Hi My Name Is Aaron And Im A Christian How Are You Today/nite/morning/afternoon?

[Antlerman]

you've just made an assertion that this 'heterarchy' exists; that the spiritual realm transcends the mental realm, which transcends the physical realm. don't you need objective evidence to support an assertion like this? and how can you provide objective evidence utilizing only subjective experience?

I don't have much time to respond now as I'm at work, and after all, I do have things I need to do today here. For the moment I'm going to have to attempt to clarify something as indeed it sounds contradictory. When I say the spiritual domain transcends the mental, a far better way to say it is the transrational domains, or the transpersonal. In that, there is greater spiritual awareness. But as I said before which you cited that spirituality, or spirit, is experienced in a heterarchical way, is true. I call the transrational as the spiritual as there is greater depth. It is a higher realization of its nature, and as such it is far more immanently realized, at least I say that at this moment, loosely.

 

You can think of it like rationality. Rationality does exist in mythic thinkers. It's just that its not the dominant mindset or 'average-mode consciousness' through which they see the world. For a modern man for the most part, it is. They see the world as a rational affair, and much less controlled by unseen supernatural beings. In transrationality, the average mode of conscious mind sees the world as far more fluid and interconnected in how that mind relates itself to reality and reality to itself; it recognizes the porousness of reality in how it existentially relates itself to the world and self. As such it has that more dominant experience of the spiritual, as the spiritual is both before and after egoic mind, unbounded to objects and minds, sensed and experienced in all that is. So the transrational then is experientially different than rationality, as rationality is experientially different than mythic mind, etc. Moving up historically (and developmentally): Magic mind transcends archaic mind; Mythic mind transcends Magic mind; Rational mind transcends Mythic mind, and so on. The point of those is a way to categorize the dominant features of each of those stages, even though clearly rationality has existed long before the Age of Reason itself.

 

Is there "objective evidence to support this"? Well, what do you mean by "objective"? Is there evidence to support this? Sure. Just as there is evidence to support the stages of childhood development. But if you don't accept how that is arrived at observationally, then none of this will matter to you either and this discussion is over. I would say there are lots of ways that this is valid understanding of these things based on psychology, archeology, anthropology, ethnology, myth studies, and a hole slew of 'soft sciences', but if you only want "hard objective evidence" such as seeing a "thought tree" in the forest, good luck with that. But then that expectation of what evidence should look like is unrealistic and self contradictory. It is a model, a pretty darned good one, that is based on observation and experience to form theories around. Are these hard immutable facts? Of course not. Neither is anything in the mental domains, such as logic and philosophy and psychology and sociology, etc. Again, once you move above the relatively simple world of physics, things get a tad bit more porous. When you get to the spiritual, or transrational domains, well... reality takes on a whole new light to it. The world of reason to a squirrel looks pretty magical and supernatural too, even though it isn't supernatural at all.

 

All I'm intending to say in this is that understanding the nature of spiritual experience has got to take into account much more than just a rationalistic, outsider observation from a limited perspective. The Christian in his myth world sees the rationalist as wrong, the rationalist sees the Christian as wrong. Both however are right, and neither are, just as I am right and not as well. It's all perspectives.

[lunaticheathen]

well thanks for the inspiration i will post a new topic about how i was an unbeliever and came to Christianty a personal story when i get the chance. I used to be just like you guys. happy without God. I only had resentment becuase i got hurt just as many of you have, there many reasons people change, But i was an unbeliever by logically reading the bible, many things didnt make sense and people couldnt give me answers. again ill go in detail when i share my testimony.

 

Honestly, this thread is a TL;DR kind of monster, but I felt I had to address this.

 

While the majority here are atheist/agnostic, I am not. Therefore, you were NEVER like me. Ever. I've never been atheist. But I am still an ex-Christian. And even when talking to atheist/agnostics, it's really really REALLY condescending to pull out the "oh, I was just like YOU" line. "Ex-Wiccans" do it to me all the damn time to try to get me back to Jesus, even though I was never Wiccan - Afro-pagan, not Wiccan, slightly different. And by that, I mean, entirely.

