GENIUS FORUMS

Wisdom

Some of us are born with the intelligence to be wise, wisdom is inherently born from knowledge. Knowledge is attained from data input. Wisdom has earned itself wisdom status by being wise enough to handle itself!

King Solomon from the Bible was the wisest of all humanity and there'll never be another as wise as he, ever again, so it is told.

It is wise to cast your stones upon the water, for in many days it will be returned to you. In other words give and you shall receive. So the next time you see a poor destitute soul sitting on the sidewalk with his cap out collecting change, don't hesitate to give him money or offer to take him to a restaurant, for it is act of kindness, and a good deed you're doing to help your brother or sister. Be like Jesus, don't expect reward, but do goodness from the heart for the sake of goodness.

Never call anyone a Fool, and although guilty of such, I am the fool.

The wise man approaches wisdom from what he knows is tried and true, he introduces his knowledge effectively and efficiently, it catches on because it is premium thought reasoned out, it is wisdom!

Wisdom is more than a word, it is power itself. To be wise is to know, to know is to direct, share what you know in a knowing way, but not nosing it.

"He who knows and not knows that he knows is asleep--wake him
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool--shun him
He who knows and knows that he knows is wise--follow him"

Well, that is surprising considering that Solomon isn't really considered that wise in Christianity, at least not since Nicea. After-all, several of his books were excluded from the canon. Mainstream Christianity explicitly denies that Wisdom has ever been called "Sophia" by Christians, and claim that is a Pagan or Gnostic reference. But actually Solomon calls Wisdom; Sophia, as Sophia is the Greek word for Wisdom, as in the Hagia Sophia ("Holy Wisdom") in Istanbul. Apparently, some people care more about their own wisdom than Solomon's, even though he was reportedly the wisest. Solomon's Book of Wisdom doesn't even appear in the KJV or NIV, it appears in the New World Translation, but most Bibles reject it.

Calling King Solomon the wisest of all humanity is like calling a Prime Minister's office the highest possible. Typical feminine babble.

Imagine all the dutiful Bible-readers nodding their heads at the supposed wisdom of Solomon, and all the mothers and couch-sitting ladies sending each other SMS's congratulating themselves at the supposed wisdom of Julia Gillard.

There are tough times ahead, when a female's communicating abilities are the most important trait in being elected. It's like using a female in a line of riot police, or female telemarketers, or a female at a complaints desk. But the collective mind sees wisdom in Woman, and in vague myths, and so is easily manipulated.


...

Fuck religion, fuck it right in the ass. There is no wisdom in any religious figure. Jesus? he can fuck right off too. I'd rather go to "hell" than spend eternity with that delusional twat.

The scourge of the human race and always has been.

Most of the sayings attributed to someone called Jesus in the gospel of Thomas aren't by a delusional twat, in my view. He had an attractive intimacy with nature, was very observant, and communicated skillfully. It seems that most of his peers were aggressive blockheads, and he couldn't stimulate them to relax into a deep connection with the Father.

But yes, the religion called Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus.


...

Kelly Jones wrote:Most of the sayings attributed to someone called Jesus in the gospel of Thomas aren't by a delusional twat, in my view. He had an attractive intimacy with nature, was very observant, and communicated skillfully.

So? He also believed Jesus was the son of god.

Nuff' said.

If God means the source of all things, the One, and the One is the Father of all things, then all things are the sons of God. Pretty straightforward, I would have thought.

Of course, there could be a special meaning for the son of God: the one who is aware of the One.


...

The only problem I've ever found with religion is the way its viewed, by both its followers and opponents. If religion was supposed to be what we think of it, then I guess that would provide an objective basis for thinking of it that way, but how can we determine what it is supposed to be, or what it is. Actually, I read a book not long ago called "The Sociology of Religion" which ranged from totemic theories, to Freudian Oedipus. It looked at all kinds of explanations but most of which were lacking if not completely wrong in my point of view. If some sociologist can have such a distorted perception of religion then why can't I, right? Maybe I'm the insane one, or maybe we are both insane.

