|
Post by stonerwolf on Oct 10, 2008 3:58:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by KG on Oct 10, 2008 20:02:05 GMT -5
I thought about taking this article line by line, and explaining where this guy is wrong at every turn, but as I read I realized that it wasn't worth the time it would take since it is so lengthy, and I have long given up on proving the existance of God. The proof of God means nothing... even if it were possible. The only meaningful way to prove the existance of God is by divine revelation, one individual at a time. People know in their heart that there is a god, whatever form they percieve him. her, them to be varies, but people know there is a supreme force that rules the universe. Those who choose to deny are spiritually bankrupt and I pity them, especially the ones who feel it necessary to twist the truth, in order to disprove him. IT is pathetic. Most of us just want the details, of God, because it is instinctive to believe, unless one is bitter for some reason. That bitterness leads to denial. The details though are the problem. People embelish details, they add and take from, and then they argue over it among themselves. They come up with theories, and ideas that aren't really the point of the story. In any case I've seen this information before. It is interesting but it doesn't prove anything. I am aware of the patterns of things, but patterns to me prove not disprove... and I suppose it is all a matter of how you look at it. I will go through the general principles of his asertions rather than each fact because his facts aren't what is in error, his conclusions are the problem. The fact is that the first book of the Old Testiment was taken from oral tradition in a land very close to Egypt. Sumeria was the cradle of civilization, apparently spawning both Egypt and Israel. All this stuff he's quibbling about in Genisis, is simply Sumerian myth, not myth in that it wasn't true, but myth in the sense of being oral tradition. The same holds true of the creation story, and the idea that women should wear head coverings. All that predates both the egyptian writings, and the old testiment. Genisis is a sort of highly condensed preface to what was happening in Moses' on time. It was a way of catching people up to the story. Thus of course the prehistoric occurances were the same. the flood myth occurs in alot of cultures, which to me only means that all ancient people were aware of a flood, and an ark. That makes sense considering that all humans are said to decend from Noah... In any case myths from cultures that grew up close to each other matching doesn't begin to puzzle me, they are speaking of the same event in some cases, but myths that happen all over the world among people who don't communicate those are the wonderful one. As for Jesus we all know that he was not born on Dec. 25th that was an invention of the Romans. His existance, documented in the Koran, a fact not mentioned by this writer. Josephis also mentions him, and there are many documents about Jesus which have been found, but if someone on the internet 2000 years later says there are no documents then... well chances are people believe what they want. His article though acurate in a few of its fact fails in logic, at least to me, but if one chooses to believe such things then (shrugs) that is their choice. I pity anyone who thinks this article is schollarly or proves anything. It means they lack the ability to follow simple logic, and are desperate to disprove... for some deeper psychological reason. I find it debunkers sad, no matter what they debunk... but especially if it has to do with religion. Spirituality is part of something completely incomprehensible and it cannot be summerized in this half baked half assed article. Which is twisting the facts to suit them, however twisting the facts to suit my one possition does not change anything. People believe what they want, and Proof is meaningless. Just look at the republicans. LOL The fact that after the last 8 years there still are Republicans, ready to vote for McCain proves that people do not really care about facts, even if they are completely visable and in their own time. You can rub your dog's nose in crap, but if he wants to he can declare it chocolate and wolf it down... fruther one man's chocolate is another man's crap. To me the article is crap... It also isn't news. There are many examples of this nonsense all over the internet. There are also articles on the internet that prove other ideas with this same information. Facts are facts, and we can do what we like with them. Lies can be mixed with facts to "PROVE" anything we like. I wouldn't dignify this with an answer myself. If I had seen it on another site I would have ignored it. I've learned that people who believe, beleive for much deeper reasons, than this article touches, and people who don't believe... just don't want to.
