

My point is that if you are talking about a state of Absolute awareness, God, or God-Consciousness, there would be no need for translating anything, no need for any system. You would have absolute awareness and know all things directly. Instead of trying to translate the mind of God, you would posses it. It would be pure gnosis. Anything about that, translating that downward would be soteriological, and that would require a system. Your use of System, with a capital letter makes no sense at all.

 

Aren't we in a system/System?? What in the world would be the point of an individual having a God-Absolute awareness if it is solely for their own use?

 

Again, by very definition there can be no such a thing as a True System, as much as you may wish that to be the case. But what's remarkable here is what you call suffering. You are saying that growing beyond the need to be right is suffering. What is actually suffering is having to live with that belief itself.

 

You don't equate "choosing/accepting/obedience to Christ" exactly what you are saying "living with" is???? Really? And you are going to have to get over your need...suffer for me, if you don't mind, your need for me to use the exacting words that will help you. .....systems.....gnosis....etc. I appreciate you helping me with the correct words, but in that you are missing the point....and exemplifying my point as well.

 

Showing respect, being humble, being open minded, is not suffering at all. It's a sign of a mature mind.

 

Certainly it is suffering when you choose to accept those over a immature self. I have to suffer my immaturity to not cuss people for berating me here constantly. I suffer for their understanding. Not always, but sometimes it is only in obedience and to promote trust, unity, etc.

 

This is nonsense. People avail themselves of whatever system supports what they are drawn to existentially. If you grasp that, then you would be more concerned with that then some notion about some self-contradictory True System, let alone one that "knows us". This is nonsensical.

 

Language barriers here. Nothing more.

 

 

Unity is the interconnection of things towards an ultimate Unity. There is no way that a system such as what Rayskidude or LNC is talking about looks at all things together that way. No way. That view is exclusive, not inclusive. The unity is through abandoning individuality to a monlogical reality of a single belief. There is no interconnection towards anything going on that can be understood on a truly global, universe level. The fact that Ray has to deny knowledge, deny Evolution, to support that mode of thought is a hugely clear indicator of that stage of disconnect from the greater whole.

 

How can it be exclusive when it demands a realationship? "Do not quit meeting together" it says.

 

AM says, "Originally Christianity was more inclusive than its predecessors, which indicates a movement towards greater inclusiveness moving towards absolute inclusiveness. But they are stuck at the mythic-membership level. Unity is by joining the group. Not the group joining the All. It fails to work as a system towards that greater end anymore, in this context. They become as a result of placing dogma above God, a millstone around the neck of the human reach for "God", or Absolute Unity. "

 

the Door is narrow and wide is the path....

 

AM says, "And how are people like LNC or Ray who are steeped in Dogma as God going to see that? What relationship is that? With their Bibles?"

 

Expressly by you having a relationship with them, suffering yourself to know their experience, and to suffer the loss of pride, ego, etc within the universal natural system we live in, so that when the feel that they are "right", even when they might be wrong, they feel accepted and loved as HUMANS!

 

What else is God?

[Antlerman]

Someone who sees that powerful beings, entities that control the world are how the world works, develops and uses a system of mythology - such as the OT god fighting off other gods with his prophets and fire from heaven. That language helps translate their state of consciousness, their world view. Someone who sees the world as entirely governed and influences by strictly natural processes, create a system of signs and symbols that reflect that view of reality for them. It helps translate their experience of the world with that state of conscious mind.

 

Give me a universal methodolgy that speaks to everyones experience and I will consider it.

Let me ask you this. Do you feel how you understand things today is greater than how you did several years ago, or further back even? Do you feel more connected with yourself and the world, or are you further distanced from it, turning more inward and away from it? My point is that our systems are in fact going through changes to attempt to speak to that more inclusive mind. Even our sciences are showing the interconnectedness of the world on more and greater levels than realized before. So with that in mind, any system that is more inclusive, that moves one further into a global community, which requires moving beyond dogmas into a greater perspective, would in fact be one that does more towards that then many of our systems of the past. I believe it was Gebser who called it an "Integral Aperspectivism". Anything that moves us towards that is a move in that direction. Christianity rejects any views not its own, defining truth as its and its alone. That's an illusion of unity purchases at the end of a sword, not in a higher perspective.

 

My point is that if you are talking about a state of Absolute awareness, God, or God-Consciousness, there would be no need for translating anything, no need for any system. You would have absolute awareness and know all things directly. Instead of trying to translate the mind of God, you would posses it. It would be pure gnosis. Anything about that, translating that downward would be soteriological, and that would require a system. Your use of System, with a capital letter makes no sense at all.