 

So, I know how the "I know where you are" line feels. It feels dishonest and shitty. Don't use it. You're not anyone else, you're you. No one else.

[mymistake]

well thanks for the inspiration i will post a new topic about how i was an unbeliever and came to Christianty a personal story when i get the chance. I used to be just like you guys. happy without God. I only had resentment becuase i got hurt just as many of you have, there many reasons people change, But i was an unbeliever by logically reading the bible, many things didnt make sense and people couldnt give me answers. again ill go in detail when i share my testimony.

 

Honestly, this thread is a TL;DR kind of monster, but I felt I had to address this.

 

While the majority here are atheist/agnostic, I am not. Therefore, you were NEVER like me. Ever. I've never been atheist. But I am still an ex-Christian. And even when talking to atheist/agnostics, it's really really REALLY condescending to pull out the "oh, I was just like YOU" line. "Ex-Wiccans" do it to me all the damn time to try to get me back to Jesus, even though I was never Wiccan - Afro-pagan, not Wiccan, slightly different. And by that, I mean, entirely.

 

So, I know how the "I know where you are" line feels. It feels dishonest and shitty. Don't use it. You're not anyone else, you're you. No one else.

 

Somewhere in the Too Long part DJ3K waved the white flag. He is going to protect his precious spirit from our evil thoughts. But I enjoyed watching you tell him off anyway.

[lunaticheathen]

Somewhere in the Too Long part DJ3K waved the white flag. He is going to protect his precious spirit from our evil thoughts. But I enjoyed watching you tell him off anyway.

 

Awe, well, let that post be a warning to other evangelistic christards.

 

And thanks.

[Antlerman]

AM, I find your reasoning regarding validation of subjective experiences fascinating. "Free-for-all" is exactly how I view quite a few religious reports, especially from faiths that fail the Turing test I describe above. The experiences you describe, like those some people on this site have had, just don't seem like they fall into the same category as a fundie saying God told him he hates gays or an eclectic New Ager who thinks he can make astral war upon the SomethingAwful goons who insulted his favorite webcomic. Can you help me understand what makes an experience peer-reviewed? How do you assess a claim about a spiritual experience?

All of it happens in the brain. It is wishful thinking that there is some other dimension when one has to enter into meditation (altered brain states) to "connect".

Your understanding is poor. Of course all of it happens in the brain. Duh. So does the love you experience with your wife. Yes, through altered states of conscious one is able to see and realize things that are otherwise clouded by the debris that fills our conscious minds in our average waking thoughts. Is it another dimension, like some magical 5th dimension in some mysterious physical plane, the plane where ghosts and otherworldly entities hide and play with us from the realms beyond? Only if that means something to you. I however don't think in such mythological terms as you are in imagining it that way. No, it is simply opening the mind in ways to see the world of reality in ways that are normally blocked by our own minds. In doing this, all you are doing is learning to see past the crap in your head that you call reality. It offers insight that leads to a transformed mind and life. It's nothing supernatural. It's reshaping your mind.

 

Imagine a world without myth, or illusions created by these mental models you call reality. Imagine awakening from sleep. It's like that.

 

IMO spirituality is just another excuse for nothing and those that seek other paths of enlightenment, well good for them but that does not prove any of it is real.

Real in what sense? The mythic realms are real place you astral project your way off to, touching and seeing literal gods and ghosts? Don't be silly. Is the experience of reality radically transformed? You bet your sweet ass it is! Ask me. Is it some supernatural world? Of course not. Not any less magical and less amazing than the awe and spectacular wonder of the universe as you see it. Just imagine it even more so. Imagine being all that in yourself. That's what this big "all in your brain," so-called "wishful thinking" business that you imagine it to be reducible to is.

