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

[raoul]

Hi Aaron,

My name is Raoul and I can spot bullcrap a mile away. The very first thing that is a turnoff is when you people use the term 'unsaved'. How freaking arrogant!

 

The second thing that turns me off is poor English and/or spelling as your essay shows.

 

Now don't forget to run back to church, on Sunday, and testify, ie: brag, about how your've reached the 'lost' to satiate your ego.

 

Sorry for the harsh tone Aaron but I've been there, done that, and threw up over it.

[blackpudd1n]

Okay Antlerman, I have some questions. I have remained silent over the last few pages of this thread, desperately trying to get my head around the terms and concepts that you have written about, but quite frankly, I don't think it's fair for you to use such terms and concepts without adequately explaining them. And there is no point, either, in me trying to research some of them, because you said yourself that you don't use some of these terms the way that they are commonly used. I don't think that it is fair to exclude others like myself from dialogue by using terms and concepts that I can't possibly know or understand, because I can't even be sure which ones you are using in their common usuage, nor within which field for a starting reference point for research.

 

So here are the terms, phrases, and concepts that I would like you to explain in your own words, so that I can understand fully just how you are using them:

 

-Transrational

-Transpersonal

-"average mode of consciousness"

-magic mind

-archaic mind

-mythic mind

-rational mind

-astral projection

-egoic self

-egoic identification

-ego

-self identity

-"existential shift in perceptual awareness"

"mental phenomenological world"

 

And finally, I saved these three for last, because I have an extra question regarding these:

 

-reductionist

-materialist

-rationalist

 

Regarding these last three, I would like you to also explain why these three words are commonly used as a slur against atheists.

 

Thanks,

 

Pudd

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi Aaron,

My name is Raoul and I can spot bullcrap a mile away. The very first thing that is a turnoff is when you people use the term 'unsaved'. How freaking arrogant!

 

The second thing that turns me off is poor English and/or spelling as your essay shows.

 

Now don't forget to run back to church, on Sunday, and testify, ie: brag, about how your've reached the 'lost' to satiate your ego.

 

Sorry for the harsh tone Aaron but I've been there, done that, and threw up over it.

 

Hi Raoul, welcome to this site! You won't have had time yet to see from this now enormous thread that Aaron dropped out long ago.

 

Antlerman, Living Life and others - I am very interested in the recent discussions, and like Pudd and others I'm still a bit in the dark about some of what's being said. I am also apprehensive, quite frankly - does my happy, contented life as an atheist for the last decades turn out to be just another illusion, given that I'm not meditating or seeking spiritual knowledge that is accessible only via certain types of yoga or other practices? I had thought, one person has his/her experiences, I have mine, so let's focus on what is intersubjectively accessible via evidence and reasoning... but I'm getting a sense from A-man that there's a whole category of evidence that is closed off to me unless I make a huge change in my life and become a yogi, as my father urged me to do more than forty years ago.

 

But if there is no reincarnation, and once you're dead, you're dead, why should I devalue my experiences and stop doing lots of things so as to make room in my life for meditation at the level that will eventually lead to visions and revelations? On the other hand, if there is reincarnation, how is the "me" going to be the same "me" without the same body and life narrative (I know there's another thread on this).

 

I'm very confused.

 

Anyway, I think this recent direction in the conversation is so different from Aaron's original post that it ought to become a new topic somewhere. Antlerman and Living Life, I hope you both continue. I'm learning... though I'm not sure I know where this is going.

 

Aman, I'm very sorry, but I do have to agree with others that there' seems to be a gap to me between what I take to be your experiences and what I take to be metaphysical positions of yours, which don't seem to be the outcomes of inner experience but of philosophy (a long tradition in India and, in some forms, in Greece, for starters...) I know you've tried to explain the connection. Maybe like Pudd I'm not getting all your language. Of course, I have a great capacity to make the simple complicated for myself.

[Guest end3]

Well. Thank you for clarifying that you still refuse to answer the question. I'm stubborn, but I don't see any way you and I are going to be able to communicate. You evade questions, redefine everything you can, refuse to open up, and then have the balls to suggest anything to the contrary. I want you to know that I see through your childish, coy attempts to be evasive. I see through your act. But you have given me too few reasons to care about yet another Christian sheep who must be dragged kicking and screaming through debates. Au revoir. Enjoy your mad god and insane fake religion, with my compliments. I'm done.

