GENIUS FORUMS

Alex Jacob wrote:Maybe if you change your name to Brokienegaard?

Alex! I like it!

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:They’re taken to task in just about every one of my posts.

What are? Christian core beliefs? Why don't you state some of them here succinctly? What exactly is it that you think Christians believe?

brokenhead wrote:My relationship with God has nothing to do with his being "likeable."

You've said previously that the God you're speaking of is only a postulated and proposed God. You can't have much of a relationship with a postulated and proposed God.

brokenhead wrote:

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:They’re taken to task in just about every one of my posts.

What are? Christian core beliefs? Why don't you state some of them here succinctly? What exactly is it that you think Christians believe?

Generally, Christians believe in an intelligent, loving creator, they believe in the immortality of their personal sense of consciousness, and they believe that there is justice.

But as Kevin somewhat pointed out, this isn't so much about what people believe - it's more about why they believe. Christians do differ from each other on the surface (as there's various brands of Xianity), but behind the idiosyncratic veneer, the motives are always the same.

Kevin Solway wrote:

brokenhead wrote:My relationship with God has nothing to do with his being "likeable."

You've said previously that the God you're speaking of is only a postulated and proposed God. You can't have much of a relationship with a postulated and proposed God.

Where have I said that? Please show me.

Cory Duchesne wrote:But as Kevin somewhat pointed out, this isn't so much about what people believe - it's more about why they believe. Christians do differ from each other on the surface (as there's various brands of Xianity), but behind the idiosyncratic veneer, the motives are always the same.

Such as?

brokenhead wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:But as Kevin somewhat pointed out, this isn't so much about what people believe - it's more about why they believe. Christians do differ from each other on the surface (as there's various brands of Xianity), but behind the idiosyncratic veneer, the motives are always the same.

Such as?

1) the desire to have something powerful or magical guide or even possess your life.

2) the desire for consciousness to continue past death

3) bewilderment about how life could possibly be without a designer

1) the desire to have something powerful or magical guide or even possess your life.

This is really an innate human characteristic. You would be very hard pressed to 'locate' where and how this characteristic came into existence. Some say that it exists as part of hardwiring, as part of the psychological platform of humans. There IS always something 'powerful' and 'magical' that guides our life, of this there is no doubt. It is happening within the structure of life itself, and is ourselves and the whole platform where we and 'all this' take place. Have we stopped finding evidence of this? Is there not perhaps a sort of sublimation of the archaic idea of God?

2) the desire for consciousness to continue past death

True, there is a 'desire' for this continuance, no doubt, and often it is of the least likely part of us: the so-called 'ego', the personality that is you and me. But, can anyone definitively say what happens before birth and after death (of the body and mind)? Can we definitively know?

3) bewilderment about how life could possibly be without a designer

This is tricky. We know that there is no designer in the evolution of organisms, etc. They were not designed and plopped down on to the ground The way that beings come into existence is spontaneous and happens of its own accord. (A blow to Creationists). That it happens is still a miracle and a mystery. But the real question has to do with the whole platform of creation---creation itself. How does existence come into existence? If there is being, no-being is altogether an impossibility, and since we know that being exists, how did or does being come into existence? It is looking into that that asks many substantial questions. Do you have any sort of an answer?

Alex Jacob wrote:1) the desire to have something powerful or magical guide or even possess your life.

This is really an innate human characteristic. You would be very hard pressed to 'locate' where and how this characteristic came into existence. Some say that it exists as part of hardwiring, as part of the psychological platform of humans. There IS always something 'powerful' and 'magical' that guides our life, of this there is no doubt.

I meant a conscious powerful/magical something. Is that what you mean? (I should have been more clear)

I agree that we likely have a hard wired tendency to invent Gods, spirits and other worlds. But I also think that for some people this tendency can be overcome.

[the powerful and magical something] is happening within the structure of life itself, and is ourselves and the whole platform where we and 'all this' take place.