|
|
|
Post by stonerwolf on Oct 11, 2008 11:12:54 GMT -5
im not touching this. there is no evidence one way or the other who is right or wrong. but in my heart, i see that religion has never been anything other than a shift of the blame, to take the heat of responsibility off the human soul and place it on an imaginary deity. WE are our own creators, we all are the sons and daughters of "god" and god is not some man in the sky, or a personality at all with any free will, but the pure infinite unbound energy that drives us all. Religion is not literal, kim, it's symbolic. more on that zeitgeist movie: webskeptic.wikidot.com/zeitgeist-transcriptwebskeptic.wikidot.com/zeitgeist-transcript-part-3now, im not saying spiritual influences dont exist, im saying deities like god, buddha, and jesus are fraudulent extensions of the ego. they are US, not individuals who are more apart from us. "jesus" is our ability to discern right from wrong, not some dude who walked on water or saved us from ourselves. only WE can save ourselves from our selfs. it's called free will, use it responsibly, instead of shifting that responsibility to religion, government, and economics. this rather sums it up for me. for now. "We have been misled away from the true and divine presence in the universe that men have called god. I don't know what god is but I know what he isn't, and unless and until you are prepared to look at the whole truth, and wherever it may go, whoever it may lead to, if you want to look the other way or if you want to play favorite, then somewhere along the line you're going to find out you're messing with divine justice. The more you educate yourself the more you understand where things come from the more obvious things become and you begin to see lies everywhere."
|
|
|
Post by Xavrael on Oct 11, 2008 17:00:57 GMT -5
Hm.
|
|
|
Post by Del on Oct 11, 2008 20:39:38 GMT -5
Or to simplify...Humans are in a sense, deities incarnate, forgotten of one's true nature due to the 'rules' or nature of the human form, and that of this dimension. Religion, symbols, culture, things created by man to give man a sense of purpose, since the original sense has been lost...forgotten in transition.
I have left the bounds of identification of 'culture', 'ethnic groups', 'race'....In this sense, I am of the human race on this earth, if I must be placed into a 'category'. But in my truest sense of self, my truest form, I emanate a deity. In the truest form of 'existence', each 'thing' in existence is an emanation of the source. It is like a family tree. Isis is a deity known to the Egyptian culture, cross reference as Mary in another, and then there are people that are emanations of such deities, incarnate... emanated as these deities in the form of this dimension: the state of being which is Human. A body capable of experience, experiencing a wide range of emotions, when back within the source there is Love of infinite measures...
Humans can create so many things, and yet have forgotten how to use their power of creation. In this dimension, it is sort of a task to master this level, return to source and be born anew to another place of experience, in another form.
Fate and Destiny... concepts of this dimension, where Love is truly the only thing that is necessary. Fate, events that which lead to an end, which is Destiny.
Eh, if one realizes their Origin and Power, then one has recognized their truest Self. One can then grow from that and help others, or cause harm. Therein lies the never ending cycles that exist here on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by stonerwolf on Oct 11, 2008 22:10:55 GMT -5
basically, reality is one dimensional, 1-D. and that single dimension is that of infinite unbound pure energy, therefore making all things possible, however that is not to say that all things are all possible at all times in all places, rather that it sets up intricate and complex combination of circumstances, creating limits and realities in a myriad creation of, more or less, art. the saying one can see the universe is a grain of sand is a symbol of all things being interconnected, that all things are different expressions of the infinite energy. therein creating the myriad of circumstantial possibilities and impossibilities. the problem is not that jesus and god are not real, but that they are vastly limited in their religious expressions, especially when taken literally, at face value. all things are symbols of their true selves, when it comes to religion, and essentially, all religions are the same thing, but different names and faces, wherein the confusion comes and so many wars are waged. pointless, really. I do not believe Jesus was a man to walk the earth, such a man would surely have left a much greater and more beneficial impact had he truly existed. ultimately throughout history, the name jesus has wrought more harm than benefit upon humankind. Also, the age of aquarius im impatiently waiting on it... lol
|
|
|
Post by KG on Oct 12, 2008 19:02:40 GMT -5
Jesus, and Buddha are historical fact, at least as human men on the face of the earth in their own time. I think the writer of this article made a serious error in saying there is no evidence or writing on this. I can find many documents written within 100 years of Jesus's life that mention him. The mere fact that the church was established so soon after his lifetime to me proves that he existed.
Jesus himself said "greater works than these, (his) will you do." He expected his students to excede him in ability... like any good teacher. He came to empower us in just the way you said, but it is up to us to understand his work, as well as the works of many other spritual teachers who point us in the right direction. Few people do understand though.
There were individuals in the past, and are in the present who are more than their human form. As Del pointed out we are all in a sense dieties incarnate. We are all different, and we are reliant on each other, some more than ohters. Some of us choose to rely on Jesus as the ONE who helps us above all others.