 

Good morning sunshine. I guess I don't know what you are asking. Let me try another approach as science doesn't seem to be the ticket. I assess a religion, very basically, if it tenets work in my life in concert with my goals.

 

How's that. You ought to be able to get the answer you are looking for from that.

 

So let's say it's purely subjective. So why would we use objective analysis as evidence for assessment?

 

Don't quit now, my religion hates divorce.

[MrsRoper]

I agree with ficino and Pudd. I am enjoying the direction this conversation has taken, even though I don't quite understand it all. I do believe that daily meditation is a powerful tool for people to clear their minds and gain some clarity and peace. I am not exactly sure it is spiritual, but I do see the practical benefits. It makes me want to try it again, it's a very hard discipline for me as I have racing thoughts and it makes me very uncomfortable. The closest I've been able to come to seeing the benefits is when I practiced yoga regularly. By the end of the class my mind wasn't racing and I felt some clarity.

 

Antlerman, I know you covered some of your spiritual practice in the ex-Christian spirituality forum, but I am interested in understanding what you practice & how you got there. Maybe this conversation gets derailed because I, like some here I believe, get really caught up in the word spiritual. Maybe if we could define that in a way that makes it more palatable to some of us Exers. I no longer understand how to define "spiritual" having felt so abused by spiritual people. The closest I can get to when pressed is to say, "I believe all humans are connected, all living things on this earth really. And that we have a responsibility to each other and to the planet." People look at me like I am bonkers when I say shit like that.

 

And maybe we can link to a new thread like ficino suggested & leave this sacred space for Aaron's second coming.

[MrsRoper]

Double post

[Antlerman]

Okay Antlerman, I have some questions. I have remained silent over the last few pages of this thread, desperately trying to get my head around the terms and concepts that you have written about, but quite frankly, I don't think it's fair for you to use such terms and concepts without adequately explaining them. And there is no point, either, in me trying to research some of them, because you said yourself that you don't use some of these terms the way that they are commonly used. I don't think that it is fair to exclude others like myself from dialogue by using terms and concepts that I can't possibly know or understand, because I can't even be sure which ones you are using in their common usuage, nor within which field for a starting reference point for research.

Thank you for the points you raise. Yes, I'm happy to discuss these with you and clarify since you ask. In all fairness, yes I realize I should probably try to put these things into some language to help describe them better. I get the concepts and it's too easy to take those as shortcuts to what they speak of. I'll take this a challenge to try to explain them better. By all means, I'm more than willing to discuss them with someone willing to discuss. I just can't handle the "Strawman", blah, blah, blah, 'I'm dismissing you' stuff. I'll do my best here and we can take it from there....

 

So here are the terms, phrases, and concepts that I would like you to explain in your own words, so that I can understand fully just how you are using them:

I'll reply to each term you listed:

 

-Transrational

 

This has to do with understanding the average mode of consciousness within which we relate to and interface with the world. Obviously transrational means beyond rational. But what that means is that whereas historically we may have had our general awareness of how we relate to the world in a magical mode of thought (that the world is connected to us through invisible threads that we are somehow able to manipulate); then at another point in our development our average mode of consciousness was seated in a mythical world view (that outside agencies, the gods as an example, manipulate and control the world for us and our role is to try to relate to them and through them to our world we live in); then at another point in development we are seating in a rationalist world view (that the world is interfaced with through our reasoning facility, the rationality and logic, etc, the Age of Reason).

 

Here's the trick. Each and every one of these stages of our development, both as individuals and historically as a species, views their present way of see the world as the *real* reality, and all previous modes as 'wrong'. None of them can see themselves as they are embedded in it, see reality from inside it. Only until they move beyond it, can they see it. The mythic mind is 'transmagical', the rational mind is 'transmythical', transcending yet including into the new level what came before it. So transrational then is seeing the world beyond the average mode consciousness of a rationalistic lens through which we understand reality. It incorporates rationality into itself, but goes beyond magic, beyond mythic, beyond rationalistic. What that is exactly is what we can hope to try to discuss reasonably if you wish.