What do you mean by structure of life? I can imagine that you might be referring to the structure of things such as leaves and rocks. How are you able to discern what is happening within the structure of things? (or maybe I just misinterpreted you)

2) the desire for consciousness to continue past death

True, there is a 'desire' for this continuance, no doubt, and often it is of the least likely part of us: the so-called 'ego', the personality that is you and me. But, can anyone definitively say what happens before birth and after death (of the body and mind)? Can we definitively know?

No, we can't know for sure one way or the other. But all evidence suggests that consciousness arises at a result of family heredity, biological processes, and environmental/ideological influences. There's no better example of this than with mentally ill people. Evidence also only suggests that consciousness is extinguished when the organism shuts down.

Perhaps more interestingly, evidence also strongly suggests that what we do in this life is caused by the behavior of our ancestors, and what we do also has an impact on future generations. That being said, logic suggests that we are other people, past and future generations. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that we suffer in hell because of our sins in past lives, and because of good actions, we will possibly be rewarded in heaven.

3) bewilderment about how life could possibly be without a designer

This is tricky. We know that there is no designer in the evolution of organisms, etc. They were not designed and plopped down on to the ground The way that beings come into existence is spontaneous and happens of its own accord. (A blow to Creationists). That it happens is still a miracle and a mystery. But the real question has to do with the whole platform of creation---creation itself. How does existence come into existence?

It doesn't. Creation is impossible. There is only eternity, which doesn't happen. It only is.

If there is being, no-being is altogether an impossibility, and since we know that being exists, how did or does being come into existence?

It never did. It was always here. You and I are the same immortal being.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:And even though they don't call their god that, they do have that relationship with it. Christianity, and the Christians that adhere to its tenets, have made god, as Kierkegaard put it, "...so sublime that in the long run we really have spirited him away and smuggled him out of life".

I would like you to distinguish between Christianity the religion (which does have true adherents, such as Kierkegaard, Jesus, and G.I. Gurdjieff) and The Church, that multi-denominational (demon-national) Institution that sells its bastardized wares to the average initiate. I would like you to stop bad-mouthing Christianity itself (of which, agreed, the average so-called Christian knows and lives little).

Carl,

You asked me to "distinguish", which is simply accomplished by stating that I'm a "true adherent" - a Christian (albeit a developing one).

Note: Jesus and Kierkegaard - yes. But G.I. Gurdjieff - not even close.

elderwoodxxx wrote:I understand what you are saying michiel
......... (deleted paragraph.. m)
ps i note what you say above about consciousness unchanging.... but doesnt consciousness grow into the infinite... the creator created the oceans of consciousness..many of which are void and fueling creation from new understanding within this density serve to expand consciousness.. as it is alive?

And why do you perceive that creativity has no honour here...creativity is the driving force behind all things. I think its great that you have an affinity with your creations.. Us artists always do ;-)
amandaxxx

(Back to town at last. A bit overwhelming as to where to jump back in.)
Wisdom grows in relation to creating community, especially as local focus of global awakenint. But consciousness eternally transcends *what*everyone is conscious *of.* It is the unchanging Awareness everywhere, every-when, the transcendental aspect of God (Creator=Consciousness... creation is dynamic and ever changing, as constantly manifesting anew, via creative Consciousness.

My comment to the effect that artists have no honor in this forum is merely the acknowledgement of the forum admin philosophy about aesthetics and artists. I do not subscribe. Truth, Beauty, Love... and subtile variations there-of... all have high priority value in my life.
Sometimes "one small act of creating (or appreciating) beauty makes my day.
mikiel

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:
Note: Jesus and Kierkegaard - yes. But G.I. Gurdjieff - not even close.

"We can only strive to be able to be Christians." ~ G.I. Gurdjieff

brokenhead wrote:

mikiel wrote:I could easily leave this forum right now and it would be enough said. But who here truly understands what I've said (repetitively) in this post?
This is not a rhetorical question. I am open to an honest answer.

I understand it very well, mikiel.

I also understand that the ONE CONSCIOUSNESS manifests itself into individual entities. You are not God. I am not God. But we are of Him, literally.

