GENIUS FORUMS

Beingof1 wrote:I had a speaking engagement in Phoenix Arizona at a hotel conference room at 18th Ave. and Camelback in 1994. Carl knows where this is, it was the Ramada Inn.

After the meeting, a lifelong friend of mine named Scott Thurston and I were outside talking when right in front of our eyes, a girl was hit by a car as she was riding a bycicle. She went end over end over the car and impacted onto the street behind the car.

I, moved by instinct, ran over to her and Scott followed. She was laying sprawled in the middle of the road. I layed my hands on her and began to pray. I could feel, under my hands, the bones in her body popping back into place. My friend Scott said later he could hear them and see her body twist back into shape. She was just staring at me and did not say a word.

In the background I heard one woman in the crowd saying:" The man of God has prayed for you sweetheart, you are healed." There was another voice that said; "Do not move her, you may injure her."

My friend Scott, knelt down in front of her and said;"Get up." She was instantly healed and raised herself up, all the while just staring at me with a kind of blank shock in her face.

The paramedics arrived and she was hustled away and I and my friend blended away through the crowd.

Is this something you do often? Did it inspire you to go work in a hospital?

-

Iolaus wrote:Beingof1

How do you pray?

To get results?

With everything in me.


Alex Jacob:

I'm curious about your view on the Bible as encoded scripture, Mr Beingof1.

It is encoded by you. It is in your DNA, being, consciousness, and mind.


Carl G

And while you're at it, Mr Being, what do make of crop circles?
And while you're at it, Mr Being, what do make of crop circles?

When I talked with you on the phone several years ago Carl, I offered to make a trip to come and visit with you and look you square in the eyes. You at first agreed.

I did not hide these things from you when we spoke, remember?

You then changed your mind, remember?

Now you have the audacity, to jump in on the peanut gallery?

Who are you really?


Dan Rowden:

And was the Tin Man really a CIA agent?

The Tin Man did not have a heart, so he probably was a follower of the philosophy taught here.

Yup - the true manly man - no heart, so he could not possibly care about women, what an icon for you Dan. Truly the guidline for your enlightened view.


David Quinn:

Is this something you do often? Did it inspire you to go work in a hospital?

I am sure you would have told her about your palace that you live in as a king. Then you would have explained to her how she was not actually in pain because there was nobody there to experience it and how the Totality could save her if she could only grasp A=A, right?

All your knowledge really comes in handy in a real life crisis, doesn't it David?

If what you say here is true; "from a spiritual perspective the incident was insignificant, having no more significance than that of, say, a mite of dust settling on a table"? Why are you making such a big fuss? Hmmm, does not compute.

I can see it now, you standing over a people that needs results and you saying ;" Don't worry anyone, we are not really here, only the totality is here."



You guys want to spindle me as a madman, that is Ok by me. I am in good company.

Say we not of assurity thou art mad

-- One in the crowd, catcalling at Jesus after he had spoke about impossibilities being self imposed.

I see not one here actually believes that you can get results with faith, how very, very sad. All it takes is reading the scriptures and putting them to the test. Jesus said the signs would follow them that believe, and they most certainly do.
You think I am the only one? I can assure you, there are many who believe, they do not speak much about it because of the density of the human race as is evident here.

Does anyone here believe?

Beingof1 wrote:

Is this something you do often? Did it inspire you to go work in a hospital?

I am sure you would have told her about your palace that you live in as a king. Then you would have explained to her how she was not actually in pain because there was nobody there to experience it and how the Totality could save her if she could only grasp A=A, right?

All your knowledge really comes in handy in a real life crisis, doesn't it David?

If what you say here is true; "from a spiritual perspective the incident was insignificant, having no more significance than that of, say, a mite of dust settling on a table"? Why are you making such a big fuss?

As always, to point people's minds to the nature of God.

Is spirituality a matter of becoming a glorified doctor? Or does it go deeper than that and involve perfecting oneself, and others, in the light of truth? What do you think?

In any case, you didn't answer my question. How many times have you healed people? I'm curious to know whether you have made a habit of it or not.

Beingof1 wrote:I see not one here actually believes that you can get results with faith, how very, very sad. All it takes is reading the scriptures and putting them to the test. Jesus said the signs would follow them that believe, and they most certainly do. You think I am the only one? I can assure you, there are many who believe, they do not speak much about it because of the density of the human race as is evident here.