 

Aren't we in a system/System?? What in the world would be the point of an individual having a God-Absolute awareness if it is solely for their own use?

Who said anything about it being solely for their own use?

 

You know this is funny. The vision of salvation for your typical Christian, expressed in the person of Ray, is that it is in fact for selfish reasons. "My salvation, my blessing, my afterlife, my, my, my... " "God is blessing ME!" ME, Me, ME."

 

Even in those areas of scripture itself that I would accept as having a higher mind (select areas I will qualify), it talks about you being the light of the world. Let your light so shine.... Now I could argue that this same thing is resonated in the practices of mystics the world over, that to connect with the Divine is to be transformed by it and that higher (or highest) level of being is manifest in the world through those with that state of consciousness. In that sense, it is not about you at all, as technically "you" are no longer "You", meaning your self-identity, but all inclusive of All. You for all purposes are God.

 

Now of course, that is an absolute heresy to the Orthodox believer, and should be dealt with swiftly in the Stoning Pit of the god's jealousy that he be exclusive, and no others but him! Really rather ironic, actually.

 

Again, by very definition there can be no such a thing as a True System, as much as you may wish that to be the case. But what's remarkable here is what you call suffering. You are saying that growing beyond the need to be right is suffering. What is actually suffering is having to live with that belief itself.

 

You don't equate "choosing/accepting/obedience to Christ" exactly what you are saying "living with" is???? Really?

What I was referring to was living with the belief you believe you are right and everyone is wrong. That is suffering to me, considering the sort of mental contortions and lies you have to tell yourself in order to maintain that view to bolster ones insecurities. It had nothing to do with what you heard.

[Antlerman]

And you are going to have to get over your need...suffer for me, if you don't mind, your need for me to use the exacting words that will help you. .....systems.....gnosis....etc.

this isn't about suffering, it's about working through communication issues so there can be clarity for better dialog.

 

Unity is the interconnection of things towards an ultimate Unity. There is no way that a system such as what Rayskidude or LNC is talking about looks at all things together that way. No way. That view is exclusive, not inclusive. The unity is through abandoning individuality to a monlogical reality of a single belief. There is no interconnection towards anything going on that can be understood on a truly global, universe level. The fact that Ray has to deny knowledge, deny Evolution, to support that mode of thought is a hugely clear indicator of that stage of disconnect from the greater whole.

 

How can it be exclusive when it demands a realationship? "Do not quit meeting together" it says.

And throw out any and all who don't comply. That's is abundantly there. The meeting together is for those who joined the membership, and that unity is not extended to those outside their group. That is very clear. You are "unsaved", "lost", "in darkness", in "sin" if you do not convert to the group. That is indisputable. that is also a failure to thrive towards that ultimate state of Unity. Unity through the sword, casting into hell, is only unity on the mythic-membership level, and no higher.

 

You are actually able to see above it to where that unity does happen. It's not through people converting, is it?

 

AM says, "Originally Christianity was more inclusive than its predecessors, which indicates a movement towards greater inclusiveness moving towards absolute inclusiveness. But they are stuck at the mythic-membership level. Unity is by joining the group. Not the group joining the All. It fails to work as a system towards that greater end anymore, in this context. They become as a result of placing dogma above God, a millstone around the neck of the human reach for "God", or Absolute Unity. "

 

the Door is narrow and wide is the path....

Do you take that as validating that the higher path is to deny inclusion? That the highest truth is to cut with the sword all those who don't comply to your groups views of truth?

 

You know, I could easily understand that as meaning that the highest levels of growth are the most difficult as it requires the death of your own sense of self. The majority of those in religion only ever attain group membership validations. I don't however consider it destruction in the sense of being thrown in a god's hate-furnace, but destruction of that path to the fulfillment of Love.

 

How well does that fit Christendom currently?

 

Regardless, I don't consider every point of view expressed in scripture to be definitive word on anything. Does it fit greater truth? Then it reflects it. Does it express lower states of mind? Then it reflects that. It's that simple.. unless your Ray or LNC, then you let it think for you and escape responsibility.

 

AM says, "And how are people like LNC or Ray who are steeped in Dogma as God going to see that? What relationship is that? With their Bibles?"

 

Expressly by you having a relationship with them, suffering yourself to know their experience, and to suffer the loss of pride, ego, etc within the universal natural system we live in, so that when the feel that they are "right", even when they might be wrong, they feel accepted and loved as HUMANS!

 

What else is God?

Don't get me wrong, I in fact do see them compassionately. I'm being hard on them to provoke a challenge to rise to a better state of mind. Arguing Bible verses is utterly beside the greater point. Didn't your Jesus in the Bible use a stick sometimes too?

