Is God trying to tell us?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by bogomil


But not really understanding your perspective on 'original sin', I'm at a loss here. Did you imply some new-age method, where things go through an ideological blender and come out homogenized, so 'original sin'-based methodology is similar to buddhistic 'dualism'-based methodology.

Im not sure what you are asking. I read Genesis, I put nothing through a blender, and what I read it as saying is that it is a sin, (which translates to miss the mark or err) to think we could judge like God. The Serpent had them eat the "fruit" and so now they were "judging" but they were mistaken in their belief that their judgment had anything to do with Gods. Surprise, surprise, the serpent in the story lied to them.

He gave them the curse of THINKING there was a "dualistic" world, when God had created one in which everything was "good." (Read Genesis for yourself.) Notice that God did not dress them for his sake. HE did not judge their nakedness, they did. He clothed them to ease their shame, not because being naked was really "bad" or "shameful."

I wasnt raised Christian, (or any religion) and so when I read the Bible, I had not had several hundreds of years of people telling me what I was supposed to see there. I saw what I saw. I saw God not "punishing" Adam and Eve, but describing for them the natural consequences of their new thought process. "Now you will fear hunger, and farm instead of gather," "now you will know your own death and fear it" "now there will be an increase in brain size and child birth will be more painful."

Originally posted by bogomil
Or did you mean the same initial situation viewed from two opposite perspectives. As far as I can see, there exist few (if any) religious doctrines so judgemental as 'original sin', whereas the original buddhist 'dualism' perspective is pretty neutral on the condemnation side.

Like I said I read it cleanly. I did not have "teaching" in the book, I had not been programmed to read it a specific way. But I had had an "experience" before I read it in which I experienced God. So, that did shape my understanding. To me, it was clear that God called the world out of "pure potentiality" by drawing lines. That portion of Genesis is remarkably like the Hymn of Creation in that way.

Not the best translation but oh well,

www.sacred-texts.com...

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

Originally posted by bogomil

Such postulates are easy to make from behind a computer. Considerably more difficult or impossible, living in a KZ-camp.

I dont know what a KZ camp is. But if you are trying to suggest that it is easy for someone to say that when life is fine, but impossible when life is very, very hard, you are incorrect. In fact, how I was taught that lesson was by having me experience a terrifying death. Its actually easier, believe it or not, for many to find unconditional acceptance in the WORST of times.

Originally posted by bogomil
Unconditional acceptance of WHAT. Not that I want to deny your direction or good intentions, but I question your competence to put forth such absolute answers.

Of what is. I dont care if you challenge my competence. At all. Im not in it to convince you. I'll do my best to answer what you are asking, but if this turns into a pissing match I will just bid you adieu. Im not here to convince anyone of anything. I say my piece but I am no messiah wanna be, nor a guru. No one got me to where I was going, and you will end up exactly where you belong. You will have the experience you are built for.

Originally posted by bogomil
A position is eventually as numbing as any doctrine or predigested answer.

Especially if fixed elements like this are introduced..

Not sure your point here. Im not telling anyone to do anything but look for themself. If you think that is the same as trying to tell them what they should see, more power to you. I'll not argue you.

Originally posted by bogomil
God? GOD? Where did he come from, in this open-end search, with no pre-arranged parameters.

Im not talking about a bearded man in the sky, if you are trying to superimpose your God on the word. I use the word broadly. The All that Is, Am, the Divine, The One, whatever you want to call it. I really dont care.

Originally posted by bogomil
Strangely enough, I also have had 'direct experience' (so we can have a merry little 'holier-than-you' competition or you can ignore it), but my direct experience didn't have any 'god' in it.

The only one that seems hostile here is you. I dont give a flying # how many people have experienced God. The more the merrier. Im not trying to be a Messiah, nor a guru. Lord knows ATS has enough of those.

My experience of God, since you seem to have had enough intercourse with Christian terminology that it has you imposing all sorts of crap on me, was "Am." It was everything, everyone, all at once. Absolute conscious intelligence without specific identity. Which is why I dont say "I AM" but only AM. It was pure intelligent being the individual "aspects" were existing in all possible times and states, it was perfect and complete.

And as you should know, anything I say is imperfect, and the more specific I try to get the more imperfect it gets. I am surprised you are being so nitpicky about the term "God" if you are also an experiencer.

Originally posted by bogomil
Actually I believe, that the presence of any kind of 'god' whatsoever would have imploded my 'direct experience'.