How many hospitals do they run?

-

Being of 1 wrote:

And while you're at it, Mr Being, what do make of crop circles?

When I talked with you on the phone several years ago Carl, I offered to make a trip to come and visit with you and look you square in the eyes. You at first agreed.

I did not hide these things from you when we spoke, remember?

You then changed your mind, remember?

Now you have the audacity, to jump in on the peanut gallery?

My point was aimed at Alex, not you. Then Dan muddied the contextual waters.

Beingof1 wrote:

"I see not one here actually believes that you can get results with faith, how very, very sad. All it takes is reading the scriptures and putting them to the test. Jesus said the signs would follow them that believe, and they most certainly do. You think I am the only one? I can assure you, there are many who believe, they do not speak much about it because of the density of the human race as is evident here.

"Does anyone here believe?"

The question I asked was in good faith. You mentioned that the Bible was the most richly encoded scripture you had read, and I was genuinely interested in why you thought this.

You are wrong on your first point, but my understanding of faith is built on a different platform than that of Christian evangelism. I tend to see 'faith' as being highly relevant but I tend to see the area in which faith operates as inner, psychological. I do believe that there are some persons, from different traditions, who through use of their energy-of-faith (spirit, chi, ache, shakti) can from time to time cause very unusual things to happen. In other words, it happens from time to time that the fabric of reality is penetrated by something, someone, that seems to operate from outside of the strict laws that seem to govern things here.

The occurrences that are part of my own personal faith have not been of the order you describe but they have nevertheless been magnificent.

Each tradition, it seems to me, has strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I think there is a very powerful core in the Christian traditions, but it also seems to me that it must always function on a fringe, on the very far edges of the fringe, because in a real sense it is otherworldly. Whenever it tries to mainstream it must transform into something it is not. Back in my university days I met a Christian Jew, a very unusual man who wandered around as a sort of teacher, preacher or prophet. He would show up in churches just out of the blue and talk to people. They looked at him like he was insane, but he had a strong impact on them, and to observe his from a distance, to see the reactions he got, and to see him operating like a Biblical prophet---something untamed, something original, something that must always speak from the outside, it gave me a different understanding. He would base his decisions on a sort of 'sortes Biblicae', using the Bible as a divination tool. I've often wondered what became of him.

Christianity, the Christian ethic, the Christian potency---it is a pretty involved subject. But in my own case I see Christianity as going through some very significant changes. (CF The Changing Christian World). The lower-level evangelism is adapting itself in new ways, and this is something that happens in culture generally, and religious culture specifically. The message of Christianity (to come out of the world of mire) is far-reaching. I think a 'sophisticated' Christianity stands many times above the wishy-washiness of so many other 'imported' traditions.

I think it would be impossible, though, for me to even consider faith healing someone who had just been hit by a car.

Beingof1 wrote:Does anyone here believe?

Not a word of it.

Beingof1 wrote:to David: "but you have no idea what you are missing by not allowing yourself a smudge of humility"

Humility starts with constantly humbling oneself before the amazing capacities of the believing, emotion ridden mind to play tricks, no matter how long or with how many people one shares the trick. Being wooed by what appears to be happening is the fallen state, not that of salvation.

DQ wrote:So you agree, then, that from a spiritual perspective the incident was insignificant, having no more significance than that of, say, a mite of dust settling on a table?

Of course I don't agree with that, you blockhead! It was extremely significant. The significance is lost on you. That much I understand. You are the one who is "so constantly blown away at every little thing that happens," that you are unable to appreciate a humble gift. You lack perspective. Try to acquire some by getting out of your "palace" once in a while. Again, I apologize if my "trinket" is so "cheap."

The fool sees significance in the unusual, but cannot see the mundane in his attribution of significance.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Beingof1 wrote:to David: "but you have no idea what you are missing by not allowing yourself a smudge of humility"

Humility starts with constantly humbling oneself before the amazing capacities of the believing, emotion ridden mind to play tricks, no matter how long or with how many people one shares the trick. Being wooed by what appears to be happening is the fallen state, not that of salvation.