You do not understand the difference between The One Identity
(I Am... in ALL) and manifest forms, individuals, entities.
Jesus said, Yes, I am God. He also said, "Know you not that you are Gods?" And "Be therefore "perfect" (complete, enlightened, in this unity with God, even as the Father in heaven (actually omnipresent) is perfect."
He taught that your sense of separateness is an illusion. He was an example of oneness (identity!) in/with/as God. He told people to awaken into the the same unity he realized. But the church insisted on an egoic interpretation... we are born "sinners" and remain so until "saved" by God-as-Jesus... the only Son, the only Way. What else could humanity expect from the unenlightened "sinners" who denied the God-hood potential of all humanity. You fell for it too. I am here to speak the same Truth Jesus taught. "I Am" (Universal Consciousness) *is* "The WAy." Not the worship of Jesus as the one and only "Savior."
mik-I-el

Carl,

You and I have discussed G.I. Gurdjieff before back in April this year on the "Drug life" thread. I haven't changed my opinion of him since then.

Then, it's posted for the benefit of others.

brokenhead wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:You've said previously that the God you're speaking of is only a postulated and proposed God. You can't have much of a relationship with a postulated and proposed God.

Where have I said that? Please show me.

Back here you were saying that you didn't know for sure there was a conscious God being (what I call an "alien-God"), but that it was something you were only seeking to know. And if you don't know it for sure then it follows that you are only postulating or proposing the existence of such a thing.

What "need" could an "imaginary" friend fulfill in a real world?

It's a common mental illness for a person to imagine they are Jesus Christ, or Napoleon or suchlike. What need do you think that fulfills for the person?

It's not difficult to know the answer.

And it's exactly the same kind of mental illness that causes people to imagine an intelligent God-being who watches over them. The benefits of such imaginings are evident, otherwise people wouldn't imagine such things.

Cory wrote:

"I meant a conscious powerful/magical something. Is that what you mean? (I should have been more clear)".

Frankly, I may mean a number of things because the whole issue is multi-leveled. I meet other beings, other physical beings who are 'conscious and powerful' in my day to day life. I might also encounter 'beings' of a similar nature and effect in dreams. How do we describe what is happening in that instance? There is a communion, an exchange, how do we define that? The farther we move into the area of so-called epiphenomena, such as consciousness, it seems to me that we move into unknown, maybe undefinable territory. The blunt and rather archaic superstition of conventional religiosity is flat and predictable, but there are many other possible avenues of understanding and interpretation. On what basis cold you or would you strip consciousness of magical properties? when it is nothing less than pure magic, if we step back and look at it against the backdrop of 'eternity'? The standard God-idea is outdated, archaic, regressive, literally outmoded. But the God-idea does not at all have to be like that, and nor does the notion of relationship to a divine figure, a vast consciousness. Why should it? I sense the closed frontiers of some views presented here and they seem to me the twin, the compliment, of the closed ideas of the (those typical) Christians of Christendom.

"I agree that we likely have a hard wired tendency to invent Gods, spirits and other worlds. But I also think that for some people this tendency can be overcome."

The way you have phrased this is an answer to your own 'question'. Your prejudice is revealed. We are biologically hardwired to 'invent' Gods and spooks and spirits. I think rather that it is when we (or humankind) begins to come into consciousness, that we in fact come into an area where other consciousnesses also exist. You might say that if I dream of some intelligent being it is 'merely' myself relating to myself, merely a feeling of relatedness. I don't know if that is a fair answer, though it is an answer that fits into a specific paradigm. What if in coming into consciousness we may begin to have contact (somehow) with other levels of consciousness? Why is that an impossibility? Maybe those consciousnesses, as Jung said, are of a 'psychoid' nature? (he speculated this but knew, as a scientist, it was not provable).

Language in a sense is the problem---the graveyard of old words and meanings. You said 'spirits', and what you mean is an amorphous 'spirit' that floats around like in a cartoon. This is an old, archaic order of organizing perception. But the idea has shifted. It has shifted, but it hasn't disappeared. Nor perhaps could it or should it.

