It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Point of Jesus

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Akragon
 


So either you wrote the ten commandments yourself, or they are part of the 20% scripture-quoting.

"I can quote scripture with the best of them my friend but i do not need to do so to prove what i speak."

Happy to hear that, as I detest arguments mainly resting on 'authority'. As to 'proof' we'll get around to it eventually, when I'm finished with my middle-position counter-preaching left and right elsewhere.


I rarely use the 10 commandments as part of my quoting but if its necessary i will do so...

As i've told you before, Love is the commandment.... And the 10 commandments are an expression of that




posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



The point of Jesus is to tell us to love ourselves first, then we can love our neighbor. Love thy neighbor as one loves thyself.


My understanding of this has a different slant. We love ourselves above all others, our attention is on our own needs and wants, and so much of our time is consumed with striving towards greater ease and happiness. Jesus is saying that this is how we should also love others, that we should take heed of the needs of our neighbour, and that we should give time attending to the comfort and happiness of those we are in a position to help.

This "love yourself first so you can love others" concept is a self-serving notion dressed up to be altruistic. We already love ourselves too much, that is the whole problem.


We need to forgive our own sins first. Unconditional love is the message, starting with oneself. If we can not forgive ourselves we will never be able to forgive others.


Again, that is not what I believe Jesus said. We are to forgive others, and if we cannot forgive others, then we cannot expect to be forgiven. Nothing there about forgiving ourselves first.

edit on 2-4-2011 by mysticnoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



The point of Jesus is to tell us to love ourselves first, then we can love our neighbor. Love thy neighbor as one loves thyself.


My understanding of this has a different slant. We love ourselves above all others, our attention is on our own needs and wants, and so much of our time is consumed with striving towards greater ease and happiness. Jesus is saying that this is how we should also love others, that we should take heed of the needs of our neighbour, and that we should give time attending to the comfort and happiness of those we are in a position to help.

This "love yourself first so you can love others" concept is a self-serving notion dressed up to be altruistic. We already love ourselves too much, that is the whole problem.


We need to forgive our own sins first. Unconditional love is the message, starting with oneself. If we can not forgive ourselves we will never be able to forgive others.


Again, that is not what I believe Jesus said. We are to forgive others, and if we cannot forgive others, then we cannot expect to be forgiven. Nothing there about forgiving ourselves first.

edit on 2-4-2011 by mysticnoon because: (no reason given)


But the first commandment if we want to get biblical is Love God above all else... If God is in all of us and everything... wouldn't "love thy neighbour" already be implied?




posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by bogomil
 


A quote from your current opposition my friend...


You are teaching me how to love. Unconditionally


I believe hes saying even though he disagrees with your arguements he's still trying to show you love...

I could be wrong though



Don't know. He/she will have to answer on that. In any case I never asked for any love from that direction.

Actually I would prefer to be un-involved on that point. You never know, what they later insist on to get in return (and don't tell me two-way contracts are needed. I never signed any covenant, and I'm ever so often told I'm part of one anyway).

In any case I believe this opposition tired itself out. Trying to convince me of anything with the special branch of reasoning used by religionists is like trying to hit water.

I haven't yet decided, if I'm a divine jester (which would be rather pretentious), a clown or just an idiot. But at least it gives me some kind of non-stick protection from variations of the flying spaghetti monster arguments; I can't take it seriously.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



But the first commandment if we want to get biblical is Love God above all else... If God is in all of us and everything... wouldn't "love thy neighbour" already be implied?


In theory, yes, but the practice is not so easy.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by bogomil
 


A quote from your current opposition my friend...


You are teaching me how to love. Unconditionally


I believe hes saying even though he disagrees with your arguements he's still trying to show you love...

I could be wrong though



Don't know. He/she will have to answer on that. In any case I never asked for any love from that direction.

Actually I would prefer to be un-involved on that point. You never know, what they later insist on to get in return (and don't tell me two-way contracts are needed. I never signed any covenant, and I'm ever so often told I'm part of one anyway).

In any case I believe this opposition tired itself out. Trying to convince me of anything with the special branch of reasoning used by religionists is like trying to hit water.

I haven't yet decided, if I'm a divine jester (which would be rather pretentious), a clown or just an idiot. But at least it gives me some kind of non-stick protection from variations of the flying spaghetti monster arguments; I can't take it seriously.