[Guest end3]

Even in those areas of scripture itself that I would accept as having a higher mind (select areas I will qualify), it talks about you being the light of the world. Let your light so shine.... Now I could argue that this same thing is resonated in the practices of mystics the world over, that to connect with the Divine is to be transformed by it and that higher (or highest) level of being is manifest in the world through those with that state of consciousness. In that sense, it is not about you at all, as technically "you" are no longer "You", meaning your self-identity, but all inclusive of All. You for all purposes are God.

 

So you are arguing that the All has qualities, but it has no identity? This is a serious question. I would ask that you please elaborate if you could.

 

 

I guess I am at a loss for what you DO believe at the moment. Nameless qualities, but not an entity? An entity God, or none? God being a state of evolving formless global culture that will one day match these nameless qualities?

[Guest end3]

And throw out any and all who don't comply. That's is abundantly there. The meeting together is for those who joined the membership, and that unity is not extended to those outside their group. That is very clear. You are "unsaved", "lost", "in darkness", in "sin" if you do not convert to the group. That is indisputable. that is also a failure to thrive towards that ultimate state of Unity. Unity through the sword, casting into hell, is only unity on the mythic-membership level, and no higher.

 

Hold on there cowboy.....Jesus went healing if I remember by becoming known to people, identifying with their stuggles....to the point of death that they be loved. The unity is offered for everyone, to my recollection. This goes back to whether the action of higher self has a name, identity, etc.? That is why I asked you to please define where you stand. As I see it, a person still has to subscribe and do, to achieve higher self.......and again, achieve to what standard? What is higher self as opposed to lower self within the context that everyone has a different experience?

 

You are actually able to see above it to where that unity does happen. It's not through people converting, is it?

I see it now through relationships and validation of people where they experientially exist.

 

Do you take that as validating that the higher path is to deny inclusion? That the highest truth is to cut with the sword all those who don't comply to your groups views of truth?

 

How can you be inclusive if you don't subscribe to higher self? The choice of higher self is synonomous to accepting Christ except that Christianity defines Name and consequences.....perhaps mythical.

 

You know, I could easily understand that as meaning that the highest levels of growth are the most difficult as it requires the death of your own sense of self. The majority of those in religion only ever attain group membership validations. I don't however consider it destruction in the sense of being thrown in a god's hate-furnace, but destruction of that path to the fulfillment of Love.

 

How well does that fit Christendom currently?

 

I agree....it's like many are blind at the moment.

 

Regardless, I don't consider every point of view expressed in scripture to be definitive word on anything. Does it fit greater truth? Then it reflects it. Does it express lower states of mind? Then it reflects that. It's that simple.. unless your Ray or LNC, then you let it think for you and escape responsibility.

 

Truthfully, at the moment, I only see that suffering methodology as being universally valid. In other words, it won't help much to define where anyone is wrong within their experience.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I in fact do see them compassionately. I'm being hard on them to provoke a challenge to rise to a better state of mind. Arguing Bible verses is utterly beside the greater point. Didn't your Jesus in the Bible use a stick sometimes too?

 

Oh, you mean like hell.

[Antlerman]

Even in those areas of scripture itself that I would accept as having a higher mind (select areas I will qualify), it talks about you being the light of the world. Let your light so shine.... Now I could argue that this same thing is resonated in the practices of mystics the world over, that to connect with the Divine is to be transformed by it and that higher (or highest) level of being is manifest in the world through those with that state of consciousness. In that sense, it is not about you at all, as technically "you" are no longer "You", meaning your self-identity, but all inclusive of All. You for all purposes are God.

 

So you are arguing that the All has qualities, but it has no identity? This is a serious question. I would ask that you please elaborate if you could.

Does Love have an identity? Is Love an entity? "Hi there Love. What's that you say? Sure, I'll bring in the tithes so you will make my crops grow again. I know you were pissed off at me. I'm sorry." (Malachi 3:10)

 

The fact of the matter, to give the infinite any sort of name at all reduces it to less that that. The more beyond definition it is, the more it is.

 

I guess I am at a loss for what you DO believe at the moment. Nameless qualities, but not an entity? An entity God, or none? God being a state of evolving formless global culture that will one day match these nameless qualities?

Being Itself. What are moving towards? That.

 

And throw out any and all who don't comply. That's is abundantly there. The meeting together is for those who joined the membership, and that unity is not extended to those outside their group. That is very clear. You are "unsaved", "lost", "in darkness", in "sin" if you do not convert to the group. That is indisputable. that is also a failure to thrive towards that ultimate state of Unity. Unity through the sword, casting into hell, is only unity on the mythic-membership level, and no higher.