Well, this is precisely wrong. And it is an antiquated point of view. You are a rectionary of the first rank if you believe this. Comprehending what actually is happening is the state of grace. If your mind is emotion-ridden, it is weak and unable to know when it is the right thing to do to follow the heart.

Philistine.

Dan Rowden wrote:The fool sees significance in the unusual, but cannot see the mundane in his attribution of significance.

Thank God I'm not a fool!

Yet, I do see what Diebert is getting at. There are indeed (indeed) certain expressions of 'faith' that are extremely undesirable, retrograde.

I don't see it as antiquated, but rather as cutting-edge modern. So cutting edge that it hasn't really been done yet, or rather we are in that process. I am very interested in what comes out the other end, and what the subject looks like after the surgery.

Again, everything has to be sifted-through so carefully. It is a very delicate conversation. The Nietzschean philosophical hammer has to convert to a very fine tuning fork, so fine it is at the upper-end of human hearing.

Dan writes:

"The fool sees significance in the unusual, but cannot see the mundane in his attribution of significance."

A fool calls someone else a fool and does not and cannot see that he could be talking to his own self.

Beingof1,

How do you pray?

To get results?

With everything in me.

It was a sincere question. Did you use words?

I see not one here actually believes that you can get results with faith, how very, very sad.

I am quite sure you can.

I agree with Alex, it is not something owned by Christianity. I don't know if you think it is. I did ask if you were a Christian, or what sort of Christian might be a better question.
-----------------------------
You, David, have indeed missed the point, which was put forth in my post to you the other day. You have created a false choice, as if being able to tap into the universal intelligence somehow means that said person does not appreciate the presence of God and the magnificence of every moment, every molecule.

You then deride the very interest that people might have in something of very obvious import and significance, with this false dichotomy.

You can have both.
And they are not in contradiction.

Why are you interested in the body of God, but not the mind of God?

earnest_seeker wrote:

earnest_seeker wrote:I'm going to try to summarise the views of the significant participants in this thread:

Oh, how rude of me - I forgot Leyla. Here it is again with Leyla included:

David Quinn: God is everything, but He's not conscious.

Iolaus: God is everything, and He's conscious.

Dan: God is possible, but insignificant.

brokenhead: God is real, but don't talk to me about religion!

Leyla: God is impossible, or at least impossibly vague.

Ataraxia: What the fuck do you mean by "God"?

I'm happy to go with Leyla's definition as described here too,if that helps :)

Sher: The concept of God is completely irrational. It's amazing that so many believe it.

brokenhead wrote:

DQ wrote:So you agree, then, that from a spiritual perspective the incident was insignificant, having no more significance than that of, say, a mite of dust settling on a table?

Of course I don't agree with that, you blockhead! It was extremely significant. The significance is lost on you. That much I understand. You are the one who is "so constantly blown away at every little thing that happens," that you are unable to appreciate a humble gift. You lack perspective. Try to acquire some by getting out of your "palace" once in a while. Again, I apologize if my "trinket" is so "cheap."

You agreed with me that God is an all chains of events. So how can an unusual event be more Godly than a usual one?

Are you saying that, while you believe that God is in all things, you currently cannot see it and have to rely on unusual events to gain some sense of Him?

-

Shahrazad wrote:Sher: The concept of God is completely irrational. It's amazing that so many believe it.

It depends on how it is defined, doesn't it. For example, if God is defined to be Nature then it is hardly an irrational concept and the existence of such a God is automatically proven.

To indiscriminately dismiss all concepts of God as being irrational is itself irrational.

-

David Quinn wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:Sher: The concept of God is completely irrational. It's amazing that so many believe it.

It depends on how it is defined, doesn't it. For example, if God is defined to be Nature then it is hardly an irrational concept and the existence of such a God is automatically proven.

Why not call that which is already proven 'nature'? Or even Reality ,if you like.

Why "God" ?

Iolaus wrote: You, David, have indeed missed the point, which was put forth in my post to you the other day. You have created a false choice, as if being able to tap into the universal intelligence somehow means that said person does not appreciate the presence of God and the magnificence of every moment, every molecule.

You then deride the very interest that people might have in something of very obvious import and significance, with this false dichotomy.

You can have both.
And they are not in contradiction.