I can see your barriers my friend and i know where you're comming from... notice though that im not trying to convince you of anything... believe whatever you will and im perfectly fine with that. I don't judge... but if we are to debate i must question and offer my opinions. If you accept them so be it...if not... again...........




posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



reply to post by bogomil

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A quote from your current opposition my friend...



You are teaching me how to love. Unconditionally



I believe hes saying even though he disagrees with your arguements he's still trying to show you love...

I could be wrong though


Maybe the poster is suggesting that bogomil is testing and stretching his ability to love unconditionally, and anyone who tests our love is in effect our teacher.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by Akragon
 



But the first commandment if we want to get biblical is Love God above all else... If God is in all of us and everything... wouldn't "love thy neighbour" already be implied?


In theory, yes, but the practice is not so easy.


very true... and this is why it is said, many see the narrow path, but who can walk it...




posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by Akragon
 



reply to post by bogomil

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A quote from your current opposition my friend...



You are teaching me how to love. Unconditionally



I believe hes saying even though he disagrees with your arguements he's still trying to show you love...

I could be wrong though


Maybe the poster is suggesting that bogomil is testing and stretching his ability to love unconditionally, and anyone who tests our love is in effect our teacher.


Exactly!


I think...


he hasn't got a response yet..


edit on 2-4-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


Indeed. I feel love toward the self even in frustration. Frustration is seen and accepted as one of the many things. There is delight in everything.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Here's my, on ATS terms, 'long awaited' answer to your post on page 3.

As a response to my questions on the extent and type of your existential/ideological basis (label is optional, you are free to choose one more fitting), you have no experiences of anomalies, type paranormal and/or 'entity' contact. IMO just as well in this context, as such really doesn't relate to a trans-mundane or overall 'god'.

Neither have you, in my understanding of your post, in a one-to-one situation, implying anything resembling what humanity describes as an entity or an individuality according to standard terms (e.g. appearing with normal perceptual characteristics, 'looking' this or that way, 'talking' etc) met any trans-mundane 'specific' figures.

According to:

Quote: ["No direct experience with jesus...God yes...but again you have to understand what God is... I would tell you of my experiences but this forum would cheapen the experience. I posted it on a forum that is far less judgemental then here, perhaps i will give you the link if you want Via U2U

I'll start with 'God'. We have had some communication on this, where I have presented different perspectives on 'God'. One is the purely semantic implications of the word per se, which I for communication-reasons find too vague and imprecise. There are innumerable versions of 'god', and even if you want to post to me on a basis of presenting YOUR version of 'god' to me, this is after all a public forum, where other participants can or will join with their versions. So if you want to stick with 'god', I suggest 'my god' would prevent any confusion.

Next....."but you have to understand what God is". And your not wanting to tell about it on ATS is OK with me, so please send me the link, and I'll later relate to the details in your presentation from elsewhere.

Quote: ["... Lets call them profound realizations which actually brought be to tears. Realizing...and then knowing without a doubt there is something more then the physical can be very emotional"]

As you know, I'm not in principle discarding such 'realizations'; I have actually had my own share of something at least very similar, directly experienced; and I also from an abstract or theoretical position accept them as potentially valid expressions of some level of 'reality'.

Based on my own experiences and from a comparative, general study of such experiences there is an agreement on the strong emotional element in them (though this can vary in extent and depth, and isn't exclusive).

This is a big inclusive category with very indicative similarities. A big category as demonstrated in the next quote:

["The love aspect came from study of the bible, the gnostics, the koran (but not much of it) and the bhagavad gita... plus hundreds of new age teachings...older ones from people like budda(s)... and many many more older scriptures....along with meditation... it was more of a final conclusion that negated the need to study any longer."]

Where the need of 'study' (intellectual knowledge gathering/processing or scriptual study) in combination with practical methods such as e.g. meditation quite correctly is outgrown. But where the dangers (as I formerly have pointed out) lie in bringing back 'answers' or conclusions tainted by the study- or methodology-inspired starting-point.

This danger of tainting can manifest directly in such as exclusive attitudes: "I met/recognized Jesus, 'god', Buddha or whatever, and this 'proves' the superiority of my study/methodology starting-point", disregarding that competing systems start from similar starting-points and can claim the same.

