GENIUS FORUMS

Talking Ass wrote:It is pretty clear that you know nothing about this (faith, prayer, etc.), it is not interesting to you at all.

Which implies that you do. What are your views, TA, what kind of Christian are you, if any? Are you searching, and what have you found? What -ist would you employ to qualify yourself, to which standard fare can I attach you to? C'mon, don't be mulish.

Talking Arse wrote:Since the language-structure that had supported a religious and theistic cosmology is now inoperative, a problem arises. What language to use? How to describe what happens in my consciousness, in my awareness, but which is unprovable in any materialistic sense? It's a real problem.

Which is why I place a higher value on philosophy, logic and reason than I do on theology to get to the truth. You're asking for a revamp of language in theology, basically, right? I think we'd all welcome that.

Talking Ass wrote:... you have those who, for whatever reason, and with no good reason (dismissing 'reasonability') take an existential leap-of-faith. It is pretty clear that you know nothing about this (faith, prayer, etc.), it is not interesting to you at all. I would wager that you'd have little to say about it except to describe it in QRS terms: delirium, madness, giving over to the non-rational, steps downward, etc.

Speaking as someone with actual extensive experience with this Christian leaping as opposed to your meager flirts with the issue, I can tell you that here the same problem of depth arises and something called hyper-faith. A lack of depth because most of these believers worship the commandments of modernity and its liturgy of consumption way more serious than the beliefs they surrender to during the weekends. And the hyper-faith appearing as believing in an over-world inhabited by god, devil and angels having lost any connection with what's happening day by day, minute by minute in their lives. In other words, speaking about truth without knowing what truth means in any existential sense.

But there is another category, I think: a very clear and sharp sort of Christian religiosity which is really not all that religious, and spiritual doesn't have so much meaning (as it can't, given the modern problem). What distinguishes them is the way they approach life, the things (persons and things) they value. They are completely capable and interested in doing away with stupid, misleading priests and always keeping them under s strict watch. They aren't locked into antiquated ideas about God or the Bible but only want to focus on the most important essence.

The most importance essence being? The question is also if this should be called Christian religiosity at all. It's perhaps like most modern spiritual flag waving: a desire for it to be checkered, composed of a mesh of clearly labeled traditions, tailored to the individual like the products you can order in the modern mega malls.

Truth however does not live in plurality.

Interesting observation, Diebert.

I was just thinking recently about how the souls who are sent (sentenced) to earth, take the material realm so seriously, they want to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak.

You can see an earnestness in particulary young people of now, to acknowledge the spirit, the One, but at the same time they are hypnotized by the material values, and a conflicting desire arises to serve two masters. They can not comprehend why, even after being told in brazen terms, that this is why they are so unhappy.

I can only weep and sneer alternately, for I am also so weak.

Prince, you believe in a super-natural realm where our souls emerge from and go to? All along I had you pegged as a QRS adherent.

QRS was a platform for me to understand a higher truth.

They can be left in the dust for all I care, they served a function is all. Leave them to their atheism, it's not my place to change them.

But what you said was no different than the conflict between the universe, and the self. The children and teenagers that are either living truthfully without unreal expectations, and the materialistic and sexual world.

Neither was there any real difference between being put into a human form as 'souls' in human vessels, sentenced to live on earth merely by nature, and what you said. Why should it be supernatural? Is it not natural? tell me how something not part of the world can ultimately effect the world in a direct sense, like somebody throwing souls around. Even if that was the case, the outcome you see is the same as most other people see. So i reckon you don't think it's supernatural?

prince wrote:QRS was a platform for me to understand a higher truth.

They can be left in the dust for all I care, they served a function is all. Leave them to their atheism, it's not my place to change them.

Is your conclusion that we have souls based on evidence, pure logic, or something else?

I knew you were going to ask me that, almost in those exact words..

Logic played a part as conduit, I'm sure, but not in the way I expected.

But the evidence I have is subjective and can not be validated in empirical terms.

My soul, rather abrubtly and aggressively pushed it's way into my awareness, pretty much against my (ego's) will. It certainly wasn't invited or addressed in any way, in fact I didn't even know it was there. It just showed up, and stated in it's own terms that it was going to take charge.

Make of that what you will.

crusader wrote:

Mohamed wrote:

crusader wrote:Why do you hate those who see what you choose not to?

This is ridiculous ^^

Counterquestion:
Why do you hate those who see what you choose not to?

Answering my question with my question? Let's have a little more honest discussion here, please.

The question is just ridiculous there's no way to have a honest discussion about it.
I didn't answer the question because there's no way to for me.
You imply, that I HATE somebody.
But how am I to tell you why I hate. When I don't even do that?