 

In defence of their beliefs, folk often erect strawmen they then dismantle. You really cannot describe fantasy with "materialistic" tools. If mere thoughts and preponderance of reality is what spirituality means, then I have no need for it. Special pleading for "something else is out there, you just gotta believe or have faith" is just special pleading.

See? You describe it in mythological terms "out there". It is "all where". In you, in the world, in all that is and ever will be. No special pleading, no strawmen, no faith in beliefs. Just experience.

 

A little more open mind is a good thing.

[Akheia]

End, seriously, don't be a twat. You failed, and your final hurrah is implying that you have salvation whereas I obviously do not. Threats of hellfire, End? Really? I thought you were better than to resort to that gambit every defeated Christian has ever tried. You see, there is no salvation for either of us; you aren't exactly a sterling example of love and grace, and I doubt Christ would want someone like that at his eternal House Party. There is none for me because there is no hell anyway--that's one of the Bible's tenets that can be very easily morally and objectively debunked. The entire concept of "salvation" is just a way for you to threaten people who don't believe in your Magic Sky Daddy like you do when you run out of anything useful to add. I'm not sure how long slapping you around is going to be interesting for me, so please pay attention here:

 

I laid out a two-prong approach to judging a religion's claims: subjective and objective. Your faith makes the huge mistake of making a lot of objective claims along with the usual subjective claims every religion makes. Christianity is unlike a lot of religions in that it makes these huge numbers of objective claims and then claims to be the ultimate truth and threatens sentient beings with eternal suffering if they don't fall in.

 

I'm happy to judge religions subjectively--by one prong--as long as they don't make big demands. I'm pretty live-and-let-live that way. I may not believe that way, but hey, the believer is happy and not threatening me with Hell if I don't believe. Christianity makes really whoa-nelly big demands, so I judge it by both prongs. Indeed, it is our responsibility as thinking humans to hold the Bible to the ultimate high standard if it makes the ultimate high claims. If it really was written by an almighty God, then obviously its scientific and historical claims should hold up, right? At least some of them (the ones you prefer thinking of metaphorically rather than literally, in this case, End), right? But none of them do. Not a single one. The Bible itself even talks about false prophets and sets up parameters for judging whether a prophet is real or not. ALL of its history and science fail. ALL of its claims that can be tested fall down. So this cannot be the almighty word of an almighty God who wants to communicate his ultimate truth to humankind. We must look elsewhere for ultimate truth than in this very flawed, human document.

 

NONE OF THAT PRECLUDES YOU HAVING SPIRITUAL FEELINGS. IT JUST MEANS THAT THERE'S NO WAY THAT JESUS IS THE SOURCE OF THEM. I put that in all caps because you keep fucking missing the point, End. I know it's tough to follow my long posts, and appreciate you sticking with it, but I never, ever, ever said your spiritual feelings weren't valid. I just see no reason whatsoever to accept the Bible as a valid religion based upon its own claims and merits. But I do not in any way deny the feelings you have or say they're not valid. I think there's something for you to explore there. One thing I can say: despite every single thing you say to the contrary, you don't really believe in Hell or in Christ; if you really thought there was a hell, you sure as hell wouldn't be acting this way to anybody, much less toward a non-believer whose disbelief is only bolstered by your belligerence and incapacity for reason. If there really were a Christ, his spirit would be so thick inside you--a true believer after all--that you wouldn't be capable of anything but love and grace. I see none of that in you, and you know what? I don't mind. I'd rather you be you, warts and all. I hate to admit this, but I'm starting to like you.

 

To continue this convo, please stick to the thread, okay? Let's talk a little about how you know a religion is false, without resorting to circular reasoning (ie, without saying "Well, it isn't Biblical"). If someone came up to you and said "HEY END, this is the real truth, this is the real deal, here's our holy book and it's totally written by our god, who talks to us all the time you know and does sneaky non-verifiable miracles too, and if you don't believe in this totally non-Christian religion and renounce Christianity you are going to be fucked up the ass by a red-hot knife held by demons FOREVER" (that's what a previous Christian threatened us with, IIRC)! So totally join us and get baptized in ketchup or you'll get the knife for eternity!"