Or it can be a manifestation, where: "I met/recognized....etc" will be used for regressive argumentation, i.e. in the common "I have the answer, which facts fit with it?", where any experience/recognization can be used to validate doctrine and scripture associated with the feed-back tainted experience/recognization. As in an experienced/recognized 'god' 'proving' the bible (instead of the more common: The bible 'proving god').

And once the bible is 'proved' this way, the bible can be used to 'prove' points not included in the original premises. In the context of religion and/or similar abstract ideologies this kind of whole-package models (deity proving doctrines, doctrines proving deity) are common.

In theology or at least 'semi'-theology (transcendal non-theism) there are examples of systems denying such whole-package methods/answers, such as Jain, old-school taoism, the original BrahmaN concept and most likely Ain Soph from jewish tradition. In philosophy it's expressed in philosophical scepticism and in down-to-earth pragmatism it's 'things exist through and by relating to other things'.

I know, that this maybe sounds highbrow and unnecessarily complex, but it's a description of very common processes/procedures in religion etc.

I will try to relate it to something from your own post:

You have recognized 'god'. Fair enough (though I dispute the functionality of the semantic label), but you have not 'met' Jesus, as you have 'met' 'god'; quote from your post:

["No direct experience with jesus"]

So where did Jesus come from? I would make an educated guess and say: The bible is your source. Q: And what validates the bible as a source? A: Your regressive argumentation.

Where did the ten commandments come from?

Furthermore you have in your list of studied subjects included the gnostics. Unfortunately the only surviving authentic and original group of gnostics have their own scriptures, in which the 'god' of the bible AND Jesus are completely incompatible with their own version. Have you performed some cherry-picking for 'similarities' supporting YOUR 'god' and YOUR 'Jesus', disregarding the dis-similarities?

Such selectively created similarity categories can prove anything (and inversely disprove anything) and have in my year on ATS been presented in endless variations as arguments for whatever is argumented for. Other people have maybe met/recognized Jesus, and then through regressive argumentation got 'god' in the bargain. Or it's been angels, demons or 'miracles'.

If there is a 'later', I will consider 'love' as an proposed absolute. Enough for now.




edit on 3-4-2011 by bogomil because: typo



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


Indeed. I feel love toward the self even in frustration. Frustration is seen and accepted as one of the many things. There is delight in everything.


How do you define 'the self'?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Double-posting
edit on 3-4-2011 by bogomil because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Finally!!


Lets see if i can go over your reply piece by peice...


As a response to my questions on the extent and type of your existential/ideological basis (label is optional, you are free to choose one more fitting), you have no experiences of anomalies, type paranormal and/or 'entity' contact. IMO just as well in this context, as such really doesn't relate to a trans-mundane or overall 'god'.


so you're speaking of an "overall" God yet you're leaving out something (anomalies, type paranormal and/or 'entity' contact) wouldn't doing this negate the "overall" premise? As you said here?

IMO just as well in this context, as such really doesn't relate to a trans-mundane or overall 'god'


....


Neither have you, in my understanding of your post, in a one-to-one situation, implying anything resembling what humanity describes as an entity or an individuality according to standard terms (e.g. appearing with normal perceptual characteristics, 'looking' this or that way, 'talking' etc) met any trans-mundane 'specific' figures.


Nope...although i have heard from some who have claimed to meet "God" in person, that he/she does have a human form... I have nothing to say about that because i do not know...


I'll start with 'God'. We have had some communication on this, where I have presented different perspectives on 'God'. One is the purely semantic implications of the word per se, which I for communication-reasons find too vague and imprecise. There are innumerable versions of 'god', and even if you want to post to me on a basis of presenting YOUR version of 'god' to me, this is after all a public forum, where other participants can or will join with their versions. So if you want to stick with 'god', I suggest 'my god' would prevent any confusion.


Im sorry but i will not seperate my use of the word God... to suit others needs. I use the word when refering to him/her in general. I have no need for you to accept my use of the word.



Next....."but you have to understand what God is". And your not wanting to tell about it on ATS is OK with me, so please send me the link, and I'll later relate to the details in your presentation from elsewhere.


I will consider giving you the link, i've yet to decide if you will critisize it or just say thank you for sharing and leave it at that... im not trying to hide it but again its my own experience and wouldn't expect others to take it as i did.