Where did you get this false information from?

Speaking as someone with actual extensive experience with this Christian leaping as opposed to your meager flirts with the issue, I can tell you that here the same problem of depth arises and something called hyper-faith. A lack of depth because most of these believers worship the commandments of modernity and its liturgy of consumption way more serious than the beliefs they surrender to during the weekends. And the hyper-faith appearing as believing in an over-world inhabited by god, devil and angels having lost any connection with what's happening day by day, minute by minute in their lives. In other words, speaking about truth without knowing what truth means in any existential sense.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that if you really had this leaping experience, you'd have a whole helluvalot more to say about it. Up till now, you haven't revealed much of it. You are clearly a person with a great deal of depth and intelligence---other wise you wouldn't be able to grasp even the fragments of my thinking you do seem to understand---but, and let's face it (once again) you reveal nothing about it. So, one concludes your experience is shallow, which is almost the same as experiencing nothing; or you are just holding out.

Now, as far as this ass goes, I have been leapin and prancin with the unutterable Divine that's part and parcel of our world since my early days. True, not in the specific Christian sense, and way on the outside of it with magic, following omens, dreaming dreams, meeting unusual people under unusual circumstances, allowing 'roads' to influence one, praying to the powers for guidance, healing, and all the rest. I did this pretty steadily for 15 years or so, and certainly have my own stories to tell, and some I have told, without reservations (in other words---heh heh heh---I may be less of a girl-coward than some: afraid to really say too much of anything, anything too personal).

The forms of Christian thinking will structure experience, I freely admit that, but the experience of the Divine (it seems to me) is quite alike in all the different traditions. Shamanism and magic (and Jungian psychology for example) allow for a greater fullness of experience than say, snake-handling in a Southern church, but contact with 'the other' is, I think, of a similar order.

I don't have a problem with what you wrote above: there is always and there will always be different levels of experience for different sorts of persons, and the majority of people, from the evidence, will always operate at a simple level. As to "And the hyper-faith appearing as believing in an over-world inhabited by god, devil and angels having lost any connection with what's happening day by day, minute by minute in their lives", I would say we all, still, operate from the same basic platform. Our perception is catalogued within such a structure. Some have a very simple 'story' about those elements, and some a more labyrinthine, college-educated story. But it seems the same structure is still operating.

The most importance essence being? The question is also if this should be called Christian religiosity at all. It's perhaps like most modern spiritual flag waving: a desire for it to be checkered, composed of a mesh of clearly labeled traditions, tailored to the individual like the products you can order in the modern mega malls

I certainly agree with you, but I think you will admit I said it (essentially) first, because I am wonderful, because I am an accomplished, eloquent ass. The only thing about so-called 'Christianity' (even as something waved like a flag) is that, even if it is imperfect or blemished, the tradition itself is naturally 'powerful', insofar as the structure of it is strong, sound, and enduring. There really does seem to be something abiding in some element of the Bible writings, the ideas or the spirit that stands behind it, otherwise I don't think it would capture and hold as many as it does.

But, 'the essence of being' (obviously a pretty pretentious term---I'm surprised you didn't come up with it first) is not Christian or Buddhist or anything at all. It is independent of all that. And, I think it is what we experience through any given lens we may place in front of it.

Talking Ass wrote:Verily, verily, I say unto you, that if you really had this leaping experience, you'd have a whole helluvalot more to say about it. Up till now, you haven't revealed much of it.

On several occasions it was indicated why not much "revelation" has been going on. And I will explain it again: it's not as important as you seem to believe, even insist it is. Perhaps one needs to have come full circle at least once in life to understand why this is so.

All the spectacular, leaping, impressing, unusual, wonderful, sophistication in experiencing is not what most people hold it to be. There's always a bigger, deeper, wider. But at some point a whole other orientation on these things can start germinating.

There really does seem to be something abiding in some element of the Bible writings, the ideas or the spirit that stands behind it, otherwise I don't think it would capture and hold as many as it does.

That's an incredible weak and worn out argument among less logical thinkers: the amount of people affected or swayed by something can never be a measure of spirit. If anything the Bible contains patterns because of a certain compression, a handling over ages that can be revealing. More despite the bulk of the content really or its intent. The power and "usability" of the book is mostly caused by its awesome cover, or its "medieval illuminations" and not the other way around.

That's an incredible weak and worn out argument among less logical thinkers: the amount of people affected or swayed by something can never be a measure of spirit. If anything the Bible contains patterns because of a certain compression, a handling over ages that can be revealing. More despite the bulk of the content really or its intent. The power and "usability" of the book is mostly caused by its awesome cover, or its "medieval illuminations" and not the other way around.