 

How do you assess their claims? How do you decide "oh no that can't be right" when they've got a holy book that is just as factual (which is to say not at all) and just as old as yours, and a threat of torment if you don't fall in? What if they're right and you're wrong? How do you decide? Now let's add a kink in the wire: what if their holy book actually did accurately depict history and science and yours did not? How would that affect your assessment of that faith? That's what I'd love to hear from you. I don't think most Christians really apply that kind of critical thinking to their own faith, and I wonder if you're up to the request.

[LivingLife]

Yes, through altered states of conscious one is able to see and realize things that are otherwise clouded by the debris that fills our conscious minds in our average waking thoughts

Why does one need to alter consciousness to see what you see? LSD would probably do the same thing and that is not real. Not that I would know as the hardest stuff I used was pot.

Is it another dimension, like some magical 5th dimension in some mysterious physical plane, the plane where ghosts and otherworldly entities hide and play with us from the realms beyond? Only if that means something to you. I however don't think in such mythological terms as you are in imagining it that way.

 

In doing this, all you are doing is learning to see past the crap in your head that you call reality.

This is what I call constructing a strawman and then proceeding to demolish it - ergo QED.

 

No crap in my head, rational thinker and all.

Just imagine it even more so. Imagine being all that in yourself

Imagination has its purpose but more in a vision to develop something, if I have to imagine a non reality to somehow think it will make me a better person, this is no different to the xian spin. I don't need it, I never needed it and will never need it.

 

See? You describe it in mythological terms "out there". It is "all where". In you, in the world, in all that is and ever will be. No special pleading, no strawmen, no faith in beliefs. Just experience.

If this means introspection, we all have that ability, there is no need for labelling it as anything else.

 

Are my emotions some sort of spirituality? Not really. We all have emotions and all can sense stuff like love as you alluded to. However love of a real person is tangible.

 

The bottom line is that the spiritual folk always take well defined words in the language and try redefine/assign them to mean something else i.e. god is love - no silly love is love and we grow up learning what that is (usually) and it becomes a second nature. It all still happens in the brain. Why was I attracted to my wife - a brain interpretation of what beauty is. Then we became friends and later morphed into love.

 

Even these experiences to me are unique, they are not all the same for everyone. Some folk are swept off their feet.

 

If all these intangibles fall under the title of spirituality, I dunno. Seems superfluous to me.

[asanerman]

 

Edit: Where's the emoticon for runs face first into wall, throws tantrum on floor, pulls hair out, slams penis in door.

 

Sorry Saner, I failed again. damn-it.

 

Pardon me end but IMO you are not failing you're simply punishing yourself for something you think you're missing.

 

All the self induced pain I lay on myself--the heavy duty fearing that I'm bad and hoping that one day I'll be good, the identities that I so dearly cling to, the rage, the jealously and the addiction of all kind--never touch my basic need to be whole and alive--undivided.

 

For more than half my life my praxis was avoidance. How do I stop the needless pain and suffering.

 

My praxis shifted when I realized that the reason I'm not often there for others--whether for those closest to me, or someone who I feel is insulting me or someone who is frightening-- is that I am not there for myself.

 

I was and still am too busy escaping the wisdom of no escape-- "bitch slapping" myself and all that is within sight!

 

I found in praxis that which would allow me to stop shielding and protecting my "soft spots" (I'm not talking about genitalia here). Praxis that would allow me to relate compassionately with that which I prefer to push away. Praxis that would allow me to give away that which I hold most dear and find more to give and hold.