 

 

-Transpersonal

 

Sort of the same as a above, but it has to do with the locus of our self-identity. In development we are born fused to the world, undifferentiated from the mother and the world. There is no sense of self anywhere. As we develop, we first awaken to a sense of self in our individual body. Our self awareness is that I have a body, this is my body, that is not. We bite our hand and it hurts. We bite a blanket and we don't feel it is it 'not me'. This is 'bodyself'. Then we begin to differentiate further and see ourselves more and more as individuals with likes and dislikes, my toys, his toys, my friends, her friends, my parents, etc. We identify uniquely with our family group. This is the ego, the 'self' emerging, which in development moves outward in every widening circles, from family to groups, to communities, to religions, to nationalities, etc. It is all a process of differentiation. Ego development is about ever lessening ego-centrism, culminating in Maslow's Self Actualized Individual. The fully mature ego. The ego, is how we identify ourselves as 'me'. It is a mental construct, a self-view.

 

Transpersonal, or transegoic, is to be able to step beyond that locus of self identification, in ever widening higher identification with the world, with the universe, an ultimately as God. Not just simply 'one with God', but God itself. And beyond God. God beyond God, and so forth. This is the conscious mind transcending the confines of a rational framework of self identification, mentally and existentially. This is the spiritual domains of self-realization. The Buddhists call it the Self, with a capital letter. Very true. Very real.

 

-"average mode of consciousness"

 

Oh shit! I used the term above without explaining. OK, you'll have to go back and read that again after this explanation. I think I touched on it a little that it means the mean way of looking the world. All humans historically possess rationality for instance. But the average mode of relating to the world with the conscious mind is through a different structure, a different framework through which we hang the mental symbols of the world upon. All mental experience is a symbolic reality. All of it. But the way those symbols are hung varies. Someone viewing the world as controlled by gods in a mythic structure can and will in fact use reason and logic. But it is not the general structure that creates the filter through which they see the world. Their average mode is mythic. Same thing with Magic. Same thing with Rationality. There is nothing whatsoever negative about these. It's just simply a matter of appropriate contexts and their ability to function within that. Does this help?

 

 

-magic mind

-archaic mind

-mythic mind

-rational mind

 

I think I covered this earlier. Let me know if you need further clarification.

 

-astral projection

 

Well, I think I used that more as hyperbole, but it has to do with a historical way of talking about a different sort of perceived so-termed 'realm' that people would enter into. I can't recall which ancient philosopher it was who coined the term. In altered states (regardless of the medium used, meditation of LSD, or whatever), the mind can transcend or break free from its embeddedness in those mental structures to enter into other states of consciousness - the subconscious, the ground conscious, archaic conscious, emergent conscious, absolute conscious. These are all areas of mind that we normally do not interface with through our waking, verbal conscious mind. But they are definitely there and interacting and influencing us from within. They are not other to us, but us ourselves. Those so-called 'astral planes' are a dimension of mind that becomes quite revealing, quite interesting when entered into with the conscious mind. You can call them the planes of the gods, if you wish.

 

Remember our minds are symbolic minds. We inherit the use of symbols through our evolution. In this part of the mind, symbols are less 'this worldly representitive', but Archetypal. They represent our own self-sense, beyond body, beyond mental egoic structures, into higher form, our ultimate existential self-sense. God. Astral projection then, is essentially moving out of those internal symbolic structures into a different sense of self beyond them. You 'leave' the body, so to speak - of course not actually.

 

I'll quote someone I highly respect talks indirectly talks about this somewhat. Get what is meant by archetypes here:

 

"But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. ... By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate'. At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype."

 

Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pg. 85

 

-egoic self

-egoic identification

-ego

-self identity

 

I hope those got clarified above. I can return to this if you need me to.

 

-"existential shift in perceptual awareness"

 

Your entire framework through which you not only see, but experience life itself.

 

 

-"mental phenomenological world"

 

Within the domain of mind, there are structures and objects we relate to and interpret which are distinctly not material objects, nor necessarily representative of them. The color Red for instance doesn't exist. It is how we interpret what we experience with the mind, and call it an object "red". Add to this values, intentionality, hopes, dreams, etc. These are mental phenomena. As such, they must be approached and dealt with directly in dialog. They go beyond mere objects to look at.

 

And finally, I saved these three for last, because I have an extra question regarding these:

 

-reductionist

-materialist

-rationalist

 

Regarding these last three, I would like you to also explain why these three words are commonly used as a slur against atheists.

Reductionism and materialism denies the higher domains, such as mind or spirituality. It believes philosophically that only the sensory-motor world, that which we can touch with the five senses is the only true reality. Anything and everything can be understood by using reason and empiric-analytic methodologies.