Many of us experience astral and spiritual people we talk to, and experince. I personally KNOW Jesus, as a person I speak to, not incarnate but there on a astral, spiritual level, just as much you, Kata, Del ect. He exists. I don't need history to know that he exists, anymore than I need proof that you exist.
What documents will exist in 2000 years to prove anyone living now existed? Who knows, but there are many Gospels which date to around the time of Christ, including those written by his deciples themselves, who knew him. Not all of those made it into the bible, and some were hidden within a hundred years of his life. The carbon dating checks out, and these documents are authentic to the time. There is a vast collection of them, written by many different authors, and collected by monks. I suppose we could say they were lying, or that this was some elaborate plot, but why would one think so. That is just a desperate reach by someone in denial. Jesus existed, and arguing the point as this author did, is just ignorant. Like arguing that George Washington didn't exist, or Julius Ceasar.
I can't tell you how much I totally and completely disagree with you. You are entitled to your opinion. Do you really belive this, or are you just trying to annoy me?
I agree with that too. Adhearance to any religion or spiritual practice, in no way shifts the responsiblity off on anyone but yourself. I agree that it is up to us to help ourselves, and sometimes it is our responsiblity to help others as well, but I'll be more convinced of your understanding of what you just said, when I see you do it.
I agree that we all need to take responsiblity for our actions, our existance. Most of us though need help from time to time. I also agree that God, and Government aren't responsible for our lazy half assed efforts, and our half baked notions. God is there to help in many forms, including within people. Government is rarely helpful, and while religion can be, Benevolent people positively influenced by right spiritual practice, and charitable attitude can be a tremendous help in times of need. On the other hand judgmental misled religious zealots can be harmful. It is all in the practice, and motivation of the practitioner.
Freedom is a very sharp two edged sword. Without a realistic view of it's true meaning, it cannot exist as anything more than a cute catch phrase. Without the wisdom to decide how to best use freedom, it can soon land you into servitude, wrong action and even death. Free will is most often to the detriment of the one who uses it as an excuse not to take responsiblity. If you do decide to use your own judgment, on how to live your life then you do have to watch your step. It takes tremendous use of knowledge, wisdom, and logic to be successful in being free. It also takes hard work, and a rational attitude.
Sensible use of freedom is more than just acting weird because you can. IT is more than ignoring and having contempt for the norm with no reason why, other than just wanting to be different. Sometimes it pays to think of other ways than the traditional standard ways of doing things, but if you divert from the norm, then you have to think the process through start to finish, not just jump out and do something stupid for the sake of it. That is not free will it is just rebelious stupidity.
Most people go with the norm, not because of religion or society. They go with the norm because it is easier, and the process is known. To find another way, perhaps a better way is hard and requires careful thought.
Just sitting around thinking about weird shit you could possibly do, thinking it would be too much trouble, and then saying... it isn't fair the SYSTEM won't let me do what I want... isn't the path to freedom, independence or anything else. Fruther lack of free will isn't the problem, or why it won't work. The System has nothing to do with it. YOU are what is limiting you. That is very true of most of us.
So go read and do the research yourself. Don't take that other guy's word for it. It is a half baked article on the internet. There are some facts that are true, and others that are false statements. They are all mixed together to form what is called propaganda. You will never learn anything valid reading this quality of article, because it isn't objective, and it isn't a source document. It proves nothing. If you want the facts go to the source. Read the texts for yourself, and research the history for yourself, then decide. I think what you will find, is that the texts are right, and that people distort their meaning to suit themselves.
That isn't to say it is all litteral. Many things are symbolic, but that doens't make it less real. I am not sure if Krishna was physically incarnate at the time the Gita was written, or if it was a conversation with an astral entity, but which ever was the case, Krishna's character and personality comes forth, and it is obvious he is REAL in all of the important ways. Having physical form doesn't make people real, having something important to say or do does. There are many symbolic numbers in the bible, as the author points out but he points to it as some sort of proof it isn't real. The western mind has problems comprehending that the physical realm isn't the be all end all of existance. It is no doubt the european in us, but we have to fight it if we are to understand anything at all.
I have read as many spiritual documents from around the world as I possibly could. I've read the Gita, the Sayings of Buddha, dozens of alchemical documents, and scores of formerly lost biblical books. I admit I am most familiar with the Bible, but I also read contemporary articles by Kabalistic Jews, Hindu's Guru's and young people looking for truth. I've read alot of otherkin stuff, and furry stuff, and anything that might remotely explain the spiritual experience. I truely believe they are all talking about the same thing, or at least the same spectrum of things.