 

My "peer review" encourages that I chose a practical application of a theory, or an art, a science or skill that "transcends and includes" all the ingredients of my life, an "integral spirituality" (Wilber)

 

The essential nature of things in IMO, to borrow a word for Lao-tzu,

 

....is like a bellows:

it is empty yet infinitely capable,

The more you use it, the more it produces;

the more you talk of it, the less you understand,

 

Hold on to the center.

~Tao Te Ching

 

If that's a little "far out." I know the symbolism is a little weak and the dualism a little heavy. I can live with it! I have nothing to prove, no excuses!

 

I've got good reason to think that what "peer review" (thanks Aman) suggests makes waking up each day worth the effort.

 

Show yourself a little tenderness end. You'll be amazed at how much tenderness you can give away when you find you have it for yourself!

[Akheia]

My praxis shifted when I realized that the reason I'm not often there for others--whether for those closest to me, or someone who I feel is insulting me or someone who is frightening-- is that I am not there for myself.

 

This was beautiful.

[midniterider]

AM, I find your reasoning regarding validation of subjective experiences fascinating. "Free-for-all" is exactly how I view quite a few religious reports, especially from faiths that fail the Turing test I describe above. The experiences you describe, like those some people on this site have had, just don't seem like they fall into the same category as a fundie saying God told him he hates gays or an eclectic New Ager who thinks he can make astral war upon the SomethingAwful goons who insulted his favorite webcomic. Can you help me understand what makes an experience peer-reviewed? How do you assess a claim about a spiritual experience?

All of it happens in the brain. It is wishful thinking that there is some other dimension when one has to enter into meditation (altered brain states) to "connect".

 

IMO spirituality is just another excuse for nothing and those that seek other paths of enlightenment, well good for them but that does not prove any of it is real.

 

In defence of their beliefs, folk often erect strawmen they then dismantle. You really cannot describe fantasy with "materialistic" tools. If mere thoughts and preponderance of reality is what spirituality means, then I have no need for it. Special pleading for "something else is out there, you just gotta believe or have faith" is just special pleading.

 

Thoughts? You have thoughts? Prove it. Thoughts absolutely do not exist or occur. Show me these thoughts. Thoughts are totally subjective and imho special pleading. Thoughts are some fool's religion. Thoughts do not stand up to the scientific method. Sure, I can repeat the same thought over and over, but I have absolutely no evidence whatsover to share with the public proving that these thoughts ever occurred. Thoughts, in the end must be woo. :-)

 

Brainwaves and other physical brain activity can be measured, sure. But not thoughts. Nor awareness.

[LivingLife]

Thoughts are mere actions of the brain. We transcribe our thoughts or articulate them and they are taken on merit as being valid, good or BS. They are also, if you will, the result of a thinking brain.

 

I am no expert on the brain and or psychology but when it walks like a duck....

 

Again this is erecting a strawman and demolishing it. I did delve relatively deep into the reason behind all this brain shit and came away with the conclusion is whatever happens that is not real we simply have the ability to make shit up for whatever reason and the brain makes it real.

 

My thought processes deal with real stuff, if I need to understand something that I cannot figure out, i research and form a conclusion. I have never seen ghosts or any of that "otherworld" stuff. It is the same reason I give no credence to meanings of dreams, other folk will do their damnedest to understand and/or interpret dreams.

 

Nowadays I have dreams, I vaguely remember then they disappear to irrelevance. I have vivid memories of dreams as a young teen as back then my brain was still developing. For some reason, the brain decided to keep a record.

[Antlerman]

LivingLife, before I decide when to respond in detail, I will just comment, you certainly have a very fixed view of reality with your reasoning mind. I wonder if you thought so clearly about truth when you were a Christian as well? I remember as a fundi Christian I thought it was all so clear and factual as well, with God's Holy Word to tell me the bounds of truth and reality. A buddy of mine from Bible college said to me after he also deconverted, "I am so glad I have the truth now!" I chided him, "I remember us saying the same thing back when we were in Bible school!" He retorted in sincerity, "But the difference is, now I really DO have the truth". Do you feel that way same way too now? That now the difference is you really DO have the truth?