Cheers? Im not sure what to say to you. Im not quite sure what your beef is. Please feel free to tell me in very direct terms what you think I am full of crap about, because subtlety is not my strong suit, and I dont have enough patience to try to figure out catty remarks. Just say it straight, or keep it to yourself.

You and I are of the same mind my friend. I believe you are exactly correct in your view of the Genesis story and even your idea of God precisely matches my own. What a wonderful world!

I can see your point about "Am".

I use I AM as my screen name, because I AM a drop in the AM.

Thank you for sharing that. I understand you much more now.



With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


I noticed in this thread we have a very similar view as well.

Its always a pleasure to be in the company of another seer. May we both meet many, many more.

Edit to add,

And I use "Illusionsaregrander" to remind myself that for the mystic, the most dangerous trap of all are the delusions of grandeur. God help us if the ego grabs the enlightenment experience and runs with it.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
And I use "Illusionsaregrander" to remind myself that for the mystic, the most dangerous trap of all are the delusions of grandeur. God help us if the ego grabs the enlightenment experience and runs with it.

edit on 18-3-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

Indeed my friend. Give all the Glory of your achievements to the father who is within you, and you cannot ere.



With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


Yes. That is the way. I am just frustrated. In all of history, there have been many. Way more than the religious traditions might lead you to speculate. But in all of history, even though there were a handful or more on Earth at any given time, because of technology, they were often isolated.

Now, we have the opportunity to bump into one another and interact. And...........................we really dont. Mostly because so many get stuck in the tar pit of "specialness." They get distracted and spend all their time trying to lead the "non experiencers" or share with them, or just soak up admiration from them. And why, I dont know. Its not transmissible to "fans" or "followers." One might be able to transmit, if, like Plato said, many years in close personal contact occurred. Much like the ashrams or monasteries. But mostly, if you write or speak, you are writing and speaking for those who have already seen, or who are on the brink of seeing.

In other words, the messages are mostly for each other. To guide each other.

Now I am curious what would happen were we to take full advantage of our technology, and interact with each other with purpose. But we dont. I have come into contact with others, and mostly, they have their focus on acquiring fame and wealth. Oh sure, they are pretending to themselves that they are providing a "service" to mankind by spreading the teaching to the uninitiated. But its a fallacy. You cant. And what we are doing is missing a grand opportunity to see what happens when a group of initiates interacts.

Its just such a shame to ignore the opportunity for synergy. Or to at least experiment and leave the results for the next to come. I know I am enormously grateful for what the others left behind.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


You wrote:

["I really missed the mark with this post. Next to no one grasped my conjecturing. Rather I found that most filtered my hypothetical juxtaposition through their already established systems of belief and on down the roads of preset bias."]

As being one of those, who went off on a tangent, I would like to apologize to you on my own behalf.

I MAY possibly disagree with you on your methodology and its outcoming 'answers' (though I believe not to any great extent), but I do share your basic attitudes and believe, that I manifest at least parallel to your own efforts, whether this is obvious, visible or not.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


My understanding of your 'informedness' makes me believe, that the following is a realistic communication to you, in spite of its occasional 'ivory-tower' lingo. This language is simply a handy and relevant tool, not meant as intimidating 'academicia' (I'm in any case not a 'specialist' in this area).

From an epistemological position (which is one amongst several relevant perspective-options), you make, what I consider, some mistakes.

In an otherwise commendable effort of proposing 'neutrality' in a search-for-answers situation, you introduce a 'God' with a capital 'G' and a religious doctrine, based on fable-like scripture. Both circularly argumented, but what's worse in my opinion, included in an all-round picture, where they don't belong.

My motives for using the 'spiritual blender' metaphor was, that while many 'truth/reality' searching systems have very similar elements, e.g. ethical propositions (even the combination atheism/materialism utilitarian philosophy includes mundane morality rules similar to those of many religions) this doesn't make them identical.

Many of the asian systems have epistemologically, methodologically and doctrinally points, which are completely incompatible with Abrahamic dittos. It's simply not possible to present one, over-all undisputed model of 'spiritual' whatever.

Some examples. Referring to the Eden-related talking snake, you write:

["He gave them the curse of THINKING there was a "dualistic" world, when God had created one in which everything was "good."]

What you ignore or are ignorant of, is that the asian 'canvas' goes far beyond this point and from this trans-abrahamic position puts the origin of 'dualism' in creation, not in subsequent local happenings inside creation.

So an alternative and basically incompatible cosmogony and cosmology (with far-reaching theological/existential consequences) exists to what you present as an inclusive model, manifested as absolutes:

Quotes from your earlier posts:

["As for the OP, God is always trying to tell us. Always. There is constant communication going on between God and all of us. It is subtle, and many of us dont want to listen. How do we know our society is deviated from Gods will?"]