Where the need of 'study' (intellectual knowledge gathering/processing or scriptual study) in combination with practical methods such as e.g. meditation quite correctly is outgrown. But where the dangers (as I formerly have pointed out) lie in bringing back 'answers' or conclusions tainted by the study- or methodology-inspired starting-point.

This danger of tainting can manifest directly in such as exclusive attitudes: "I met/recognized Jesus, 'god', Buddha or whatever, and this 'proves' the superiority of my study/methodology starting-point", disregarding that competing systems start from similar starting-points and can claim the same


Im not trying to prove anything to you nor am i superior to anyone else. What i tell you is no different then anyone who might tell you the moon is made of cheese... Take it as you will, believe what i say or don't...

What you don't seem to understand is that im not competing with anyone, im not here to win a war of words. You're already refered to me as an "adversary"(worthy
) And a competetor... i think
that might have been someone else....regardless im not your adversary... im only hear to express what i know and comunicate with people... Im just naturally attracted to religious threads



Or it can be a manifestation, where: "I met/recognized....etc" will be used for regressive argumentation, i.e. in the common "I have the answer, which facts fit with it?", where any experience/recognization can be used to validate doctrine and scripture associated with the feed-back tainted experience/recognization. As in an experienced/recognized 'god' 'proving' the bible (instead of the more common: The bible 'proving god').


If you may have noticed im not argueing with you either, i ask questions which give me answers. I only argue when i feel something is incorrect. Also i might add, i've never once claimed to have all the answers, i know what truth is and i work with that...believe me im still learning....that is what life is about...learning your lessons.


In theology or at least 'semi'-theology (transcendal non-theism) there are examples of systems denying such whole-package methods/answers, such as Jain, old-school taoism, the original BrahmaN concept and most likely Ain Soph from jewish tradition. In philosophy it's expressed in philosophical scepticism and in down-to-earth pragmatism it's 'things exist through and by relating to other things'.

I know, that this maybe sounds highbrow and unnecessarily complex, but it's a description of very common processes/procedures in religion etc.


true...


I will try to relate it to something from your own post:

You have recognized 'god'. Fair enough (though I dispute the functionality of the semantic label), but you have not 'met' Jesus, as you have 'met' 'god'; quote from your post:

["No direct experience with jesus"]


I didn't say i met God, i said i have experienced what God is... and through study of various materials i understand what it...he/she or what have you.....is.


So where did Jesus come from? I would make an educated guess and say: The bible is your source. Q: And what validates the bible as a source? A: Your regressive argumentation.


The bible is a source yes, but there is other teachings as well which also "ring true" about what he supposedly said. Where did he come from, honestly i don't even know if he existed... theres proof comming from both sides of the arguement, which i say out of. Its not my place to say if he did or not...but by faith i believe he did exist. Also considering as far as i've read everything he said was in fact truth, i consider him to be the truth incarnate.


Where did the ten commandments come from?


Same idea, written by man.... "inspired" or not i don't know. Overall the 10 commandments are about love which is the highest.... Lets call it a "vibration" of God...


Furthermore you have in your list of studied subjects included the gnostics. Unfortunately the only surviving authentic and original group of gnostics have their own scriptures, in which the 'god' of the bible AND Jesus are completely incompatible with their own version. Have you performed some cherry-picking for 'similarities' supporting YOUR 'god' and YOUR 'Jesus', disregarding the dis-similarities?


I won't deny the confliction between the gnostic texts and the bible. Obviously its one of the reason why they wern't included in the "final cut" of the bible. Again though, if you read the gnostic texts for so called "quotes" from jesus (Thomas mainly but not exclusively) You will still see the same message of Love, but you will also find things like vegetarianism, which was obviously edited out due to TPTB's love of meat and alcohol. Reincarnation, which can still be found in the bible if you know where to look. Kindness to all animal life, which is not preached at all in the bible as far as i've found. And many other things.

Still yet i get the feeling you're comparing me with some church type person or one that affiliates himself with some religious group... I take no mans word on what i read.

And by the way i don't cherry pick for verses...



Such selectively created similarity categories can prove anything (and inversely disprove anything) and have in my year on ATS been presented in endless variations as arguments for whatever is argumented for. Other people have maybe met/recognized Jesus, and then through regressive argumentation got 'god' in the bargain. Or it's been angels, demons or 'miracles'.


Yet again, im not trying to prove anything to you or anyone else... And im getting tired of repeating myself...