Structure of Life is the whole place where we are, the physical platform, the physical scene where all this is happening. It is literally the space, the opportunity, where all this is going on. That in itself seems pretty peculiar, pretty far out (what could be more far-out?) I think it is a sort of modified 'vedic' idea because in some old time these 'seers' who wrote down their thoughts and speculations were seemingly amazed that this place could come into existence, that this place, this sphere, this 'loka' was here, and within that we all are taking place. It was a never-ending source of wonderment for them. It is for us too, but we also tend to blunt it out, to dull our perceptions. Just as there are boring Christians (and other religionists) so too there are boring atheists. Whose eyes and whose spirits are really opened to the wonder of things? Who writes about that? Who expresses that? I just see the emphasis shift, but the content of wonderment is still there (in the best of the best). To my way of seeing things it is still 'divinity'.

"There is only eternity, which doesn't happen. It only is."

Yes, and why? How? To what end? With purpose, without purpose (for we individuals). If life (consciousness) has been going on...eternally...there is likely no limit to what consciousness has become. Can we have a relationship to that, to 'them'? In what way? Can we find that internally, in our own meditation? In our prayer? Can you definitively say? I think we have to allow our language to shift, to be fluid, and allow it to move toward new definitions, definitions that are useful to us. In so many senses religion as we know it is dead, but what is the new modus that we are discovering? It is obvious that even within 'theology' there is a massive shift. This was all presaged in the late 1800s. But in many ways, in the way you speak, you don't seem aware of that. (My perception of your view of things). My interest is in seeing how far we can go into a totally new paradigm, a totally new eplanation that is completely open to modernity and 'scientific outlook'.

The God idea especially in the occidental-Chrsitian context is vastly fluid and changing. You and me and the way we are talking is an extension of it.

dejavu wrote:Religionists need not be afraid of thinkers, then again, they probably need to be after all!
Why do their concepts end up standing still?

Thinkers are always 'stilled' The 'prying' philosopher 'plato' using logic and reason was shunned by 'church' in its attempts to keep their dogmatic theology and POWER see: Isis Unveiled by HP Blavatsky vol 2 chap 1
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/isis/iu2-01.htm


Timaeus By Plato 360 B.C.E Discusses creation and consciousness..
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

There IS only one creator, One consciousness and manifestations of it. In accordance with WILL. Esoteric in understanding.

mikiel wrote:My comment to the effect that artists have no honor in this forum is merely the acknowledgement of the forum admin philosophy about aesthetics and artists. I do not subscribe. Truth, Beauty, Love... and subtile variations there-of... all have high priority value in my life.
Sometimes "one small act of creating (or appreciating) beauty makes my day.
mikiel

Truth beauty and Love are the creational drive of mankind. It is in flashes of inspiration and sublime awe and grandeur that we glimpse creations perfection in unity of oneness.
ps when we discussed 'jesus' before.... i was refering to him as an 'example' a manifestation of 'one' not a dogmatic theologian popery view.
Amandaxxx

I think, Deja Vu, that it is more about continuing to define and redefine---to keep seeking---to define 'God' in ever-more relevant terms. What we see in this thread, as a starting point, is a contest between (one extreme) some drunk religionists who give evidence of the same mechanism that operates in blind faith, and that stands behind the more negative aspects of religion. (In any case that is what I see, others may see it differently). This 'faith' is more than anything a group of feelings about their own internal process and relationship to whatever they mean when they say 'God'. Amanda for example trots out neo-platonism as if it is a sound philosophical defense of her position. Since neo-platonism is philosophical, well, that should just 'still' us all (as she implies). This is horribly erroneous, and here she is acting like this priestly power-class but in the world of ideas: trying to enforce a view which no longer functions! It is archaic. The language that supports it must be thoroughly revised. It is de-contextual in our present. But, religionists of a certain stripe are (as we all know) very, very stubborn. They just won't budge.

And on the other side of that you have their analogue: someone who hunkers down in a safe position (atheism, materialism) and simply will not be open to a wider view even of their materialism and atheism! Then, positions established, these two camps engage in an endless, useless and completely boring war of words! Step back and examine the 'game'. They are an excellent 'fit'.

I'm glad you said 'i think' there A J as indeed that IS what you think.. and while i may be refering to plato I can refer to ALL if i may. That was an example in the discussion at this point.