Jesus, Buddha and Krishna agree on most all of their material. They each worked to explain it within the culture they were born into, but there lies the only differences in what they said. This isn't PLAGERISM, as the author of that article infered. There was no colaboration. IT is just the truth. If different people in different countries all know a single truth, then is it not still the truth? More importantly it was spoken with the same spirit and voice. The feeling of reading the work of Krishna, and Jesus Christ is the same.
Just as I would know if Del sent me a long message pretending to be Stoner, and Just as I know that each of you is you, and know your energy. I feel a strong similarity between the words of Jesus, Buddha and Krishna. They speak as with the same voice, and that voice to me is divine.
People can banter on about the idea that God is cold and impersonal, but to me divinity is not impersonal. It is within us to be sure. We are all part of God, and God is a part of us all. However there have only been a few born who could speak with the purity that is expressed in the words of Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus. Is it possible that we can advance to a purely divine state? Well there are these three occurances, and perhaps there have been others I am not aware of, but in general, I don't know any perfect humans on the earth today. I know some nice people, who are sweet and helpful, wise and generous, and totally loveable, but no I don't know anyone who has that perfected, to they point they have no nastiness in them, no bitterness, or resentment, or childish humanity. I don't know anyone incarnate who's logic isn't flawed, and who knows the answers to all the questions, before they are asked.
Eastern religion has something called an assended master. An assended master has many abilities, which are to a greater or lesser extent documented. One mark of an assended master is resurection, and re-appearance after death. It is possible with great dicipline, and cultivation of wisdom and spirituality for a human being to become an assended master, but they are rare, even within Indian culture. Thus coming into full divinity is very hard for a human being. Believe me, assended masters have no concept of free will as you espouse it either. They live a life of service, and devotion. They control and use their will to the point they can control their inner bodily functions, but they aren't just free to do whatever they please with their abilities.
Sure Divinity is what we come from, and we try, but no one I know has succeeded completely, despite study, and hard work.
In general we all understand and practice some of it, some of us get a lot of it, but none of us have even most of it together yet. I know I don't. I have no hope of pure divinity, ever. I am very human.
|
|
|
Post by Xavrael on Oct 13, 2008 1:05:09 GMT -5
...how much more of a positive impact do you want? He spread a word of peace and love. He was in a sense, a peak into the human potential.
It is not however Jesus's fault that humanity's favorite pastime is taking good things and twisting it into something unrecognizable. The name Jesus always brought a sense of *hope*.
People on the other hand...well. What they instill can be a mixed bag.
|
|
|
Post by KG on Oct 13, 2008 12:33:26 GMT -5
Well that can be true, but symbolism represents what is real. It is all about defining words really at this point. IT depends on what you mean by religion, and what you mean by symbolic.
IN western culture people say something is symbolic in order to dismiss it, as someone would dismiss a fairy tale, and that isn't the proper use of the word at all. Symbols are real. I mean we know that about our traffic signs, but we can't believe it when it comes to anything more complex. If you see a red octagonal sign that says stop. That sign is a symbol, which we all know and are taught at an early age. IT means there is a litteral intersection ahead, and if you don't stop and look you could get T-boned by a Mac Truck. The sign is a symbol, dictating an action. If you decide the stop sign isn't real because it is only a symbol, then you will take your chances at the real intersection with the possibility of a real truck, car or motorcycle. The symbol is also physical, just not as big as the truck.
Symbolism in religion is the same way. The symbol is real. IT may or may not be physically present at the moment, but has it's own existance, but it also stands for something else that might impact you on a physical level. If it were not likely to impact you, there would have been no prophet sent to tell people about it.
I assume that by Religion you mean a belief system, or various belief systems. Do you mean esoteric religion, exoteric religion or both. Religion comes in two basic flavors esoteric and exoteric. Amost all belief systems have both sides.
Exoteric is: External; public; suitable to be imparted to the public; hence, capable of being readily or fully comprehended; — opposed to esoteric, or secret; Of or pertaining to concepts having obvious practical application and that are not highly theoretical
Esoteric:Hidden or deeper knowledge or teachings that are possessed or understood only by a few. Beyond ordinary knowledge or understanding; hidden ... Often used to mean 'secret' or 'magical' knowledge of some kind. Within Buddhist practice, implies experience-based practice that cannot be completely described by words. ...