If there is a 'later', I will consider 'love' as an proposed absolute. Enough for now.


Why wouldn't there be a later?
I know you use words to try to confuse people my friend, it seems to be a barrier between you and many on this forum... sorry im not one of them


At least we covered the love thing... we'll see where this goes... IF theres a later




edit on 3-4-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 

When I refer to the self, I refer to the container for all that is and all that is not.
The self is the space in which all things appear and disappear.
The space is all that is not, and 'things' are that that are manifest (all that is) and together they make up self. Space and things are sourced from self.
I could use other names/labels instead of self, words such as love, consciousness, awareness, being, this or that dreaded word God.
However, i will never be able to describe the color red to a blind man.

When i said i feel love toward the self in my last post, i was saying that you are the self. It does not matter what shape or size or feeling the many things come as (frustration, anger, fear), for the many things pass. The self is permanent, you are the self and i am the self. When i speak i speak to the self. Squiggles appear here on what us humans call a pc, appear to this intelligence energy as intelligence energy and there seems to be some sort of exchange. For no reason, no purpose. This is love.

When purpose and reason come in the back door, the destruction of love is introduced.

edit on 4-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Things come things go, no 'thing' is permanent.
'Things' are material, made of matter, solid stuff. (Well, that's not true but i will leave that for now).
Can you see that something (inside you) is seeing all the comings and goings?
Like you are sat in a river and you see all the shapes in the moving water, the river flows by moving, changing...
But you are not moving, you are not changing, always there in the center of your experience.
What sees this life experience, what feels it?
The thing (the no thing) that feels life is here and now already complete.
Notice it, because it is life itself.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


You wrote:

["so you're speaking of an "overall" God yet you're leaving out something (anomalies, type paranormal and/or 'entity' contact) wouldn't doing this negate the "overall" premise? As you said here?"]

I'll admit, that my original text which you refer to, can be read two ways. But with an 'overall god' I mean a 'god' also being the 'god' of mundane manifestations. As my own position is that of a non-theist, a trans-mundane 'god' is only a semantic construct for me, and I wanted to give a broader interpretation possibility.

Quote: ["Nope...although i have heard from some who have claimed to meet "God" in person, that he/she does have a human form... I have nothing to say about that because i do not know..."]

Seemingly 'gods' come in all forms and shapes.

Quote: [" Im sorry but i will not seperate my use of the word God... to suit others needs. I use the word when refering to him/her in general. I have no need for you to accept my use of the word."]

Be it far from me to dictate your language for you. But then there are 'gods', going under the name God, whom I wouldn't want in my family.

Quote: ["I will consider giving you the link, i've yet to decide if you will critisize it or just say thank you for sharing and leave it at that... im not trying to hide it but again its my own experience and wouldn't expect others to take it as i did."]

I have full understanding for this. I'm reluctant myself on that point concerning my own experiences, motivated by not wanting to enter a contest of 'esoteric' superiority.

Quote: ["Im not trying to prove anything to you nor am i superior to anyone else. What i tell you is no different then anyone who might tell you the moon is made of cheese... Take it as you will, believe what i say or don't..."]

With you I take all this as a friendly banter. You give the impression of being a decent person.

Quote: [" I didn't say i met God, i said i have experienced what God is... and through study of various materials i understand what it...he/she or what have you.....is."]

You may have noticed, that I wrote 'met', not met. It appears to be common, that when theists talk about their experiences, they often use the expression "I met.....whatever".

Quote: ["The bible is a source yes, but there is other teachings as well which also "ring true" about what he supposedly said. Where did he come from, honestly i don't even know if he existed... theres proof comming from both sides of the arguement, which i say out of. Its not my place to say if he did or not...but by faith i believe he did exist. Also considering as far as i've read everything he said was in fact truth, i consider him to be the truth incarnate."]

I generally agree with you. A 'reality-check' on such things lies less in historical authenticity or translation, but in the meaning of the text itself.

Quote: ["Same idea, written by man.... "inspired" or not i don't know. Overall the 10 commandments are about love which is the highest.... Lets call it a "vibration" of God..."]

Love being the highest is one of our moot-points, but I can easily agree to disagree with you.

Quote: ["I won't deny the confliction between the gnostic texts and the bible. Obviously its one of the reason why they wern't included in the "final cut" of the bible. Again though, if you read the gnostic texts for so called "quotes" from jesus (Thomas mainly but not exclusively) You will still see the same message of Love,...."]