I find an endless source of wisdom in the Bible, but its how I'm reading it too. I'm not glorifying it in my own mind, nor am I trying to reduce it to absurdity. I don't fill my head with thoughts about how much shit it is or how wonderful it is, I try to figure out what it means and make sure I've read it correctly. Let's try a few examples:

"My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:2-3)

I'm gonna stick with Colossians 2, which I think is St. Paul to the Colossians. It doesn't sound like St. Paul is serving up faith for breakfast in this address. It sounds more like he's dishing out knowledge. How can it then be claimed that what is understood "in Christ" is a matter of faith? Isn't St. Paul talking about "complete understanding"?

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (Colossians 2:8)

What "Christ" is, is something which doesn't get spoken about much at all. It's obvious to me that Christ is the embodiment of the Logos, which can be viewed as identical to Buddha-nature or the Tau. The trinity is essentially the expression of three "emanations" or aspects of the primal self (God). There is God the father which is the ultimate source, the totality, then there is the Logos which is what we would ordinarily call Logic or Causality. It is said that man has/is a mini-logos. But Christ is the embodiment of the Logos in principle. Living breathing truth. Jesus was the perfect embodiment of the Logos, the Logos "made flesh" according to the Biblical recollection. "this world" or references to "the world" in any derogatory fashion usually refer to ego-based existence. So say for example, this verse might relate to the idea of liberated woman. If women are liberated, fine, but they need to know how to use it... the trend is that mindless self-indulgence and irrationality are the order of the day. Being liberated means getting shit faced and passing out in a puddle of your own puke. Proverbially and literally speaking. In other words, if the philosophy is not based on embodied truth, then it is "hollow and deceptive", and worldly/egotistical in nature.

"9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[a] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead."

Again, Christ is the embodiment of the Logos which is ultimately truth. From there comes the "fullness" i.e. enlightenment. Circumcision here is a putting off of egotistical habits of the mind, which is attained through ego-death experiences. ie Being buried in baptism and raised through faith... now faith here seems like its different from the knowledge. The faith seems to be operational in nature, more or less having faith that the ego-death experience will not be a trap or end in misery. No guarantee that it won't be painful and scary, otherwise, why would anyone need faith?

"20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."

I think as he was saying you needed Knowledge and faith for that... but this raises the larger question of what is known. The faith I think is pretty consistently just referring to trust in the consistency and operation of a thing. When you break faith with your friends, you don't stop believing in their existence. Somehow, I think the usage of faith in modern commentary is an excuse for not really having faith. If they really had faith they'd realize there was something worth knowing and try to get it even if it killed them. In this section St. Paul is clearly warning against vain philosophy that pays lip service to principles but doesn't embody them, so as to not actually be Christian. They may be purely logical beliefs, but behaviourly they are worldly. So they are ultimately hypocrites as most of us are. Hence the need to restrain something. But I don't think it's as much about restraining, except that it is through knowing, and knowing can be viewed as a restraint. When we reach for the stove, and don't know it's hot, then knowing it, would help a lot.

Interesting analysis, Ryan. I think that faith is no different to knowledge, in the sense that when knowledge is true, then faith arises automatically, because faith is knowledge. In what can one have faith, given that nothing really exists? That emptying-out of falsehood's desire for something is true knowledge.

But if you have to work hard to see wisdom out of a text, then it isn't high quality. The more diluted, the more one wonders why. For instance, the huge part of Buddhist scripture made up of rules for behaviour. It's so easy for people to use such things to hide from Reality, instead of realising that in using them, one has made a concession to one's weaknesses, and only adopts them as temporary tools, under dread of complacency.


...

Kelly Jones wrote:Most of the sayings attributed to someone called Jesus in the gospel of Thomas aren't by a delusional twat, in my view. He had an attractive intimacy with nature, was very observant, and communicated skillfully. It seems that most of his peers were aggressive blockheads, and he couldn't stimulate them to relax into a deep connection with the Father.

But yes, the religion called Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus.


...

That is because most people who practice it are also aggressive blockheads, as are the hypocrites in pointy hats known as the clergy, who preach that one not attach oneself to earthly treasures, while simultaneously surrounding themselves with material wealth pilfered through the ages.

Kelly Jones wrote:Interesting analysis, Ryan. I think that faith is no different to knowledge, in the sense that when knowledge is true, then faith arises automatically, because faith is knowledge. In what can one have faith, given that nothing really exists? That emptying-out of falsehood's desire for something is true knowledge.