 

Why this is often a derogatory term, I'm guilty of using it that way myself, is because it is perceived as arrogance and irrationality. It dismisses from a religious/philosophical mindset all other modes of reasonable knowledge in favor of a single, gutting methodology that strips all humanness and color out of living life. It is arrogant and irrational because it claims science like the Holy Bible, whereas in reality no true science goes beyond just its subset of understanding the world. It is the defunct Positivism and Scientism latched onto in popular culture as the true messiah. I find it mind-numbing. Note, this does not disparage reductionism as a methodology in actually doing science, but as a philosophical leap beyond science.

[Ouroboros]

Personally, I think the idea that spirituality as a "higher" domain to be wrong. It's an equal domain to me. And "transrational" is rather to the side of rational, not above. Like a brother, or twin, not a parent or boss. But when it doubt, a conflict of them two, rational mostly have to win out. So if anyone of them has to be above, then ration is the higher domain.

[Antlerman]

Personally, I think the idea that spirituality as a "higher" domain to be wrong. It's an equal domain to me. And "transrational" is rather to the side of rational, not above. Like a brother, or twin, not a parent or boss. But when it doubt, a conflict of them two, rational mostly have to win out. So if anyone of them has to be above, then ration is the higher domain.

I appreciate the point you raise. I admit the term spirituality as a higher domain is not quite true. Certainly, absolutely, someone can experience spirituality and be a spiritual person in a rational space, a mythic space, a magic space, and an archaic space. I tried to detail this in my response to Owen earlier in this thread.

 

Where I wish to clarify though that transrational is legitimately not 'along side' the rational. Rational again is the 'average mode consciousness' I'm referring to. What is along side rationality is the non-rational experience - which spiritual experience can be understood as. Transrational would be a stage of development like rational is a stage of development. Non-rationality, the spiritual as well, is likewise along side the transrational.

 

As a footnote, where spirituality is often confused as irrational, is that it is viewed in the prerational stage of development, the mythic and the magic. In reality it exists in all stages of average mode consciousness. I very much as a rationalist atheist had a spiritual heart. Very much so. Atheism has nothing to do with ones spirituality or lack thereof! In fact.... I would say it can be a higher experience of spirituality than that of the mythic-believer. Why? Because it includes rationality!

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, Living Life and others - I am very interested in the recent discussions, and like Pudd and others I'm still a bit in the dark about some of what's being said. I am also apprehensive, quite frankly - does my happy, contented life as an atheist for the last decades turn out to be just another illusion, given that I'm not meditating or seeking spiritual knowledge that is accessible only via certain types of yoga or other practices?

I don't mean to make you feel that you're "living a lie", in speaking of illusions. That's a general way to speak about the difference between living life in a semi-dream reality and waking up to see the nature of what really is. 99.999% of humans, myself included, live in illusory reality. This is not the same as buying into a con-job. Don't worry about it. It's meant to provoke challenging your own assumptions about the world. It provokes new ways to look at things and realize it not a black and white world - as tempting as that is for most to want to believe.

 

I had thought, one person has his/her experiences, I have mine, so let's focus on what is intersubjectively accessible via evidence and reasoning... but I'm getting a sense from A-man that there's a whole category of evidence that is closed off to me unless I make a huge change in my life and become a yogi, as my father urged me to do more than forty years ago.

Well... I can say that from personal experience. Not to worry, you're perfectly normal. Nothing wrong with you. However, this is in fact a whole world that there is only one way to 'get', and that is direct experience. No amount of metaphysical modeling can possibly impart that knowledge. There's no way anything I can say that will every get anyone to "see it". No way. However, it is a way to try to talk about it, and as such peak curiosity and perhaps a personal desire to 'look within'. It's only in that act you will see it. No other way. It's 100%, absolutely your own path. Not mine. Not anyone else's.

 

Obviously more knowledge adds more insight, changes perception, changes experience. That's a no-brainier.

 

BTW, believe me, I don't ever go beyond where I feel I'm ready. Nor should you. You guide yourself.

 

But if there is no reincarnation, and once you're dead, you're dead, why should I devalue my experiences and stop doing lots of things so as to make room in my life for meditation at the level that will eventually lead to visions and revelations?