The problem with comes with balance between exoteric, and esoteric. It is a balance much more fragile than an ecosystem, and there are many problems that can occur when people try to practice a religion in mass groups. In general all belief systems have a balance of power between esoteric and exoteric. Not everyone has the ability or the interest to have a full esoteric practice, and not everyone can withstand the pressure of being exoteric without an element of esoteric in their life. IT takes both to make it work. Some people are almost entirely exoteric, others are almost completely esoteric, but most people are a mix of the two.
Here is the life cycle of a belief system. From the begining in most belief systems have both elements. The "Original Esoteric" of the religion, establishes the belief system, and is percieved to be greater than the other esoterics who accompany him, and other esoterics who will come along later. His words are written down, memorized and interpreted by many different people, who each have their own understanding of his words. Each person either consciously or unconsciously puts their own spin on it, as their understanding is imperfect.
The knowledge is then divided up, into exoteric and esoteric. Which of these things is easy to understand, and which are potentially confusing? The confusing ones are kept among the more open minded members, and the obvious ones are printed, announced, and distributed to the world to make converts.
Now each convert had their own religion before, so they will understand it better if you make it familiar to them. Such was the case with the Dec. 25th Christmas Festival. Most people were already accustomed to a celebration on the 25th. So since by then, none of them were exactly sure when Christ was born anyway they settled on celebrating Christmas on the 25th. There are other more important compromises that came with conversion also, but in any case each person came to the religion with preconcieved ideas from their former culture, which somehow got incorporated into the belief system as an extention of people's culture and habits.
The next thing that happens is that the exoteric people and the esoteric people divide themeselves naturally. They have conflicts, and personal disputes simply because they are intrinsically different. This happened over and over in Christian history. The first problem was revealed completely in several books of the Nag Hamadi find. Mary Magdalen and Peter clashed constantly. Peter was a common sense down to earth Fisherman, with a quick temper, and a gruff way about him. Mary was sensitive, visionary, and very quick to understand the symbolic meaning of Jesus's sayings. Peter thought she was overstepping her bounds as a woman to express opinions, and Jesus let her speak and treated her as an equal. This made Peter mad. He didn't like her getting all Jesus's attention, and he didn't understand the esoteric side of Jesus's teachings at all, whether Jesus explained them, or Mary explained them to him, it just didn't make sense to him. He was a litteralist, and could not use his mind in an esoteric, symbolic way. To Mary he probably seemed kind of stupid, but she was still kind to him. Thomas on the other hand became very angry at Peter for dissing Mary. They fought, and in the end after the crusifixion, Thomas, took Mary and went east, While Peter went north. Peter and Paul's form of the religion established itself as the Catholic Church. They adopted books from that set of people, based on the words of Peter as he told them to others. Peter discredited Mary because he was still stinging from their disputes. He apparently infered that she was a prostitute which she was not. He dispised her for being esoteric. Mary went on to write books herself, and so did Thomas, but there books were more esoteric and were rejected by the Catholics who by the time they learned of the books were very afraid of the esoteric, just as Peter was, and taught them to be. They were suspicious of the esoterics, and labeled them witches... just as Peter had infered. From there they developed a fear of intuitive women practicing any sort of esoteric belief system, and totally rejected the divine as expressed by the feminine. This eventually led to the inquisitions and witch trials.
As for the dispursement of knowledge in most religions, All religious systems have the the ignorant masses to deal with. This was especially true in times where illiteracy was common and religion was transfered word of mouth. There was an effort to give the uneducated, and uninitiated, a basic idea of the religion. It was usually heavy on rules of conduct, and very careful in it's discriptions of magical occurances. They were very restrictive of un-sanctioned visionaries, because let's face it too many visionaries, might CHANGE the religion. Yet the legalists felt free to use and change the external beliefs of religion to suit political needs.
The secret knowledge is kept in many ways though, despite the repression of such knowledge. Most of the hirarchy would keep at least some secret knowledge or more complex material to their official initiates. The cardinals and priests and popes of the Catholic Church for example, while others were kept from this knowledge. What knowledge they did dispurse, the bible for instance, was explained and re-explained, in many books that are called comentaries, and study aids. Some people though, who do study eventually look for more material to study, and eventually find their way into the esoteric. This obcession has been discouraged among the common people in many large religions. Be content with the rule book is their mantra, when the deal with the masses. Sometimes they enforce this ignorance, with the death penalty if one breaks it. Still ordinary people collected rare books, had visions, and wrote more and more material about the religion... leading to what the Church called Heracy. It has it's equivilent in all belief systems.