[Akheia]

I don't trust anybody who says he has a handle on the real truth. It's embarrassing as I look back at my life and see how many times I thought I now had the REAL truth--and didn't. So far everybody I've ever heard say that has been totally wrong--not just mistaken, but flat-out wrong. I've been a lot more ginger with my spiritual searchings since those days. It's a lot easier to show that something is not the truth than to assert something else absolutely is. Then again, the burden of proof is a lot harder in the latter case. Maybe the truth is, as Opus said, that we are born, get older, eat a lot of ice cream, and die. Maybe that's all there is. I don't feel at all threatened by considering that as a possible option for spiritual truth. It's just another avenue to think about. Just because I really want there to be more doesn't mean there is. And that's okay.

[LivingLife]

LivingLife, before I decide when to respond in detail, I will just comment, you certainly have a very fixed view of reality with your reasoning mind. I wonder if you thought so clearly about truth when you were a Christian as well?

Please tell me you are not playing the no True Scotsman card here?

I remember as a fundi Christian I thought it was all so clear and factual as well, with God's Holy Word to tell me the bounds of truth and reality. A buddy of mine from Bible college said to me after he also deconverted, "I am so glad I have the truth now!" I chided him, "I remember us saying the same thing back when we were in Bible school!" He retorted in sincerity, "But the difference is, now I really DO have the truth". Do you feel that way same way too now? That now the difference is you really DO have the truth?

What is truth?

 

I have seen and used coercion in my woo daze, I know how it all works now. So perhaps from that standpoint, yes I have exposed the lie.

 

What I see are the same catch phrases, you must have faith, you must open your mind up to other realms or reality and you are using them and not perhaps aware how obvious and similar they are to the xian spin.

 

To put it another way, I first have to learn your language to understand and/or comprehend. If this spiritual stuff were real in anyway, it should be able to transcend my scepticism - no?

 

Perhaps I was doomed from the get go as even after falling for the con, my rational mind just would not shut up plus I was raised or rather educated with a secular bias. Religion was a home thing and the bits I was exposed to at school were just other woos in school. Pretty ironic as the CoE still played a role as far as xian belief went but assemblies were no more than lip service to the norms of the day.

[Antlerman]

LivingLife, I have the clear perception you have your mind closed to this like a steel trap, so regardless of the actual content of what I would offer to help you understand the differences, you will just go ahead and make surface comparisons and conclude as you will. In which case there's no point in making an effort to clarify anything with you. I will say for the record however that I am to say the least easily as rational minded as you. I went from an I have the Truth! fundamentalist Christian, to a rationalist, reductionist, materialist atheist easily your equal, to someone who finds that rationality has its limits and is at best a partial way of understanding, interfacing with, and actually living life (pun intended).

 

So as much as it may seem a tempting target to shoot down what I say as anti-rational, good luck with that. On the other hand, if I am mistaken in my perception of you and you are genuinely interested how a quite rational person as myself finds legitimacy in this and why in my personal history I find it personally far deeper and more rewarding than my Scientism period of rationality, without going the path of "woo" as you are fond of emotionally slapping on anything not rationalistic (inherent irony there), then please ask and I'll be happy to discuss. Otherwise, your position is understood clearly. I have no interest to convince you otherwise.

[Guest end3]

To continue this convo, please stick to the thread, okay? Let's talk a little about how you know a religion is false, without resorting to circular reasoning (ie, without saying "Well, it isn't Biblical"). If someone came up to you and said "HEY END, this is the real truth, this is the real deal, here's our holy book and it's totally written by our god, who talks to us all the time you know and does sneaky non-verifiable miracles too, and if you don't believe in this totally non-Christian religion and renounce Christianity you are going to be fucked up the ass by a red-hot knife held by demons FOREVER" (that's what a previous Christian threatened us with, IIRC)! So totally join us and get baptized in ketchup or you'll get the knife for eternity!"