[" We need to learn to follow not other people, but the voice of God within us, what Jesus called the "spirit of truth." ]

["Just my take. Humanity doesnt need a leader, we have one. We just need to learn how to listen."]

Related to another quote from you:

["......Because I just want all of those whose ego has gotten hold of the enlightenment experience and wrapped themselves up in delusions of grandeur to come back to Earth and work with the rest of us, instead of playing the old ego game of "I am special."]

There isn't any more 'ego'-related 'truth/reality' searching system than literal and doctrinal christianity. It's exclusive, based on completely subjective argumentation and even in the 'I'm meeker-than-you' or 'God's will direct me' version, it's still an expression of a hierarchy. Hierarchies being hot-houses for 'egos'.

I oppose absolutes, and I oppose when absolutes are introduced onto a situation, which pretends 'neutrality'.

You call this opposition 'nitpicking'.

My answer to this is: "You try to sneak christian absolutes in through the backdoor".

reply to post by bogomil


Bogomil. I am going to let the discussion with you drop.

And here is why. I think you just want to fight.

You are using a lot of flowery terminology, but really I am not getting any point out of your argument except that you feel I am endorsing the most mistaken and superficial interpretations of Abrahamic religion. Im not.

There is more than one way to interpret that tradition. Thats why there are many, many sects, and many more have been out competed, (the gnostics for instance) and have all but vanished. You seem intent on ignoring that simple fact, that Christianity and the Abrahamic tradition is not as black and white as you want it to be.

There is more common ground between the "Asian philosophies" and Christianity in particular, than you seem able to see or acknowledge.

So, I have done my level best to be as clear as I possibly can, and as honest and forthcoming as I can, not only in this debate but in the other as well, and my honest assessment of you is that you are trying to "prove me wrong" for some egoic reason of you own.

Be right. I really, truly do not care. I analyze these topics because that is what I do. Every "individual" is built to do something well. This is part of my "something well." If you think I should be less certain or not seem so sure of myself, tough #. Im not doing it for you. Well, I am, but not for your ego. The God in you doesnt care how certain I sound, and the ego in you isnt my business, its yours.

reply to post by bogomil


bogo

No apology needed. I have for a long time felt a personal desire to be able to express myself through the written word. I am new to anything other than written notes to myself and am trying to learn to communicate here at ATS. Yours, and really everyone's patience is appreciated.

My thoughts, I find, are becoming more and more un-isolated from one another and appear to be developing substance of their own in those closer connections. This is interesting for me but expressing them still displays their disjointedness.

And if you like, here is the manner with which to quote. I learned this two days ago.

type....quote and put it inside these [ ]
then insert your copied message from another post.
then finish with /quote placed inside another pair of these [ ]

Try this and you should have this

"message from another post"

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


You wrote:

["The God in you doesnt care how certain I sound,...]

There's no 'God' or 'god' in me. That's something you have superimposed on me via your absolutes.

You can speak for yourself; not on my behalf.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

You wrote:

["The God in you doesnt care how certain I sound,...]

There's no 'God' or 'god' in me. That's something you have superimposed on me via your absolutes.

You can speak for yourself; not on my behalf.

My friend did you not read this story i posted?

I had a dream I died and I was walking along the road to Heaven or Hell. I as walked along an effulgent path covered in a bright white mist, an angel appeared in the bend of the road and floated along beside me. My eyes were dazzled by the brilliance while my ears clearly heard, "Along the way you will meet GOD and the Devil. The Devil will always lie to you and GOD will always tell you the truth. But you only get to ask GOD one question and the DEVIL one question.

As the Angel started to fade and before I could ask anything, "Don't worry, you should have no trouble figuring out what the question should be."

I was walking along the when my worst enemy appeared along the road and started walking along side looking disgusted and said, "I am GOD and I will show you the way to Heaven."

As I walked along in disbelief and before I had really recovered my best friend appeared from the white mists and joined us and laughed while gently touching my arm, "I am GOD and I will show you the way to Heaven."

At that moment we were at a fork in the road. The worst enemy I had ever met in my lifetime was standing to my right and the best friend I had ever had was standing to my left. I turned to my best friend and realized the devil could form a pleasing shape so I hesitated. So I turned to my worst enemy and realized that if I couldn't recognize GOD in my worst enemy I couldn't recognize GOD. Yet still I hesitated.