I don't believe in reincarnation, and I do believe when I die, I die. I make room for meditation because it enhances every single aspect of my life. I live. I happier, clearer, more centered, more grounded, stronger relationships, more enjoyment in work, peaceful, compassionate, grateful, etc., not just simply states, but in living life. And there was nothing wrong with me before. it's just about richness and depth in living and being. It's whatever you feel a thirst to drink. Not to scare you, but imagine touching the mind of "God". Imagine simply being, beyond all things, and that is how you experience life. It is life awake.

 

On the other hand, if there is reincarnation, how is the "me" going to be the same "me" without the same body and life narrative (I know there's another thread on this).

Rejoice in your life narrative, your life text, the same as you would rejoice in the body. But know that you are more than those.

 

I'm very confused.

Don't be. Be at peace.

 

Aman, I'm very sorry, but I do have to agree with others that there' seems to be a gap to me between what I take to be your experiences and what I take to be metaphysical positions of yours, which don't seem to be the outcomes of inner experience but of philosophy (a long tradition in India and, in some forms, in Greece, for starters...)

I do tend to try to talk in philosophical and metaphysical models, and I've been encouraged by others to simply speak from that place inside me instead, poetically if need be. I think I'm started to get that a little clearer now from what you're saying. Absolutely I experience this place and it's not just a belief structure.

 

I know you've tried to explain the connection. Maybe like Pudd I'm not getting all your language. Of course, I have a great capacity to make the simple complicated for myself.

I'm going to try speaking more simply. The difficulity is in trying to bridge the gap in communicating the reasonablness of this to a rationalistic worldview. They want explainations. it need to not violate reason. That's why it gets so damned technical, whereas in reality, you know what it is?

 

I hear a bird chirping. It fill the world. It is all there is.

I breathe air into my lungs, I exhale light and life and love in gratitude.

I smile at the light in another's eyes.

I am alive

I exhale.

Life.

 

It is 'just this'.

[Antlerman]

I agree with ficino and Pudd. I am enjoying the direction this conversation has taken, even though I don't quite understand it all. I do believe that daily meditation is a powerful tool for people to clear their minds and gain some clarity and peace. I am not exactly sure it is spiritual, but I do see the practical benefits. It makes me want to try it again, it's a very hard discipline for me as I have racing thoughts and it makes me very uncomfortable. The closest I've been able to come to seeing the benefits is when I practiced yoga regularly. By the end of the class my mind wasn't racing and I felt some clarity.

Hi DM. I'm going to try not being so technical for awhile now and after Finco helped raised my awareness to that. Yes meditation can be challenging at first because you're asking your mind to not do something you ask it to do all day! All it knows is keeping busy processing junk. They key to is being gentle with yourself at all times. Just tell yourself you're only temporarily suspending thinking about those things, then you can get back to it later. Much better and more effective than getting frustrated. It's about learning yourself. Soon, with practice, it because easy to move into meditative states. They are always beneficial in countless ways.

 

Antlerman, I know you covered some of your spiritual practice in the ex-Christian spirituality forum, but I am interested in understanding what you practice & how you got there.

The 'how I got there' could be long and detailed. What I practice is pretty much a self-guided sitting meditation. I meditate one hour every day first thing in the morning following waking up with a cup of tea (a green Japanese Sencha). I do this before work or engaging the mind in daily activities. I may use various methods and means as aides to help in meditation, really depending where the mind is at that day. The deepest places are always in complete silence.

 

As for the 'spiritual' component of it, there are different experiences you will have in it. I'm thinking to have you read this brief explanation on line I'll link you to. The key is understanding the two basic types of meditation: concentrative, and insight meditation. I practice a combination of both, but predominantly Insight meditation. In the link where I go in meditation the majority of the time is in the Subtle Level, and more regularly lately into the Causal Level. The benefit of this, is well, almost beyond describing. In a word, transformation. Here's the link: http://integrallife....view-ken-wilber

 

Maybe this conversation gets derailed because I, like some here I believe, get really caught up in the word spiritual. Maybe if we could define that in a way that makes it more palatable to some of us Exers.

Because it's not grounded in mythical external gods, but an inner transformation of our own very spritual nature. it is getting to know ourselves in ways normally hidden to us. I increases the fulness of life in ways beyond description. In does not violate reason and science, but embraces all truth in energetic longing for truth.

 

Why it's called spiritual is because it is more direct awareness of that nature in us through increasing the conscious awareness of the mind. Chisel that in granite. I think that's the best way I've described it so far.