 

Hold on there cowboy.....Jesus went healing if I remember by becoming known to people, identifying with their stuggles....to the point of death that they be loved. The unity is offered for everyone, to my recollection.

1 Cor 16:22 "If anyone doesn't love the Lord, let him be condemned! May our Lord come!"

 

That's unity through group membership.

 

1 Jn. 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us."

 

That's also unity through group membership. Do you believe in our god? Then we love you!

 

I could find plenty more.

[Antlerman]

This goes back to whether the action of higher self has a name, identity, etc.? That is why I asked you to please define where you stand. As I see it, a person still has to subscribe and do, to achieve higher self.......and again, achieve to what standard? What is higher self as opposed to lower self within the context that everyone has a different experience?

Everyone has a different stage of growth. When you say "standard", that sound like some external rule. It's not. It's an internal state. What state is that? That's the question.

 

You are actually able to see above it to where that unity does happen. It's not through people converting, is it?

I see it now through relationships and validation of people where they experientially exist.

How are you able to see that? You had relationships with people before. Something else is going on. Something else opened a new perspective that allows you to understand things differently. Are you starting to see where I'm going? and furthermore, would you consider being more able to do this now a better state of mind, then when you viewed them in the context of how you read the Bible?

 

Do you take that as validating that the higher path is to deny inclusion? That the highest truth is to cut with the sword all those who don't comply to your groups views of truth?

 

How can you be inclusive if you don't subscribe to higher self? The choice of higher self is synonomous to accepting Christ except that Christianity defines Name and consequences.....perhaps mythical.

It is??? So you're saying you become Christ? You become God?

 

Don't get me wrong, I in fact do see them compassionately. I'm being hard on them to provoke a challenge to rise to a better state of mind. Arguing Bible verses is utterly beside the greater point. Didn't your Jesus in the Bible use a stick sometimes too?

 

Oh, you mean like hell.

No, I said a stick, not mindless, barbaric torture as incarnate evil itself.

 

I'm particularly fond of the story of Jesus flipping the money changer's tables. I cheer the act as it was directed at the religious. It speaks volumes. No, mostly I was thinking about his language towards the Pharisees. Ditto.

[Guest end3]

Being Itself. What are moving towards? That.

 

Again, I see very little purpose for an infinite, an all, that is without identification to those who are moving purposefully towards. If our existance is fulfilled/quenched as is, at any given experience level, then the entire thing is moot. Making the all an abstract doesn't seem pragmatic within an existance that are manifestations. Makes me think that part of the reason Jesus was here was for identifications sake.

[Guest end3]

Everyone has a different stage of growth. When you say "standard", that sound like some external rule. It's not. It's an internal state. What state is that? That's the question.

 

Growth to what end? A systematic end by default on earth. So we are discussing an internal state defining an abstract all....but yet a higher self, but higher has no scale....except infinite at the top......(but absolutely no infinite at the bottom).

 

 

How are you able to see that? You had relationships with people before. Something else is going on. Something else opened a new perspective that allows you to understand things differently. Are you starting to see where I'm going? and furthermore, would you consider being more able to do this now a better state of mind, then when you viewed them in the context of how you read the Bible?

 

Truthfully, I found it a mix of John 17:3 and Hebrews 10:2. I refer to it as the Holy Sprit working in my life.

 

It is??? So you're saying you become Christ? You become God?

 

That's a very tricky delineation. Actually I see the architect glorified through the structure.

 

 

No, I said a stick, not mindless, barbaric torture as incarnate evil itself.

 

I'm particularly fond of the story of Jesus flipping the money changer's tables. I cheer the act as it was directed at the religious. It speaks volumes. No, mostly I was thinking about his language towards the Pharisees. Ditto.

 

I was pokin at ya.

[Mister Pappy]

RAYSKIDUDE,

 

I will assume that since you haven't provided the proof we have been discussing, you have none. If I assume incorrectly, feel free to correct me. If I do NOT assume INCORRECTLY, this conversation results in establishing the following fact - If there is an intelligent source behind the universe, it can not and should not be assumed that this source is the God of the Bible. That being said, all statements made by those who continue to believe in this unproved theory, are not based in fact when accusing nonbelievers of rebellion and / or sins against the imagined biblical deity.

 

I recognize your silence as concession but will continue to lurk as you and others like you go about the business of pretending to have something worth saying. Good luck with your whimsical beliefs. I hope someday you outgrow such things and cause others only minimal pain in the process.

 

Pappy

[Antlerman]

Being Itself. What are moving towards? That.

 

Again, I see very little purpose for an infinite, an all, that is without identification to those who are moving purposefully towards.