Now I can't say this is without any cause. Masses of ignorant savages thinking they are all divine prophets could be a problem. It could lead to Chaotic behavior, delusions, and weird cults. Sometimes one does have to say, that is just going too far. IF not you end up with situations like the Hail Bopp comet incident, where there was self mutilation, and eventually a mass suicide.
There has to be a balance of common sense rules or at least guidelines, and deep spiritual practice. These balances are difficult to maintain, and all religions get off balance frequently. All people get out of balance occasionally too. Why? Because we are human, and we are easily misled, both by others, and by our own imaginations. We all have to sit down every now and then and try to figure out what is real. I think the problem comes in people who won't police themselves, and check themselves... and the people who presume to bring them in check.
Peter was trying to bring Mary into check, when Jesus made it clear he shouldn't, but someone should have brought Jim Jones into check, but no one had the courage. It is a hard call and there in lies the major problem with Religious authority.
Without the esoteric understanding religion is dry, and merely a set of rules of conduct, but without any rules or common sense, esoteric practice can lead to delusions. It can go to your head, when you believe you are a holy man or prophet. Leadership, by either esoterics, and exoterics can be misused. Even people or groups who balance both can misuse power. That misuse though is part of free will. People can do what they want with the power that is given them. God doesn't stop them, because he doesn't interfere with free will, but there is a force that is sort of like gravity, which does punish them. Karma has a way of finding out those people who lie about their visions, or enforce rules that are selfishly based in a desire to control. Karma also strikes those well meaning people who thought they were doing right, but got confused... but in those cases it is usually in a way where they can correct their mistake before more harm is done. In general well meaning people can be wrong, and that can be harmful, but the real problem come in with greed and power hunger, using religious manipulation for your own gain. Those things do come home to roost. Whole civilizations suffer because of this kind of behavior.... and it is the free will of these people that causes it, not God.
Kim
|
|
|
Post by stonerwolf on Oct 13, 2008 14:35:08 GMT -5
show me a body, show me a skelaton, show me genetic proof, shoe me a freaking time machine so i can see for myself, but i refuse to take a story book at face value.
for that is all the bible is to me, a story book with good values inside.
im not saying that it's wrong to invent a figure and attribute divinity to them, but i am saying that unless we have proof of what is written, words are nothing more than hearsay.
If jesus was real, the only remaining "evidence" is stories. stories are not enough for me.
Find his remains, show me another human being who is able to walk on water and turn a fish into 1000 fish, and can resurrect three days after bodily death, and maybe then i'll have a little faith in the stories being factual and not works of fiction.
if we're going to believe jesus christ is a real person, then we're going to have to believe in harry potter, gandalf the grey, and the matrix.
they all have the same common ground too, they promote good will and strong moral values.
Jesus is fiction until evidence proves otherwise.
i have always believed that evidence is required in order to have faith, that faith is not meant to be blindly given, but a result of divine experience.
i have faith in spirituality. but the buck stops here. spirituality is something i have experienced, Jesus is not. Buddha is not. the Matrix is not. Spirituality is.
But the thing about spirituality is that it will represent itself in no specific way but how it feels it will be best understood by others, and for this, jesus serves a purpose. he gives spirituality an embodiment to speak to the people who cannot fathom pure infinite unbound energy. it give people a face to the spiritual workings. something they can conjure in their mind that represents something they believe in.
My main gripe is that religion is a man-made attempt to control spirituality, and thus the wills of those who follow. religion takes what the spirit IS, and twists it into something that human kind WANTS, not necessarily providing people with knowledge of what it IS.
god is not a person, nor an individual, not even a deity. god is pure unbound energy, infinite, indescribable. it bothers me when people attribute "god" as a person, as a being with some perverted fetish for watching human kind stumble over itself.
i cannot see god as being a divine gamer playing a divine version of The Sims.
that too vastly limits what reality is or can be.
So instead i refuse all religion, and accept only direct experience with the divine, or spiritual world. and so far, only spiritual world. i dont believe in divinity, because divinity has never been encountered. i believe in spirituality, because i have seen three spirits in my lifetime, therefore i know pure energy of the spirit is real, and cannot be defined. to define the spirit is to limit it.
now im not saying the infinite spirit cannot incarnate as a human being with divine powers, i just have not seen or experienced it, so i have no reason or right to believe it.