 

How do you assess their claims? How do you decide "oh no that can't be right" when they've got a holy book that is just as factual (which is to say not at all) and just as old as yours, and a threat of torment if you don't fall in? What if they're right and you're wrong? How do you decide? Now let's add a kink in the wire: what if their holy book actually did accurately depict history and science and yours did not? How would that affect your assessment of that faith? That's what I'd love to hear from you. I don't think most Christians really apply that kind of critical thinking to their own faith, and I wonder if you're up to the request.

 

Well, let's try. I would assume we would want an accepted methodology that produces the same results each time......accuracy and reproducibilty for our data .

Also, we would want a couple of independent standards and a sample of the matrix we are trying to measure to verify if our method starts to drift.

 

I will submit to your expertise in this area. Please don't forget the quality control on the reagents.

[Akheia]

That actually made me chuckle. Thanks, End. So what DO you think about how one goes about assessing a religion's validity without resorting to circular logic? I've asked it a couple times, and don't want to seem like I'm hammering you, but you keep fidgeting out of answering anything solid. Do you realize how bad that looks for your position? You're the one who thinks that your religion is the "correct" one, as you said a while ago. So you should be able to tell me how without having to call upon the authority of the selfsame holy book that is saying it's the correct religion. I'm genuinely curious about why you seem so certain of this but apparently reject other faith systems that aren't nearly as barbaric but which also have all the subjective features of your religion--without the added detriments of making the claims the Bible makes and sees refuted so neatly. You do know there are lots of other religions out there that'll make you feel very fuzzy but won't ask you to be something you're not, right?

[Guest end3]

That actually made me chuckle. Thanks, End. So what DO you think about how one goes about assessing a religion's validity without resorting to circular logic? I've asked it a couple times, and don't want to seem like I'm hammering you, but you keep fidgeting out of answering anything solid. Do you realize how bad that looks for your position? You're the one who thinks that your religion is the "correct" one, as you said a while ago. So you should be able to tell me how without having to call upon the authority of the selfsame holy book that is saying it's the correct religion. I'm genuinely curious about why you seem so certain of this but apparently reject other faith systems that aren't nearly as barbaric but which also have all the subjective features of your religion--without the added detriments of making the claims the Bible makes and sees refuted so neatly. You do know there are lots of other religions out there that'll make you feel very fuzzy but won't ask you to be something you're not, right?

 

I would like you to take what I have written and "move" that into history, archeology, science. In other words, what is, perhaps, the archeological equivalent to two independently prepared standards? For example, if we use a Roman historian in our analysis, how can we be certain of his truthfulness, his purity, HIS quality and methods to be used for OUR "analysis"? And then let's pick a question and run it through the instrument for analysis. You pick.

 

I'm not figiting. Let's do the science. I'll try desparately not to go Bible on you. How's that? And no circles.

 

I'm just all giddy with excitement about this endeavor.

[Guest end3]

Edit: Where's the emoticon for runs face first into wall, throws tantrum on floor, pulls hair out, slams penis in door.

 

Sorry Saner, I failed again. damn-it.

 

Pardon me end but IMO you are not failing you're simply punishing yourself for something you think you're missing.

 

All the self induced pain I lay on myself--the heavy duty fearing that I'm bad and hoping that one day I'll be good, the identities that I so dearly cling to, the rage, the jealously and the addiction of all kind--never touch my basic need to be whole and alive--undivided.

 

For more than half my life my praxis was avoidance. How do I stop the needless pain and suffering.

 

My praxis shifted when I realized that the reason I'm not often there for others--whether for those closest to me, or someone who I feel is insulting me or someone who is frightening-- is that I am not there for myself.

 

I was and still am too busy escaping the wisdom of no escape-- "bitch slapping" myself and all that is within sight!