I don't get your need to give it a name. Do you think gravity had very little purpose until it was given a name? You can give it a lot of names if you wish, but any name, such as God, now makes it a thing, an object, an entity, a creature, a being, an individual out there apart from you.

 

In a sense giving it a name that you can trying to process mentally makes sense if you are entirely stuck in dualistic thought. That All, that One, is the enfolding and unfolding of subject/object. Everything and Nothing. There are no divisions at the end and the beginning. This language fails to express it. What giving it a name does is to allow an interpretation downward to the rational mind in a system of transcendent symbolic forms. But that is not direct identification with. That direct identification is beyond symbols. It is simply beyond definition. The "unknowable" in the sense that it cannot be named.

 

Even your own Bible, in the more enlighted parts of it, uses that understanding borrowed from the Greeks in speaking of the Logos. The idea is that of a mediating agent revealing the unknowable God beyond comprehension, revealing, exposing, and making it known. But my point is that even your Bible agrees with what I am saying that it is beyond definition. That's how the Greeks came up with the mediating agent that reveals, or best stated manifests God. How does the Unknown become the known, the manifest world? What is that Agent of the Divine? Logos was the answer, and the writers of John identified their Jesus as that Agent.

 

So if one in fact has the mind of God, all identities, all manifestations are both enfolded and unfolding into what is both all and beyond all. It is beyond definition. It's a face, or a mask, versus Being Itself, to attempt to give it some sign for the sake of discussion only.

 

If our existance is fulfilled/quenched as is, at any given experience level, then the entire thing is moot.

This is interesting. This fulfillment or quenched state I understand. The thing about though is that we never stop there. It's inevitable that we now feel a new level to move towards, to grow towards. The funny thing is that as we reach for the Infinite, the Infinite is infinitely retreating from us. In other words, the Infinite is Infinite Infinite. Give that a name, if you can.

 

But it's not moot at all. It what everything moves toward. But the truth is, when that is fully aprehended, that is the End of all (and the beginning of all - fused and manifesting, enfolding and unfolding, Being and Becoming. What other words do you care for?

 

You see for me, everything expresses this, not just your one religion's theology, nor just the views of science, nor just the simple blade of grass, nor just the manifest cosmos. All. Exclusivist thought, or exclusivist theologies, blinds us to that. It blinds us to the other. It blinds us to our self. It blinds the world.

 

Making the all an abstract doesn't seem pragmatic within an existance that are manifestations. Makes me think that part of the reason Jesus was here was for identifications sake.

Making a mask we put on it that End in itself seems to be impracticable, a substitution for God itself. Do you use that symbol to take you to what is beyond it, or does it become the definition of it and the limits of it? You see, in a dualistic system there will always be separation by very definition. But my point is what are we reaching towards and growing from? Our Nature. How do you see that nature, realize that nature when it is always and ever not your nature? If we ourselves are manifestions of that, than isn't that our Nature? Aren't we the unfolding of the Divine?

 

You want the world to be static, but its not. Being and Becoming. That's how I symbolize it.

[DesertBob]

You want the world to be static, but its not. Being and Becoming. That's how I symbolize it.

Trying to understand the world is like trying to nail Jello to a wall. With a hammer made of Jello.

[Antlerman]

You want the world to be static, but its not. Being and Becoming. That's how I symbolize it.

Trying to understand the world is like trying to nail Jello to a wall. With a hammer made of Jello.

[oddbird1963]

You want the world to be static, but its not. Being and Becoming. That's how I symbolize it.

Trying to understand the world is like trying to nail Jello to a wall. With a hammer made of Jello.

. . . And with a Jello nail!

[Guest end3]

I don't get your need to give it a name. Do you think gravity had very little purpose until it was given a name? You can give it a lot of names if you wish, but any name, such as God, now makes it a thing, an object, an entity, a creature, a being, an individual out there apart from you.

 

I don't know that it makes that much difference other THAN the abililty to identify and recognize. God I expect, on earth, is limited to a human experience, or at least the knowing and description of....as I don't see nor understand how any other lifeform would know/identify, nor describe God. With that, the god concept seems to fill some idealistic role. A creation force of "unknownness/unnamed/nothingness" would seem to describe the default existance in that people expect that we came from something, and accessing that daily in some exercise doesn't have much meaning...or knowing that it is omnipresent to our existance seems rather common...kind of like looking at the earth, the sky, and saying, "yep, I came from this somehow". I feel as though you are placing the higher self with acknowledgement of this blank slate Force. I too acknowledge a creative Force as perhaps an infinite blank slate, but that does not satisfy the ever-present day feelings, the hatred, the success/failure issues, etc... So identification with "god" seems that it would need to adaquately answer these lackings in a way that communicates with the human experience. I just see no need for a god that has no value to humanity. It doesn't give me added value to presenting the blank slate Force as some special word, because all we have is a filled slate. The significance would be the contrast of the two....not the commonality...or there would likely be no "god".