They both were content to wait and I was baffled. Then I remembered something I had learned from my Master. He would always say, "Duality is an illusion." The memory of that phrase made me realize simultaneously that it didn't matter which one was the Devil and which one was GOD; As long as I asked a question they both would answer the same, the Wisdom of Balance would come to my rescue!

I bowed before them both and said, "If I asked the Devil which was the way to Heaven, where would he point?" As I looked up they were both pointing to my left, so I went to my right and entered the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sorry for the length....

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


Hi Terry,

thanks for your answer.Though I'm 'old' in the context of communication on non-mainstream subjects and also with some years behind me on other debate forums, the special ATS flavour was new to me, when I started here app. a year ago. And I've experienced pretty much the same as you; it takes some time to 'get warm in the clothes' (a european expression maybe not universal)....

.......and also: Opposition forces you to structure your thoughts/ideas to yourself first.

I think you came very well across from the start, it's only that threads like the present one already have had the opening gambits repeated so many times, that there's a tendency to 'regress' positions very quick, so a theological/religious OP can turn into the mating habits of giraffes, when temperaments, doctrines, methodologies and/or just general ignorance clash.

PS And also thanks for your instruction on quoting-technique, which I will try at earliest convenient opportunity. (It's kind of embarrassing if or when my computer-navigation imbecility is taken to be a reflection of my general intellect or competence. Something which happens occasionally, when opponents start verbal street-fighting. ATS is not exclusively for noble knights on white horses).

Try this and you should have this

As you see, the experiment didn't succeed. I am, for internet-connection reasons, forced to operate from a word-pad basis. Maybe the problem lies there.

edit on 19-3-2011 by bogomil because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["My friend did you not read this story i posted?"]

Not until now.

But I enjoyed it, because I have a secret non-ATS life, where I do things apart from being engaged in mutual, semantic grumpiness.

E.g. do I really appreciate both the intrinsic mental gymnastics in koans and sufi parables AND the endless regressions of logic surrounding them (I also like old whiskey and pretty women, but that's beside the point).

....On good days I even believe, I can grasp the simpler points from Tao Teh King.

Quote: ["Sorry for the length...."]

If I complained about length, I would be the worst hypocrite on ATS.

To relate to topic. IF there is a 'god', and IF he tries to tell us something, I believe, that it takes a great deal of appreciation of humour to understand the message.

reply to post by bogomil


God tells us his messages every day, every second of your existance... Hes in everything, and everything is him... One only needs to listen

I believe, that it takes a great deal of appreciation of humour to understand the message.

Is humour not also part of the whole?

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["Is humour not also part of the whole?"]

This does give rise to some interesting theological/religious speculations.

Why is there no humour in the bible?

And, question: What whole? The new-age at street-level dogmatic anti-dualism? The new-age pseudo-science 'holistic universe'? The buddhist trans-creation/trans-perception non-dualism (depending on buddhistic subset)? A deist cosmic totality? The christian 'god' omni-everything?

And, potential answer: If there really IS a whole, it would include Hitler, Stalin, the atrocities of OT and 'Bearhugger's Very Young Whiskey' guaranteed to be matured eight minutes (the thought of this being as dreadful as the taste) and where we can regress everything to ideas of existence as 'fun' (I promise, to drink 'Bearhugger's Very Young' isn't fun); a 'school'...what exactly is it we have to learn, and more important...why;

And if 'fun' or 'school' after all don't do the trick, then again, the christian 'god' who needs to have 'mysterious ways' included in any argument FOR his existence and AS the 'whole'; apart from the self-contradictions, circle-arguments, disagreements and competition with other 'truth/reality' searching methods and not least: Any 'god' including 'Bearhugger's Very Young' in his creation can be no friend of mine.

(I am aware, that I put some maybe exaggerated importance on 'Bearhugger's', but I tried to introduce new elements in the pro/contra theism debate, where everything already has been repeated a zillion times).

Isn't language a wonderful thing? See what I could do with just ONE word. Think of what whole religious manuals full of words can do. It's surely beyond understanding and can prove anything or nothing.

reply to post by bogomil

Why is there no humour in the bible?

I found most of it humourous actually But who said anything about the bible?

And, question: What whole?

Everything...

If there really IS a whole, it would include Hitler, Stalin, the atrocities of OT and 'Bearhugger's Very Young Whiskey' guaranteed to be matured eight minutes (the thought of this being as dreadful as the taste) and where we can regress everything to ideas of existence as 'fun' (I promise, to drink 'Bearhugger's Very Young' isn't fun); a 'school'...what exactly is it we have to learn, and more important...why

Of course they're all included, theres nothing in existance that isn't...