Just because it *can* does not mean it has or ever will. i'll believe jesus was a divine human being when i shake his hand.
|
|
|
Post by Del on Oct 13, 2008 15:11:06 GMT -5
What we are seeing and expressing here, in this thread is a clear example of the many paths up the mountain. Kim's truth may not be yours, but it is still a truth, Stoner.
Your truth may not be Kim's but it is still a truth. She stongly believes in Jesus, you do not. You cannot place any belief in something you have not experienced. It doesn't work that way, in this world as it is.
I understand what the both of you are saying. And rightly so, to each his/her own.
In my opinion, culture and religion is just a way for groups of people to assert their existence here on earth, and to relate to other people that are like them. Like the endless way of things, humans have a knack for taking something and using it to control others. But because other people are doing it, it truly doesn't mean you have to do it too.
I still don't read the bible, or many other religious texts in their entirety...i read bits and pieces, taking what I need and leaving the rest. This goes for myhts and legends, theories and fairytales that I comes across...take what I find useful and leave the rest.
My truth will not be the same for another.
Perhaps, and I am making an assumption which I really shouldn't be doing, your animosity is towards the connotative words being used - religon, divinity, etc, etc. If I may suggest, perhaps you cold look for the denotative meaning for these words, and find meaning in them for yourself.
According to the denotative meaning of religion, I am a religious person, but not by the means of how it is viewed today. I do not follow the religious beliefs I see or know of, I follow what I have created. I am also a spiritual person. I don't know if it makes sense to you, but the sacredness I see and live by is pf my beliefs. Now if I were to take this concept to someone else, they'd probably run off and say I am a spiritual person not a religious person, because what I am saying doesn't make any sense.
It depends on how you word it. You've just said so yourself: you don't believe in divinity yet you believe in your experience of the divine. I don't believe in religion but I am a religious person......
I may have gone off on to a tangent by now....Oops.....
|
|
|
Post by KG on Oct 13, 2008 19:29:34 GMT -5
Stoner,
I don't blame you for wanting proof. I wanted personal and experiential proof, like what Del was speaking of, and I got it when I was about 12 or 13, and I continue to witness proof through experience, and observation of miracles in daily life. I did wait for proof though. I think deep down I always knew there was a God, but I wasn't sure what his nature was... and I wondered if the Buddists were right, or the Hindu's or the Christians or the Muslims or, or, or... and then at 12 I accepted Christianity because I felt his spirit. Later on I learned that one belief doesn't preclude another, and now I believe in a lot of things... and for me seeing is believing. A lot of stuff exists on the spiritual and astral plains. Jesus however is special to me, because he was the first benevolent spiritual entity I ever met... well other than Gary. LOL I have seen people healed, in the name of Jesus. I have seen miraculous deliverances from cocaine and herion addiction... in some cases without withdrawal. I have witnessed Leukemia healed, as well as seeing people get up out of wheel chairs and walk. I have no doubt in the miraculous power of Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately you weren't with me, back in the eighties when I saw these things, and I no longer travel in those circles. I can understand why you still have questions, but why make statements denying things you don't know about. Despite the fact I discovered Jesus when I was twelve it was only after a decade of questioning, longing for a revelation. I always saw things, a lot of things, but at first I didn't see angels or Jesus, I saw frightening pain bodies, and the spirits of human beings. I saw people's psychic content, and people's thoughts sometimes. I didn't see the spiritual plain yet, because it is on another level.
You are very aware of the energic level, as a matter of fact I'd say you were a master at that level. Your own aura is quite a masterpiece of beautiful blue light, and a comforting energy. That is one of the purest levels of perception, but there are many others. WE all have levels that seem easier to percieve than others. Consider that you percieve on a physical level and an energic level. You experience people on those two levels. You sense the human soul, but as energy. That doesn't mean it doesn't have other manifestations, only that you don't see on that level.
I met a woman on line a long time ago who sees angels. She paints what she sees in nice little water color drawings. I see angels too. When I see them, I see a humanlike form with feathered wings, but when she sees them she just sees their aura and their wings. I am certain however that she sees them, just that she sees them differently because of the level she looks on.