 

In a sense giving it a name that you can trying to process mentally makes sense if you are entirely stuck in dualistic thought. That All, that One, is the enfolding and unfolding of subject/object. Everything and Nothing. There are no divisions at the end and the beginning. This language fails to express it. What giving it a name does is to allow an interpretation downward to the rational mind in a system of transcendent symbolic forms. But that is not direct identification with. That direct identification is beyond symbols. It is simply beyond definition. The "unknowable" in the sense that it cannot be named.

 

The point being, who cares? Yeah, there is the edge of the universe and maybe an unknown blank All out there blowing universe bubbles, but saying that connection with that outside the normal human experience, or saying that we are connected all the time, is really beside the point. I think most people readily accept that on a yeah, that's a given. The duality IS the interesting point, the inquiry, that drives our necessity to know something other than status quo.

 

So if one in fact has the mind of God, all identities, all manifestations are both enfolded and unfolding into what is both all and beyond all. It is beyond definition. It's a face, or a mask, versus Being Itself, to attempt to give it some sign for the sake of discussion only.

 

That's fine, but why would IT not have an understanding nor purpose for our manifestation in IT's creation? The fact that we have spiritualness, expressly, regardless of the evolution thereof.

 

This is interesting. This fulfillment or quenched state I understand. The thing about though is that we never stop there. It's inevitable that we now feel a new level to move towards, to grow towards. The funny thing is that as we reach for the Infinite, the Infinite is infinitely retreating from us. In other words, the Infinite is Infinite Infinite. Give that a name, if you can.

 

I have felt "quenched" a few times in my life...mostly worldly, but also Spiritually.....there does definately seem to be a duality and one does definately feel better than the other. So I don't know how you extract yourself from the dual nature. I think your own experience verifies this to my recollection.

 

But it's not moot at all. It what everything moves toward. But the truth is, when that is fully aprehended, that is the End of all (and the beginning of all - fused and manifesting, enfolding and unfolding, Being and Becoming. What other words do you care for?

 

I don't deny your description.....I actually agree, but one would think the process would have some meaning or value to humanity especially if we are derived for awarness.

 

You see for me, everything expresses this, not just your one religion's theology, nor just the views of science, nor just the simple blade of grass, nor just the manifest cosmos. All. Exclusivist thought, or exclusivist theologies, blinds us to that. It blinds us to the other. It blinds us to our self. It blinds the world.

Well, the differentiation for me would be that with awareness, one would think that this would be a uniqueness tied to a necessity for the awareness trait to begin with. I mean, what is the point of awareness if it is nothing more than a blade of grass? To my knowledge, a blade of grass does not give a rat's rear whether there is a god or not. And if it comes from some creative blank Force, the wouldn't that force understand what was spewing from is Force? So I guess that I am arguing for either a creator with a purpose or no creator at all. I mean, there could be a blank force, but who really give a shit.

 

Making a mask we put on it that End in itself seems to be impracticable, a substitution for God itself. Do you use that symbol to take you to what is beyond it, or does it become the definition of it and the limits of it? You see, in a dualistic system there will always be separation by very definition. But my point is what are we reaching towards and growing from? Our Nature. How do you see that nature, realize that nature when it is always and ever not your nature? If we ourselves are manifestions of that, than isn't that our Nature? Aren't we the unfolding of the Divine?

 

NO, NO, NO, you can't now claim a dual nature that we are reaching from and going towards.....as that is the whole point, the two are not the same.....there is immature and lower self, and mature, higher self......dualistic.

 

You want the world to be static, but its not. Being and Becoming. That's how I symbolize it.

 

The propsition is that someday it will be static in love. Your own Being and Becoming is a dualistic thing with life and death the very point, yet you don't assign a purpose to our manifestation of the Force.....and this doesn't make any sense with then assigning words like higher self to a nominal coming and going of this force. Which makes god within the human experience absolutely meaningless. I have science to tell me such.

[Antlerman]

I too acknowledge a creative Force as perhaps an infinite blank slate, but that does not satisfy the ever-present day feelings, the hatred, the success/failure issues, etc... So identification with "god" seems that it would need to adaquately answer these lackings in a way that communicates with the human experience.