 

I no longer understand how to define "spiritual" having felt so abused by spiritual people. The closest I can get to when pressed is to say, "I believe all humans are connected, all living things on this earth really. And that we have a responsibility to each other and to the planet." People look at me like I am bonkers when I say shit like that.

I look at you as brother to say that. Wonderful.

 

And maybe we can link to a new thread like ficino suggested & leave this sacred space for Aaron's second coming.

I think the rapture came and Aaron got "left behind"

[Akheia]

AM: I think I'm starting to understand a little better. Thank you for taking the time to define the terms Pudd asked--it helped me out a lot too. I was thinking you were talking about some religious thing, and I was having a lot of trouble with the ideas. But now it seems like you're saying that religions are a mental shorthand like "energy" in scientific equations is shorthand for an idea, a concept.

 

It seems like people can get along just fine without a deeply mystical worldview, though I know as well how centered I feel and how much more connected with others I seem when I meditate and try to be mindful, as Buddhism teaches. If mysticism is superfluous, then I'm perfectly content with people not wanting any part of it. It doesn't seem to me that pure rationalism is right or wrong. But I'd like to explore it.

 

So what about religions that are flat-out harmful or patently ridiculous (Scientology, fundamentalist Christianity, Heaven's Gate)? What is going on with them--what's the disconnect happening? If we always think our own situation is the real reality, then how would one break free of that to see with open eyes what's really going on?

 

Thanks

[LivingLife]

Seriously?  You didn't read my post in reply to you?  Then I should assume you're not interested in dialog.  Carry on in your beliefs happily then.  But then stow your criticisms of something you don't bother to understand.

 

P.S.  I took the time I did to explain out of respect to you.  Clearly that respect was misplaced.

 

Translation. I cannot defend my POV so I dismiss the poster - seems awful like a fundie no?FYI, this editor is spewing out HTML code and I have no desire to work around the code even though I understand it.I did post the detailed reply as I had it saved in another forums editor.In the future, please do not respond to my comments unless I actually cite you. My entrance was not even aimed at you, just me passing a general POV. When you want to debate, lemme know. I have plenty of time on my hands.

[Antlerman]

AM: I think I'm starting to understand a little better. Thank you for taking the time to define the terms Pudd asked--it helped me out a lot too. I was thinking you were talking about some religious thing, and I was having a lot of trouble with the ideas. But now it seems like you're saying that religions are a mental shorthand like "energy" in scientific equations is shorthand for an idea, a concept.

I think my next major growth area will be brevity and clarity. My greatest challenge yet! I think I would clarify that metaphysics and theologies are basically mental models for trying to grasp something beyond its own structures. Religions may have these, but I don't think that defines all that religion is. More on this in a moment.

 

It seems like people can get along just fine without a deeply mystical worldview, though I know as well how centered I feel and how much more connected with others I seem when I meditate and try to be mindful, as Buddhism teaches.

Major agreement. I'd suggest reading that link on mediation I just posted in the last post. It's this plus more the deeper you go. And its all wonderful.

 

If mysticism is superfluous, then I'm perfectly content with people not wanting any part of it.

Well, I most definitely can be called a mystic. It's again, really how deep you wish to go. I describe myself as like a duck walking across the desert for 30 years to one day hit the Ocean. Once I touched the water, I dove straight down hundreds of feet. Now, it's just learning life in that Ocean. There's no judgement. It's all what we wish to be in life.

 

So what about religions that are flat-out harmful or patently ridiculous (Scientology, fundamentalist Christianity, Heaven's Gate)? What is going on with them--what's the disconnect happening? If we always think our own situation is the real reality, then how would one break free of that to see with open eyes what's really going on?

They're a mess. I'm going to link you now to an older topic I started that might help you put something into some useful categories. The problem we always run into here is that we conflate all things spiritual and religious as one giant stew pot. That is really not valid. Here's that topic for you to look at: http://www.ex-christ...at-is-religion/

 

BTW, I love civil discourse! Big thanks.

[Antlerman]

Seriously? You didn't read my post in reply to you? Then I should assume you're not interested in dialog. Carry on in your beliefs happily then. But then stow your criticisms of something you don't bother to understand.

 

P.S. I took the time I did to explain out of respect to you. Clearly that respect was misplaced.

 

Translation. I cannot defend my POV so I dismiss the poster - seems awful like a fundie no?

Wow. This is why I won't talk with you. Read your attitudes. They stink. Bye.