Depending on the level of awareness, we see different layers of things, and different things. Just because you are only aware of one dimension doesn't mean there aren't others. I have met people who experience various different spiritual entities, some people experience Roman Dieties. Some people experience angels, some people experience various yogis and gurus and assended masters. Others experience other humans, and many people experience other people's psychic content as entities. I have seen some of this also, but not all. I don't doubt the people who have seen things I haven't simply because I have seen enough to know that I haven't seen everything. I have seen a lot of things that they see, because of introductions from other people. I also know that there are many entities which are from traditions other than Christian which exist. IN general I believe it is all true, everything.... all the religions, and myths. I haven't seen it all, but I have seen enough that I don't doubt, even though I haven't seen a specific thing.
There is no way one person could experience all of the astral, spiritual or energic realms... and what ever else is out there, any more than a single person can claim ot have seen every street corner in the world, in the physical. One could travel until one was exhausted and never see every bit of the world. It is the same in the astral, and spiritual realm. You can't see it all, but if you want to see something, you can ask, and hopefully someone will direct you to it eventually.
I asked to see Jesus for many years, and even after I felt him... I wanted to see, mostly because I was scared because of all the frightening things I saw, and I thought it would be reassuring to see him, but I was the one who had to change my viewing strategy. I had to shift my vision off of that level with the scary stuff, and onto the level with the angels, and Jesus, and eventually heaven and the mothers. I eventually learned to shift my view at will, so that I could see the positive spiritual entities... and it was a welcome change.
If you sincerly want to know and want to see, then you eventually will, but it takes your will and honing your own abilities.
As for skelatons, and forensic evidence from 2000 years ago... well I am sure there are many skelatons in Jerusalem, but according to the bible, Jesus won't be among them. Resurection remember... and who knows what his DNA was like. I really don't think physical evidence is the answer. You couldn't see it directly... and you'd have to take the word of someone who found it, and stored it, and skeptics would be all over it saying it wasn't real. Really I think the colaborating stories, and the carbon dating on the Nag Hammadi find is sufficient evidence of his physical existance, but as for his nature, you do have to experience it to understand, and i hope that someday you do.
Kim
|
|
|
Post by stonerwolf on Oct 14, 2008 16:33:14 GMT -5
energy is pure and infinite; it takes on whatever appearance it's beholder can best understand and comprehend.
i refuse to see things painted by my own perceptions and beliefs, so i see things for what they are, before they alter themselves to be more acceptable to the human psyche.
that said, i agree with your statements, Kim, but i also understand reality not as what symbols must be taken on to explain it to me, but as it is in itself without me.
i dont like to acknowledge of what i may or may not know because either A) i could come off as c**ky or egotistical, or B) i could come off as completely nuts and insane.
plus i have not yet experienced anything in this life and would prefer to have something to fall back on. memory is good if i had any to use.
argh thoughts interrupted i'll talk more later... lol
|
|
|
Post by KG on Oct 16, 2008 1:11:40 GMT -5
Well, that is interesting. I know I experience most people as their human forms in the astral, but some I experience in their higher self, but generally still humanoid, and a similar face, though sometimes there appearance is more perfect. With you though I experienced your aura instead of your astral humanoid form. I only see you as a big blue cloud, and I feel your energy more than see you. So far though, you are the only person I experience only that way. I think that is facinating.
I also know that it isn't just our minds that provide the image. I've seen people I knew only on line before, and then recognized their photo's when I saw them later. Or described them and been right. To a large degree I see people's psychic content and often experience a person's astral friends as well as themselves. Sometimes I do see symbolic representations of their emotional traumas.
I think I pick up on the way people percieve themselves, more than how I see them. I can know that someone is over sixty and still see them as they looked in their 20's sometimes, just because that is still how they think of themselves. I was very aware they were much older physically, and didn't know them when they were younger. For example a bald 65 year old business man appears with long hair and a beard, but that isn't true of everyone, it depends on their self image.
|
|
|
Post by stonerwolf on Oct 17, 2008 6:16:03 GMT -5
i can see that sort of thing in people's eyes and faces; their whole story is written there. i can see how they feel now, how they have felt in the past, their general personality, self image, emotional stresses and scars as well as their pride and sense of accomplishment, all in their face, and eyes. better suited for a sense of here and now than a reading of their past, but the past is written all over our faces.
it's hard to maintain eye contact, cuz it feels like i am invading people's privacy.
|
|