And therein lies the rub! An anthropomorphic deity, such as one that has traits like jealousy, anger, wrath, apocalyptic judgments, etc., one that sits on a throne and hands out answers to children's requests like a candy-doling super-daddy, no longer does that notion adequately answer questions that communicates with the human experience in a Rational world! It was fine, and productive, and useful, and arguably necessary when we were in the process of building our world that we inhabit as conscious human beings through language and culture. But that notion of God, that mythology-God, is insufficient. Just look at the Evolution-Deniers like Ray. That God, his mythology-deity, is unable to incorporate knowledge, is unable to help people "know god in the world"! He has to deny that knowledge because that God in fact is inadequate to communicate the human experience which now is beyond relating to the world through myth symbols. Is that as clear as I hope it is?

 

I just see no need for a god that has no value to humanity.

And that's why churches are emptying all over the place. I agree.

 

It doesn't give me added value to presenting the blank slate Force as some special word, because all we have is a filled slate. The significance would be the contrast of the two....not the commonality...or there would likely be no "god".

"Blank slate Force" is a creation of your own. I've never used that language, nor would. I suppose if I had to try to say something like that I would say an undifferentiated All. But that would be as the Ground, not the Goal. It would be that Ground that is our prior nature, not our fulfilled nature.

 

The point being, who cares? Yeah, there is the edge of the universe and maybe an unknown blank All out there blowing universe bubbles, but saying that connection with that outside the normal human experience, or saying that we are connected all the time, is really beside the point. I think most people readily accept that on a yeah, that's a given.

These are thoughts that don't have any semblance to mine.

 

The duality IS the interesting point, the inquiry, that drives our necessity to know something other than status quo.

Now I've never said duality is bad, but I am saying that what drives us is to be united with that prior nature in a fulfillment of that nature in a fully differentiated self, and to become that Self. Fully Realized Self. United with, becoming That. If we stop at Me/God, then how is that prior nature fully realized?

 

So if one in fact has the mind of God, all identities, all manifestations are both enfolded and unfolding into what is both all and beyond all. It is beyond definition. It's a face, or a mask, versus Being Itself, to attempt to give it some sign for the sake of discussion only.

 

That's fine, but why would IT not have an understanding nor purpose for our manifestation in IT's creation? The fact that we have spiritualness, expressly, regardless of the evolution thereof.

What is the purpose of Love?

 

So I don't know how you extract yourself from the dual nature. I think your own experience verifies this to my recollection.

By becoming Godhead.

 

Actually, as I've been saying, the more our awareness is grown, less divisions we see, the more integration we see. The more connected we become. Keep that direction going all the way up to the point of Everything. And if there is no division, that that is ONE. Where is there a dual anything in that?

[Antlerman]

I mean, what is the point of awareness if it is nothing more than a blade of grass? To my knowledge, a blade of grass does not give a rat's rear whether there is a god or not. And if it comes from some creative blank Force, the wouldn't that force understand what was spewing from is Force? So I guess that I am arguing for either a creator with a purpose or no creator at all. I mean, there could be a blank force, but who really give a shit.

Again, "blank force" is completely something in your mind that you imagine I'm thinking.

 

A blade of grass doesn't have the level of consciousness we do, so questions about its nature are completely moot. In fact it has no awareness of self in any manner whatsoever. It just simply responds to the environment. But I will argue that awareness in one form or another exists in everything - in no way does that mean a rock "thinks" however. It is so dim as to be indistinct in any real way. But what we call "consciousness" is something that emerges out of the depth of all that is, and is manifest in us as humans in varying degrees of depth, just as it is in all animals with developed brains. Humans are not some isolated special mud-man put into a garden distinct and different than the rest of the world. He is emerged from that garden as a conscious being that is building the world in his image in pursuit of becoming God. That "purpose" if you wish to assign one, is simply the nature of Being, to Become, in how I tend to view things.

 

I have extreme difficulty imagining this One, to be some guy on a chair in the sky with a blueprint in his hand, mapping out destinies and designs, and whatnot. We are simply, and profoundly, emerged expressions of that very Nature. That's how I see it.

[Guest end3]

The duality IS the interesting point, the inquiry, that drives our necessity to know something other than status quo.

Now I've never said duality is bad, but I am saying that what drives us is to be united with that prior nature in a fulfillment of that nature in a fully differentiated self, and to become that Self. Fully Realized Self. United with, becoming That. If we stop at Me/God, then how is that prior nature fully realized?

 

Well, I am going to ponder this more, as it seems to be the significant statement of the post, but I am also going to respond now with my initial thought, potentially kneejerkish.

 

It sounds like you are saying that we are on a journey that presents our childish perfection in an adult, fully-experience nature that fullfills a predestined journey by the unfolding of our role in the ground being. If this is anywhere close, then I assume you are saying that any book or instructional mechanism is somewhat limiting and acts against the unfolding or maturation of differentiated self.