 

I found in praxis that which would allow me to stop shielding and protecting my "soft spots" (I'm not talking about genitalia here). Praxis that would allow me to relate compassionately with that which I prefer to push away. Praxis that would allow me to give away that which I hold most dear and find more to give and hold.

 

My "peer review" encourages that I chose a practical application of a theory, or an art, a science or skill that "transcends and includes" all the ingredients of my life, an "integral spirituality" (Wilber)

 

The essential nature of things in IMO, to borrow a word for Lao-tzu,

 

 

 

....is like a bellows:

it is empty yet infinitely capable,

The more you use it, the more it produces;

the more you talk of it, the less you understand,

 

 

Hold on to the center.

~Tao Te Ching

 

If that's a little "far out." I know the symbolism is a little weak and the dualism a little heavy. I can live with it! I have nothing to prove, no excuses!

 

I've got good reason to think that what "peer review" (thanks Aman) suggests makes waking up each day worth the effort.

 

Show yourself a little tenderness end. You'll be amazed at how much tenderness you can give away when you find you have it for yourself!

 

I'm going to study this sir, but sounds like you and I have alot in common. What I need is simple words, a mechanism, that tells me how. It makes sense to me when I can go from A to B. In other words, I don't understand what it means to be kind to myself. Relaxing for me is tearing someone a new one. You see? The defense is still in control.......not always, but sometimes, like when the trigger gets pulled. I will respond this evening. I appreciate your efforts. sincerely.

[Guest end3]

Let's see, no lie detectors back in the day. and still not admissible today.

 

Hmm, we still use 12 people to decide one persons guilt or innocense.

 

Probably can't actually place the Roman historian at the scene....probably no fingerprints on the paper, which is a moot point because we don't have his fingers....ahaahahahaha

 

And what if he was having a bad day? The wife was bugging him for a new castle......and wasn't giving him any until he got some slaves lined up to build. Or maybe the dragon had a flat, crap who knows.

 

So what do we have, some paper? Some stories.....accounts?

 

Again, I'm going to have to defer.

 

God, I love science.

[Guest end3]

All dressed up and no dance partner? Where'd she go sheriff?

[florduh]

..........

"Much to do about nothing?"

 

florduh,

 

I wonder if this all this is what lead to the usage of koan (paradoxical anecdote, or riddle, used to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment)?

 

..............

 

Practice not-doing,

and everything will fall into place.

 

~from

Tao Te Ching

 

What-ya think?

 

By doing nothing, everything gets done.

- Book of Runes

[Guest end3]

..........

"Much to do about nothing?"

 

florduh,

 

I wonder if this all this is what lead to the usage of koan (paradoxical anecdote, or riddle, used to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment)?

 

..............

 

 

Practice not-doing,

and everything will fall into place.

 

~from

Tao Te Ching

 

What-ya think?

 

By doing nothing, everything gets done.

- Book of Runes

 

You think this is similar to the little old lady that sits in the pew smiling at you. She never says much but you are sure she is moral. And then she never lectures you, but you end up doing the right thing because of her?

 

And do you think that is similar to God watching humanity learning to do the right thing?

 

Seems reasonable to me.

[florduh]

You think this is similar to the little old lady that sits in the pew smiling at you.

No, that little old lady is a slut.

[asanerman]

..........

"Much to do about nothing?"

 

florduh,

 

I wonder if this all this is what lead to the usage of koan (paradoxical anecdote, or riddle, used to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment)?

 

..............

 

 

Practice not-doing,

and everything will fall into place.

 

~from

Tao Te Ching

 

What-ya think?

 

By doing nothing, everything gets done.

- Book of Runes

 

You think this is similar to the little old lady that sits in the pew smiling at you. She never says much but you are sure she is moral. And then she never lectures you, but you end up doing the right thing because of her?

 

And do you think that is similar to God watching humanity learning to do the right thing?

 

Seems reasonable to me.

 

Seems what!

 

But hey, you're only 25 days into Lent, that is if you exclude Sundays!

 

Hope things work out for you end!