But if you have to work hard to see wisdom out of a text, then it isn't high quality. The more diluted, the more one wonders why. For instance, the huge part of Buddhist scripture made up of rules for behaviour. It's so easy for people to use such things to hide from Reality, instead of realising that in using them, one has made a concession to one's weaknesses, and only adopts them as temporary tools, under dread of complacency.


...

Honestly, I didn't have to try at all. It just comes naturally to me at this point, although that particular book is fairly straight-forward.

Kelly Jones wrote:If God means the source of all things, the One, and the One is the Father of all things, then all things are the sons of God. Pretty straightforward, I would have thought.

But it is technically incorrect to invoke causality in this manner, right? God, the totality, cannot cause or be the source of anything, by definition. So it's kind of a poetic, metaphorical indulgence that compromises on rigor, and is hence not entirely straightforward. The problem with this metaphorical style of teaching is that the human brain is very much primed to attribute sentience to the universe, so when one indulges in metaphors like this, it mostly just misleads the ignorant.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:If God means the source of all things, the One, and the One is the Father of all things, then all things are the sons of God. Pretty straightforward, I would have thought.

But it is technically incorrect to invoke causality in this manner, right? God, the totality, cannot cause or be the source of anything, by definition. So it's kind of a poetic, metaphorical indulgence that compromises on rigor, and is hence not entirely straightforward. The problem with this metaphorical style of teaching is that the human brain is very much primed to attribute sentience to the universe, so when one indulges in metaphors like this, it mostly just misleads the ignorant.

The Bible acknowledges that we are categorical machines, and uses the term "idolatry" to encompass the phenomena you speak of. Without a proper understanding of idolatry, the text remains an egotistical mystery. It is that way by design. The "ignorant" will reject straight-shooting truth, so there is a bit of snag here for the ego to draw people in and get them thinking.

Or at least, that's my interpretation....

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:If God means the source of all things, the One, and the One is the Father of all things, then all things are the sons of God. Pretty straightforward, I would have thought.

But it is technically incorrect to invoke causality in this manner, right? God, the totality, cannot cause or be the source of anything, by definition. So it's kind of a poetic, metaphorical indulgence that compromises on rigor, and is hence not entirely straightforward. The problem with this metaphorical style of teaching is that the human brain is very much primed to attribute sentience to the universe, so when one indulges in metaphors like this, it mostly just misleads the ignorant.

The ignorant have no problem calling sourdough bread starter "the Mother", or calling the main circuitry of a computer the "motherboard". Is that attributing sentience, or a causal relationship?

By asking 'What causes all things?', one has to answer, 'Not a thing'. One can call it the source, the void, Nature, the Father, the Mother, the Way, the Master, the Lord supreme, the invisible, etc. One can't rightly say "nothing", and one can't say "a particular thing". All the words we have, point to something in particular, but if one uses words skillfully, knowing their true empty nature, the poetic symbol that is created should help re-orient the mind a little.

Sometimes using familiar words helps one to abandon the feeling of separateness. From that position of receptivity, it's possible to have a striking and deep realisation of how one is literally the Infinite. A whole-hearted experience of the true meaning of the words can be a stimulating and joyful experience, strengthening one later to handle more subtle delusions. It can be a very helpful medicine.


...

Kelly Jones wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:If God means the source of all things, the One, and the One is the Father of all things, then all things are the sons of God. Pretty straightforward, I would have thought.

But it is technically incorrect to invoke causality in this manner, right? God, the totality, cannot cause or be the source of anything, by definition. So it's kind of a poetic, metaphorical indulgence that compromises on rigor, and is hence not entirely straightforward. The problem with this metaphorical style of teaching is that the human brain is very much primed to attribute sentience to the universe, so when one indulges in metaphors like this, it mostly just misleads the ignorant.

The ignorant have no problem calling sourdough bread starter "the Mother", or calling the main circuitry of a computer the "motherboard". Is that attributing sentience, or a causal relationship?

By asking 'What causes all things?', one has to answer, 'Not a thing'. One can call it the source, the void, Nature, the Father, the Mother, the Way, the Master, the Lord supreme, the invisible, etc. One can't rightly say "nothing", and one can't say "a particular thing". All the words we have, point to something in particular, but if one uses words skillfully, knowing their true empty nature, the poetic symbol that is created should help re-orient the mind a little.