 

So if one in fact has the mind of God, all identities, all manifestations are both enfolded and unfolding into what is both all and beyond all. It is beyond definition. It's a face, or a mask, versus Being Itself, to attempt to give it some sign for the sake of discussion only.

 

Believe it or not, I haven't closed my mind to this thought.

 

Actually, as I've been saying, the more our awareness is grown, less divisions we see, the more integration we see. The more connected we become. Keep that direction going all the way up to the point of Everything. And if there is no division, that that is ONE. Where is there a dual anything in that?

 

Well for once in a time, I think this has been a productive post. FYI, it wasn't without some suffering on this end. I think it avails itself to many questions though...that I don't have the energy to ask at the moment, but you know me, I shall.

 

Good job though K. Often times I am glad you have the stubborness not to quit the conversation and leave both sides "less unified". Thanks.

[Guest end3]

Again, "blank force" is completely something in your mind that you imagine I'm thinking.

 

I was just trying to give it some symbolic name that I could identify with. Keep your shirt on.

 

I have extreme difficulty imagining this One, to be some guy on a chair in the sky with a blueprint in his hand, mapping out destinies and designs, and whatnot. We are simply, and profoundly, emerged expressions of that very Nature. That's how I see it.

 

I would never have guessed.. I feel as though I have a better idea of what you are describing, and I think to see your point, but I will have to weigh it in my noggin and see where the obvious faults are....lol. Good stuff. If nothing more, it is a conversation that fulfills....and that is worth alot. Thanks again.

[Antlerman]

The duality IS the interesting point, the inquiry, that drives our necessity to know something other than status quo.

Now I've never said duality is bad, but I am saying that what drives us is to be united with that prior nature in a fulfillment of that nature in a fully differentiated self, and to become that Self. Fully Realized Self. United with, becoming That. If we stop at Me/God, then how is that prior nature fully realized?

 

Well, I am going to ponder this more, as it seems to be the significant statement of the post, but I am also going to respond now with my initial thought, potentially kneejerkish.

 

It sounds like you are saying that we are on a journey that presents our childish perfection in an adult, fully-experience nature that fullfills a predestined journey by the unfolding of our role in the ground being.

I realize you're processing this and this is just a first stab at it, but I'll correct a few things in this. I don't believe any of it is any sort of predestined journey. We could just as well collapse, and may in fact very well do just that in this process of evolution. It is not centered around humans doing this, we are just what emerged that is in fact accessing that on a higher level. There is no plan that has "us" in mind, only that we are magnificently aware! That is wondrous to become that.

 

It is also incredibly painful. It was the philosopher Plotinus who said so well, "Mankind is poised midway between the gods and the beasts." It is that anxiety, that sense of self, of our mortality, in the face of conscious thought and apprehension that propels us in all our projects to resolve our nature; some looking up, others look back. We are a marvelous manifestation of this Nature, but all is. That we can look upon it, understand it, recognize it, move towards it, become it, is an incredible, and terrifying thing. "We are poised midway between the gods and the beasts."

 

If this is anywhere close, then I assume you are saying that any book or instructional mechanism is somewhat limiting and acts against the unfolding or maturation of differentiated self.

No, actually no, I would not say that. It's all part of our unfolding consciousness. We have used these things in ways that helps create the necessary structures in order for us to ponder further, to explore deeper into these realms. But it is important to recognize the nature of them, that they are not the Answer, but the answer for this moment in time, at that stage, and even more for that group at that moment of time, at that stage. They all, no matter what they are contain supporting truth, as well as the negatives. You cannot have one without the other.

 

It is an error to imagine that a thing must be either all true, or is all false.

 

So if one in fact has the mind of God, all identities, all manifestations are both enfolded and unfolding into what is both all and beyond all. It is beyond definition. It's a face, or a mask, versus Being Itself, to attempt to give it some sign for the sake of discussion only.

 

Believe it or not, I haven't closed my mind to this thought.

There's a reason I esteem you above your brethren.

 

Actually, as I've been saying, the more our awareness is grown, less divisions we see, the more integration we see. The more connected we become. Keep that direction going all the way up to the point of Everything. And if there is no division, that that is ONE. Where is there a dual anything in that?

 

Well for once in a time, I think this has been a productive post. FYI, it wasn't without some suffering on this end. I think it avails itself to many questions though...that I don't have the energy to ask at the moment, but you know me, I shall.

 

Good job though K. Often times I am glad you have the stubborness not to quit the conversation and leave both sides "less unified". Thanks.

Boy, oh boy, can Paul and Ray learn from you. I respect how you approach your beliefs. Your heart is married to something far greater than your ideas, your beliefs, and theologies. A huge deal to be said here.