What we have to learn are the lessons of life, obviously its different for everyone...

Oh, and what is Bearhuggers?

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["But who said anything about the bible?"]

I did, when I asked: "Why is there no humour in the bible?" I didn't need any reference points to put this question.

Quote: ["Everything... "]

Aaaaah, the everything made up of all the 'wholes'.

Quote: ["Of course they're all included, theres nothing in existance that isn't..."]

I would really be dumb, if I denied a 'pragmatic' whole (not necessarily being wellconstructed or hanging good together, but still). My position and opinions are about the 'models' pretending to represent it. "The map is not the territory" thingy.

Quote: ["What we have to learn are the lessons of life, obviously its different for everyone... "]

Sounds like the 'school' school.

Quote: ["Oh, and what is Bearhuggers?"]

The quintessence of all bad whiskey ever made (if there exists any real Bearhugger's on the market, I apologize for my artistic liberties).

Personally I'll try to work my own way back towards the epistemological complexities of why a 'god' seems to get his possible messages badly across. To make it easy for myself, I could reintroduce the argument, that it's because he possibly doesn't exist in the form commonly known as a 'god' and isn't a he/she/it, actually isn't anything at all, as we understand anything.

reply to post by bogomil

My position and opinions are about the 'models' pretending to represent it. "The map is not the territory" thingy.

So you're talking about the church(s)

Originally posted by bogomil

Personally I'll try to work my own way back towards the epistemological complexities of why a 'god' seems to get his possible messages badly across. To make it easy for myself, I could reintroduce the argument, that it's because he possibly doesn't exist in the form commonly known as a 'god' and isn't a he/she/it, actually isn't anything at all, as we understand anything.

Why dont you just start a thread on the topic instead of continually trying to manipulate other peoples arguments into a platform for it?

It would come across as more intellectually honest than the method you are using now.

The God of the Bible does give revelation to his covenant people through the Holy Spirit. One of the Spirits main functions is to guide us into all truths. He likes to show us things in advance, so when they do come to pass (no matter how hurtful they may be) it just solidifies our belief in Him. Those in a covenant relationship with him have been given gifts, the highest gift given is prophecy. The way the Word of God worked in the OT - was through one prophet at a time, then Jesus came and made the Word available en masse to those who put forth the effort to really KNOW him.

I was looking at some religious stats for Japan, though 80% plus list on their birth certificates to belonging to some form of Shinto or Buddhism - 70% say they don't adhere to any religious belief at all, 60% plus don't believe in "God" and 55% don't even believe in Buddha. However, the God I believe in can use tribulation, whether it is from some personal trial one is going through or a major catastrophe (like what we are seeing in Japan) to draw people closer to him. When we become so devestated with nowhere else to turn, pondering all the deep questions, we tend to fall into a state of repentance and that is EXACTLY what he looks for. When we turn to him, he will focus his full attention on us. The day before the earthquake/tsunami/failing reactors was a good day in Japan and then came calamity. There will be people who find him in Japan through all this trajedy, then they will realize he was there all along, though he wasn't acknowledged.

The first images I saw of the disaster in Japan were heartbreaking. The look of fear in the childrens eyes..... My prayer to God was to show compassion and mercy on those who died, ease the pain of those suffering from injury, and to calm the fear of those afraid, especially the children. The God I know is full of love and forgiving even to those who don't know him.

The message from God is the same today as it was thousands of years ago.....Repent and become part of the everlasting covenant, the faithful love like King David had.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by bogomil

 

My position and opinions are about the 'models' pretending to represent it. "The map is not the territory" thingy.

So you're talking about the church(s)

A big majority of 'existential map' followers would be structured into organized form (as a social group and/or through adhering to a 'map' per se), so 'churches' would cover much of it.

But then, doctrines (with 'maps' as a metaphor) taken in a broader context isn't just a religious phenomenon, such exists in most, if not all, ideological formations where extremist fringes can get over-enthusiastic and start crusades to make their own absolutes into general compulsary absolutes.

The degree of this can ofcourse vary from purely abstract disputes to open warfare, but these days, where 'knowledge increasingly is power', the pen is mightier than the sword.

Our lives are flooded with propaganda messages, from enticements to become part of consumerism to 'noble' ideals such as political or religious 'answers'.

This propaganda is practically everywhere and is constructed by specialists, using every dirty trick in their bags.

This post of mine is neither here nor there, only an outline of the background for my stance and direction.