If a person's mind is so coarse and crudely developed that he has to rely on a seemingly miraculous event to awaken him from his slumber and start taking God seriously, then I can see value in that. But ideally, he should be able to quickly move on and start discerning the nature of God in everything. Otherwise, what would be the point of his leaving his slumber in the first place?

The problem is, people become very attached to these unusual events in their lives and start twisting and distorting the concept of God in order to fit them in, so as to be able to hang onto them. So while they have may started out with good intentions, they quickly and unwittingly slide into the evil of worshiping a false idol.

If you want to know God in this moment in the here and now, you have to be prepared to abandon everything. As the Buddha said, "Just look at all you have attained as being no more than a sick blanket to be cast aside."

Why are you interested in the body of God, but not the mind of God?

The body of God is the mind of God. God's intelligence is all there in the simplicity of cause and effect.

-

David,

It depends on how it is defined, doesn't it. For example, if God is defined to be Nature then it is hardly an irrational concept and the existence of such a God is automatically proven.

Defining God as nature sounds like you're trying to use that old "QRS trick" again (in quotes because it's been around for centuries), of hoping people equivocate when they hear your word God. It is dishonest, and unnecessary. Your redefinition gains its purchase from equivocation.

The word Nature is perfectly fine by me.

Some people are discussing God, and not defining him as Nature, but in the traditional sense. You join them and use the same word God, but you are defining him as Nature. And you act as if you think you are all talking about the same thing. But you are just stirring the river of confusion so that you can fish more easily.

To indiscriminately dismiss all concepts of God as being irrational is itself irrational.

To dismiss all people who view all concepts of God as irrational, as irrational, is itself irrational.

-

Ataraxia wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:Sher: The concept of God is completely irrational. It's amazing that so many believe it.

It depends on how it is defined, doesn't it. For example, if God is defined to be Nature then it is hardly an irrational concept and the existence of such a God is automatically proven.

Why not call that which is already proven 'nature'? Or even Reality ,if you like.

Why "God" ?

I don't want to give any comfort to scientific materialists and atheists, who are just as deluded in the core issues as Christians and theists are.

To me, concepts are just playthings and tools for stimulating people into enlightened consciousness. I don't care if a person uses atheistic or theistic concepts to get there. I'm certainly happy to use both in my efforts to stimulate them.

You'll notice that I constantly switch between theistic and atheistic language, attacking the same issues from different starting points. Not only is this good for unsettling people and challenging their desire to harden into a particular world-view, but it is also sets an example of how to use concepts flexibly in order to realize Truth.

-

Shahrazad wrote:David,

It depends on how it is defined, doesn't it. For example, if God is defined to be Nature then it is hardly an irrational concept and the existence of such a God is automatically proven.

Defining God as nature sounds like you're trying to use that old "QRS trick" again (in quotes because it's been around for centuries), of hoping people equivocate when they hear your word God. It is dishonest, and unnecessary. Your redefinition gains its purchase from equivocation.

The word Nature is perfectly fine by me.

Some people are discussing God, and not defining him as Nature, but in the traditional sense. You join them and use the same word God, but you are defining him as Nature. And you act as if you think you are all talking about the same thing. But you are just stirring the river of confusion so that you can fish more easily.

Nature is eternal and the creator of all things, so already it is God-like. There is enough overlap in the Christian conception of God and the philosophic perception of Nature to make term-swapping meaningful. But the idea isn't to be dishonest and trick people. Rather, it is to take advantage of their attachment to their particular concept of God and use it to stimulate their minds into greater understanding.

I'm not engaging in this forum for the purpose of winning academic debates.

-

David,

But the idea isn't to be dishonest and trick people. Rather, it is to take advantage of their attachment to their particular concept of God and use it to stimulate their minds into greater understanding.

Why do this with someone like me, who doesn't even like the concept of God? I would understand you better if you spoke of nature.

-

Shahrazad wrote:David,

But the idea isn't to be dishonest and trick people. Rather, it is to take advantage of their attachment to their particular concept of God and use it to stimulate their minds into greater understanding.

Why do this with someone like me, who doesn't even like the concept of God? I would understand you better if you spoke of nature.
-

Why don't you like the concept of God?

-

Why don't you like the concept of God?

For myself, I think it is romantic philosophy, rather than reality. I quite dislike you using the word. Why make the totality into such an entity?