The Universal wisdom which IS the basis for ALL religion is what I understand. It is IN understanding of ONENESS of a unity. You just showed us how we are divided by opinion of a thought.

I am quite able to understand 'creator consciousness' with logic and reason. Much to the dismay of the power keepers i am sure.. those beings of whom wish to maintain control. I write simplistic universal understanding based upon self belief in who you already are if you could but understand it for yourself.

Amandaxxx

Kevin Solway: You've said previously that the God you're speaking of is only a postulated and proposed God. You can't have much of a relationship with a postulated and proposed God.
brokenhead: Where have I said that? Please show me.
Kevin Solway: Back here you were saying that you didn't know for sure there was a conscious God being (what I call an "alien-God"), but that it was something you were only seeking to know. And if you don't know it for sure then it follows that you are only postulating or proposing the existence of such a thing.

You must be joking! If you follow that link, it is to a quote from you, not me. Here is the quote to which the link leads:

Kevin Solway: Then I think you should be a lot more circumspect and humble in the way you say things. For example, instead of saying, "This is the way things are", you should say, "It may be this way", or "The God I propose/postulate is like this".

In this quote from you, you are telling me the words I should be using. It follows that if you are telling me which words I should be using, then I am not using those words. Then in the quote above, you accuse me of using the words you tried to put in my mouth.

You would not argue this way if you had any real argument. Moreover, the more you think about it, the more you realize that your argument is nonexistent. So you must resort to quoting yourself and attributing it to me.

brokenhead: What "need" could an "imaginary" friend fulfill in a real world?
Kevin Solway: It's a common mental illness for a person to imagine they are Jesus Christ, or Napoleon or suchlike. What need do you think that fulfills for the person?

It's not difficult to know the answer.

You could have trotted out examples of a hundred different mental illnesses. You are implying that faith is a mental illness, but you have not shown it to be so, you have merely highlighted the fact that you do not understand its nature. You could have said "It is common for people to collect stamps." That would not have made having faith the same as having a stamp collection. It is the same [non]argument.

If you are saying that I cannot possibly know there is a god, I am saying that in that exact same way, you cannot possibly know there is not.

Amanda, my amorphous blob:

Whatever else could I say, and whatever else could anyone say but 'I think'? But let's examine what you are saying:

'You' are not really thinking, you are accessing universal All-thought and simply 'channel' it to us all, and out it plops, a fantastical newage blob of goop! And to make matters worse, the goop just repeats itself ever and again, it blorps and splooges along, enveloping all it encounters, and no one hears the strangulated cries through the gelatinous quivering mass. It is sort of the mental version of The Borg and assimilates all into itself. You cannot (I propose) honestly examine why this 'way' of yours is non-productive (certainly to this environment) because, in truth, you see yourself as a Messenger of this God-of-All. It is an impossibility that this All-ness you profess and whose trumpets you blare through might be expressing if not erroneous then questionable views. I bow down before you Amanda, I promise to burn precious incense before your image in my temple, and together (if I can enter the space that produces this gobbledygook) we can 'work out our agreements' together, synchronize our language, and splooge the whole wide world! Yay!

The 'example' in 'the discussion at this point' is, if you will permit me, juvenile. I say your 'thinking' is just laziness and sloppiness. You don't know where you are right now and you seem to have little idea why anyone takes issue with you! You continue to assert that the reason we take issue with you is because we are incomplete, we are not seeing the whole picture as you are, but you know, Amanda, it could be the other way around.

"The Universal wisdom which IS the basis for ALL religion is what I understand. It is IN understanding of ONENESS of a unity. You just showed us how we are divided by opinion of a thought."

This is a fallacious thought-pattern. You speak of this 'universal wisdom' as a revealed, universal thing (and you reveal it)(Amanda comes forth from behind a cloud, two fingers held in suggestive position, a serene smile on her benevolent face). You imply that this understanding of this 'oneness' is a possibility, and you understand it. You imply that because I take issue with you that I am outside of this 'oneness' (that you stand over and dole out) exactly like a priest. The implication of all this, if I get it right, is that I would do well to begin to merge with this 'oneness', that I would become 'stilled', and I am not at all sure what comes after this, but whatever that something is, you know about it, you manage it...