But that is not how The Talking Ass is using the 'argument'. All through the ages, from the remote past up until the hypermodern, many many many (should I continue?) great men have described why the Bible, after all other things, still stands out for them as a repository of tremendous wisdom and value. For reasons never completely understood (and which I don't fully understand) there is a 'spirit' that speaks to people---high and low, sophisticated and simple---and keeps speaking to people. My 'argument' is therefor somewhat different than you took it.

On several occasions it was indicated why not much "revelation" has been going on. And I will explain it again: it's not as important as you seem to believe, even insist it is. Perhaps one needs to have come full circle at least once in life to understand why this is so.

I don't understand this. This is a writing forum, and not a forum of pithy silences, where ideas, perceptions, beliefs, understandings are written out and expressed. Here, nothing at all is expressed by silence or omission. It is not a musical score or a telling withholding in literature that yet reveals some tremendous thing. Here, if you don't include it, it is simply not expressed: it doesn't exist. In the context of talking about important and deep things it is therefor crucial that expression be positive, that something be said. Not saying something is simply pure absence. You rarely speak about the most important part of your 'leap' into Christianity (I often imagine you in a flamboyant tutu of sorts when you use this word leap, or perhaps like a dapper, mustachioed trapeze artist). I assume, therefor, that it was an empty experience for you. So that, there is no great profundity of understanding that you can brag about.

A Talking Ass has spoken, let he who has ears, hear.

Case closed. Now, let's get down to the important business at hand: utterly destroying Australia.

You rarely speak about the most important part of your 'leap' into Christianity.

As I said earlier that's because it wasn't that important after all, it being just one of many transitions of a moving, evolving spirit. What I got out of it was mostly despite it being Christianity. Same would go for many other religions or even entheogenic substances and settings. While it could provide great learning experiences, even profound life-changing effects to some it can very well have the opposite effect to many others or remain just a meaningless thing. Why would I speak about such trial and error?

No, it makes so much more sense to relate to essential knowledge, some form or substrate which after many years of filtering has formed and just then relay this instead. That way much more people with their relative, subjective lives might benefit from it by incorporating or evaluating some of it. As such they can draw and live their own self-formed conclusions, expressed in whatever subjective scenario.

You, Deja Vu, will be raptured before the Cataclysm strikes. Yahway is only after Dan Rowden, so if you'll just turn him over the matter can be settled amicably.

If not, that's okay too, but kiss Australia goodby.

Reference to the bible troubles me when engaged in this argument. How can one hold universally true something fed to one by the pen of another? If these texts are not introduced to ones experience by what amounts to marketing, one would not hold these things universally true. Only what one can comprehend and experience can be held universally true.

The same way you are the conscious manefestation of the molecules that make up your body, God is the conscious manefestation of all that is, was and can be. We are experiencing a specifically ordered alignment of the aformentioned. A degree of what it is to be God. Essentially we are God. At the very least part of God. At lowest resolution we are molecules within a body; part of a whole.

dejavu wrote:Not only will I turn Dan over, but I'll throw in Kevin and David for free. A package deal no destroyer can refuse.

Mercenary bastard! :)

DHodges,

EvilBible.com is Dead

Large portions of evilbible.com have been considered, dissected and declared
fallacious on very many levels.
Two examples of this fact are as follows:

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape evilbible.com,
for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text
related to the biblical view of and law about rape. Why this omission? Who
knows, but it would certainly have gotten in the way of a good session of
emotive expression of prejudice-it would have discredited evilbible.com to
reference this most important text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have
an annoying way of getting in the way of good fallacious assertions.

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice
evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible does
not command but condemns human sacrifice. Evilbible.com, for some odd
reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that human
sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile Pagans who were
not worshiping the God of the Bible but various false gods. When "Jews" were
performing human sacrifices it was only when they turned away from the God
of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans in worshiping various false gods.
Yet, in typical militant activist atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not
condemn Gentile Pagans but only condemns the Jews.

Further evidence of this is found at this URL:

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -dead.html

prince: QRS was a platform for me to understand a higher truth.

They can be left in the dust for all I care, they served a function is all. Leave them to their atheism, it's not my place to change them.

A little [paraphrased] Nietzsche seems appropriate here:

The student repays the teacher poorly by always remaining a student.

You could be wrong, prince, but at least you have become more interesting . . . .

I, prince.

You have been told.

Atheism - The case against god.

Every good Wittgensteinian should own a copy of this book. It's part of the skeptics bookshelf. (My personal bookshelf is very empty atm, I wonder why?) Words, fetters.