Sometimes using familiar words helps one to abandon the feeling of separateness. From that position of receptivity, it's possible to have a striking and deep realisation of how one is literally the Infinite. A whole-hearted experience of the true meaning of the words can be a stimulating and joyful experience, strengthening one later to handle more subtle delusions. It can be a very helpful medicine.


...

"Sometimes using familiar words helps one to abandon the feeling of separateness"

Mensa says: Kelly, you are insightful to make a statement such as the one above. Your words speak truth.
I have an appreciation for your insightfulness, but not for your words feminine babble aimed at me. My words may sound like feminine babble at times to an educated person, and I can clearly see that, that's only because I don't use the terminology the educated use, but, still I understand it for the most part. The problem with the educated is that many think their ideas are the be-all over the layman's, they think the layman doesn't understand their educated babble and lable him ignorant. And many times, it's just that--educated babble!

mensa-maniac wrote: "Sometimes using familiar words helps one to abandon the feeling of separateness"

Mensa says: Kelly, you are insightful to make a statement such as the one above. Your words speak truth.
I have an appreciation for your insightfulness, but not for your words feminine babble aimed at me. My words may sound like feminine babble at times to an educated person, and I can clearly see that, that's only because I don't use the terminology the educated use, but, still I understand it for the most part. The problem with the educated is that many think their ideas are the be-all over the layman's, they think the layman doesn't understand their educated babble and lable him ignorant. And many times, it's just that--educated babble!

Reads like an excuse for not reading.

[quote="mensa-maniac"]Some of us are born with the intelligence to be wise, wisdom is inherently born from knowledge. Knowledge is attained from data input. Wisdom has earned itself wisdom status by being wise enough to handle itself!

-tomas-
Absolutely! I couldn't have written it any better.


-Mensa-
King Solomon from the Bible was the wisest of all humanity and there'll never be another as wise as he, ever again, so it is told.

-tomas-
No doubt. Jesus (H.) Christ doesn't even rate in the Top Ten of all the characters in the Bible, Old and New Testament included.


-Mensa-
It is wise to cast your stones upon the water, for in many days it will be returned to you.

-tomas-
Yup. Reflecting back to yesteryear when my dad demonstated how to skip flat stones on the water. Once skipped a stone twelve times. Had to swim into the water and retrieve that one. Haven't decided which of my sons to give it to. Thought about my daughters but...


-Mensa-
In other words give and you shall receive.

-tomas-
Only if my daughters have found the normal kind of men to live (and love) their life with.


-Mensa-
So the next time you see a poor destitute soul sitting on the sidewalk with his cap out collecting change, don't hesitate to give him
money or offer to take him to a restaurant, for it is act of kindness, and a good deed you're doing to help your brother or sister.

-tomas-
Well, that depends upon the neighborhood one is in. We've lived in some rather dilapidated sections of town before we got (made a decent living wage and moved) to Easy Street. Some of those panhandlers are downright aggressive in their tactics .. but back to the 'charity begins at home' mantra. Yeah, a few bucks in their cap and a Big Mac in a sack..


-Mensa-
Be like Jesus, don't expect reward, but do goodness from the heart for the sake of goodness.

-tomas-
The dude could stand a shave, haircut and a change of clothing.


-Mensa-
Never call anyone a Fool, and although guilty of such, I am the fool.

-tomas-
The United States is run by a foolocracy.


-Mensa-
The wise man approaches wisdom from what he knows is tried and true, he introduces his knowledge
effectively and efficiently, it catches on because it is premium thought reasoned out, it is wisdom!

-tomas-
Huh?!!


-Mensa-
Wisdom is more than a word, it is power itself. To be wise is to know, to know
is to direct, share what you know in a knowing way, but not nosing it.

-tomas-
Some of you Canadians sure know how to cut through it all ;-)


-Mensa-
"He who knows and not knows that he knows is asleep--wake him
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool--shun him
He who knows and knows that he knows is wise--follow him"

-tomas-
Can I get an Amen??!

Amen Tomas, I like you!

Here is a little piece on Native American Wisdom.

A Cherokee elder was teaching his grandson about life.
"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. "It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil-he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false-pride, superiority, denial and ego,"

"The other is good-he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness , benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, acceptance and faith."

"This same fight is going on inside you and inside every other person too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The Cherokee elder simply replied, "The one you feed."