[Antlerman]

Correction, I don't mean attitude. It's the lack of discussion. It's taking everything I say in discourse and making it same damned logic fallacy in order to dismiss the content. I have no issue with challenges. I do with those who don't engage in dialog. Not interested in further banter.

[LivingLife]

You should move this into your "safe" domain of spirituality if you do not want atheists challenging your lame assertions - I don't go in there but I will counter your "shit" here as this is the Lions den and you have to be able to suck it up or go where it is safe.

 

Your actions are uncalled for and this I will challenge you as you have come across just as I asserted, arguing w/o a foundation and pretending your make believe world is somehow related to reality. You deserve no better than other xian trolls.

 

Are you hiding b/c you cannot answer or b/c I actually explained what the problem was my side and managed to get the reply in three posts.

 

My internet connection was out for 3 hours or so and that could have caused my quotes to go all screwy.

 

I just got pissed at you as you obviously did NOT read my long response then tried to paint as some evil grinch. So much for your spirituality and 'peaceful' Buddhism

 

If you do not like my assertions say so but f**k you too if insults is all you are capable of at this juncture. I can be polite and I can be a dick.

 

WTF is your problem with me? I have avoided you in the past as you seem to be overly sensitive, but fuck it, you do not own this site.

 

I think others will vouch that I am usually calm and collected but this bullying tactic was actually echoed to me by another poster that came to the same conclusions. You are NOT a frigging angel and that is why I told you to get off your high horse.

 

Atheists will not shaddup just b/c you take offence to our POV. [/rant]

[Akheia]

To my knowledge, Ex-C isn't just for atheists.Dangit. How do you embed youtube videos? I see you guys all doing it.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I don't believe in reincarnation, and I do believe when I die, I die. I make room for meditation because it enhances every single aspect of my life. I live. I happier, clearer, more centered, more grounded, stronger relationships, more enjoyment in work, peaceful, compassionate, grateful, etc., not just simply states, but in living life. And there was nothing wrong with me before. it's just about richness and depth in living and being. It's whatever you feel a thirst to drink. Not to scare you, but imagine touching the mind of "God". Imagine simply being, beyond all things, and that is how you experience life. It is life awake.

 

 

Beautiful. And thank you for your considered response.

[Antlerman]

Ll its all in the manner you engage with me. You talk like an ass to me. So I don't respect you very much at all. You assign motives to me that are cheap bogus and offensive. I don't fear any of your supposed logic. So I simply refuse to talk with an ass.

[Mystery]

Bout sums it up.

[Akheia]

I am probably going to be AFK from this thread while I read the other links suggested, just FYI. I don't want to rehash old stuff too much. But so far so good. AM's not saying that mysticism is absolutely necessary to the human experience, but rather that it's another way of looking at things that he feels benefits him personally in how he views and interacts with the world and its denizens. I'm happy to explore that strange new world to see if it'll benefit me too.

 

Just remember: in de end, we all fruit.

[Guest end3]

I am probably going to be AFK from this thread while I read the other links suggested, just FYI. I don't want to rehash old stuff too much. But so far so good. AM's not saying that mysticism is absolutely necessary to the human experience, but rather that it's another way of looking at things that he feels benefits him personally in how he views and interacts with the world and its denizens. I'm happy to explore that strange new world to see if it'll benefit me too.

 

Just remember: in de end, we all fruit.

 

Apparently, unless we are an evil Christian. I'm glad someone's getting through to you.

[Thought2Much]

To my knowledge, Ex-C isn't just for atheists.

 

True, but it can be quite taxing for those of us who are agnostics/atheists to have other kinds of woo and spiritual nonsense pushed on us, and to be told that we're somehow limited in our thinking because we won't accept the self-induced "trips" that others are experiencing in their own heads and are insisting that this is somehow more real than what the rest of us experience. The woo that I've suffered with for the last couple of decades is quite enough, thanks. Just because this woo isn't Christian woo doesn't make it any better than any other woo. There is a good reason I don't go into the Ex-Christian Spirituality section, and it's so I don't have to read through long-winded passages of pseudo-intellectual blather about trans-what-ever-the-hell-it-is-woos-go-on-about.

 

On a tangential note, why do woos use the word prefix "trans-" so much in their phraseology? Does it make what is being said sound more important, or something?

[Antlerman]

So you are saying me talking about how I see these things constitues pushing them on you? How so? You would prefer to limit ideas to those that agree with you? Freethinking?