All this, OF COURSE! is all a negative side of dys-theological pseudo-neo-proto religious doughboy thinking, and you give the whole process a WRETCHED name! This thinking of yours is part of the disease we need to get cured from (I submit).

I further submit that this sort of 'thinking', these 'ideas' about universality is part of a process of making the mind and thought and understanding a uniform mass, and has to do with eliminating difference and distinction that make you uncomfortable, that challenge your lazy person! This is a world-wide trend: to make things uniform, manipulatable, controllable. This newage sewage that you bring to us is not a positive thing, it is mediocre at best, but it has potential negative connotations too. You represent, I think, an outmoded, medieval way of organizing the mind and using the mind, but you profess that it is 'progressive'.

In short, you must be fed to the lions...

;-)
_________________________________________________________

Anyway, here is a marvellous site of Christian Art... (And much more too).

Alex Jacob wrote:Amanda, my amorphous blob:

You really know how to rap with the chicks, Alex!

Alex Jacob wrote:Whatever else could I say, and whatever else could anyone say but 'I think'? But let's examine what you are saying:

Indeed everyone can 'think' for themselves, and i would not have it any other way. But why do you not stop to question why you are thinking it and what led you to those assertions and understandings in the first place. Have you broken down and analysed your thoughts and put them into a context where you can relate to all others with understanding??

Alex Jacob wrote:'You' are not really thinking, you are accessing universal All-thought and simply 'channel' it to us all, and out it plops, a fantastical newage blob of goop! And to make matters worse, the goop just repeats itself ever and again, it blorps and splooges along, enveloping all it encounters, and no one hears the strangulated cries through the gelatinous quivering mass. It is sort of the mental version of The Borg and assimilates all into itself. You cannot (I propose) honestly examine why this 'way' of yours is non-productive (certainly to this environment) because, in truth, you see yourself as a Messenger of this God-of-All. It is an impossibility that this All-ness you profess and whose trumpets you blare through might be expressing if not erroneous then questionable views. I bow down before you Amanda, I promise to burn precious incense before your image in my temple, and together (if I can enter the space that produces this gobbledygook) we can 'work out our agreements' together, synchronize our language, and splooge the whole wide world! Yay!

I am capable of 'thinking' and i do have control of my own mind. The mind is just a computer, capable of infinite logic through understanding universal laws which govern the cosmos, from an AWARE viewpoint. If in your perception 'gloopy' nouns have to be used to describe your misunderstanding of my words to make you get a kick then thats cool too.. was rather funny i should assimilate that into a poem eh?... titled 'The goop of a soul trapped behind an illusion' the mind itself in control of you rather than you in control of it.

It IS your perception and insecurity that makes you perceive me as a messenger... in actual fact i have never professed to be anything other than myself, an equal with other human life. Much understanding of Oneness is needed but obviously not here or for those who do not want to listen.. Why mock the pedestal that you place me upon to bring me down again? when i already aknowledge that to be one is to be equal.. no one is higher than another, just you like to pull another down because you think they are gooping crap which you dont hear of perceive... How about having a desent conversation with me as your equal? You talk a lot of idolatory worship, is there something you wish to tell us??

I am full aware of where i am are you? You do realise that in voicing your assertions you are showing all others your own insecurities and fears? to assert that i am a juvenile only allows others to see that you must 'think' you are above.

Alex Jacob wrote:we are not seeing the whole picture as you are, but you know, Amanda, it could be the other way around.

Well again you are quick to judge, feel free to allow us your understanding to flow on the topic of you in relation to others and then we will certainly know where you are.

This UNIVERSAL wisdom IS an acknowledged 'thing' it is what forms the basis of old religion and ALL religion, note to you... more research needed!!!

And do not worry it is my own choice to feed myself here to you lions... for in doing so i become more aware of the arrogance and slander that forms the whole of most of these writers assertions. They are quick to debunk anothers words with judging mockery instead of simply asking about it.. Foolishness all round. Have your egos grown so much that simple converstation can not be employed in the realms of equal adults.

Amanda