I don't consider the Nag Hammadi texts as real gnostic. But even in the NH texts, the role of the creator of the universe (maybe more correct, cosmos?) is often that of a pretender, botching creation and making a mess of it, as opposite to the 'god' of the bible, making creation perfect and letting mankind take the blame for any problems.

Quote continued: [...., but you will also find things like vegetarianism, which was obviously edited out due to TPTB's love of meat and alcohol. Reincarnation, which can still be found in the bible if you know where to look. Kindness to all animal life, which is not preached at all in the bible as far as i've found. And many other things."]

While being an vegetarian myself the major part of my life, I also don't make this into an absolute (from a 'virtue' perspective). It's a personal moral choice I've made. But I must admit to some illwill on my part concerning some christian attitudes to the treatment of animals, which are considered 'things to use'.

I'm not that keen on reincarnation-theory; it's easy to mis- or overinterpretate and the evidence is quite small statistically.

Quote: ["Still yet i get the feeling you're comparing me with some church type person or one that affiliates himself with some religious group... I take no mans word on what i read."]

Comparing is the basis of comparative approaches. What I don't do is to IDENTIFY you with 'church types'. When I 'categorize' you, it is as a theist.

Quote: [" And by the way i don't cherry pick for verses... "]

I don't think you do, but it's possible to cherry-pick for more extensive meanings.

Quote: ["Yet again, im not trying to prove anything to you or anyone else... And im getting tired of repeating myself..."]

You and I may mean something different with the word 'prove' then.

Quote: [" Why wouldn't there be a later?"]

Sometimes communications terminate abruptly.

Quote: ["I know you use words to try to confuse people my friend, it seems to be a barrier between you and many on this forum..."]

My communication-form varies depending on the context I'm in, and besides I'm used to a many-leveled language, where the same words in the same sentence can be understood in multiple ways. This is not a 'virtue' or an expression of depth, but a rather typical form in the intellectual, liberal circles I have in my life. I have noticed, that this often doesn't comes across to religionists or US citizens.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 

When I refer to the self, I refer to the container for all that is and all that is not.
The self is the space in which all things appear and disappear.
The space is all that is not, and 'things' are that that are manifest (all that is) and together they make up self. Space and things are sourced from self.
I could use other names/labels instead of self, words such as love, consciousness, awareness, being, this or that dreaded word God.
However, i will never be able to describe the color red to a blind man.

When i said i feel love toward the self in my last post, i was saying that you are the self. It does not matter what shape or size or feeling the many things come as (frustration, anger, fear), for the many things pass. The self is permanent, you are the self and i am the self. When i speak i speak to the self. Squiggles appear here on what us humans call a pc, appear to this intelligence energy as intelligence energy and there seems to be some sort of exchange. For no reason, no purpose. This is love.

When purpose and reason come in the back door, the destruction of love is introduced.

edit on 4-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


Taken as it stands, I have no objections to this post.

On more general terms, as on some points with Akragon, I strongly object to an over-zealous syncretism, where basically incompatible positions are homogenized into fitting with each other. Such is usually purely semantic constructs of no value and no reality-connection.

Quote: ["However, i will never be able to describe the color red to a blind man."]

When you wrote this, did it occur to you, that it can be read as very patronizing. I'll try to answer in a neutral way: In each of us there are many things, which we for various reasons can't explain to others.

Quote: ["When purpose and reason come in the back door, the destruction of love is introduced."]

True. Anything coming in through the backdoor is dysfunctional. IMO also including elevating something to 'absolute status', meaning that other basic existence manifestations correspondingly are of secondary importance. This is often the case amongst 'bhakti' (=love, compassion) oriented individuals, where e.g. the intellect is considered as being of 'lower' value.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


Things come things go, no 'thing' is permanent.
'Things' are material, made of matter, solid stuff. (Well, that's not true but i will leave that for now).
Can you see that something (inside you) is seeing all the comings and goings?
Like you are sat in a river and you see all the shapes in the moving water, the river flows by moving, changing...
But you are not moving, you are not changing, always there in the center of your experience.
What sees this life experience, what feels it?
The thing (the no thing) that feels life is here and now already complete.
Notice it, because it is life itself.


True. But I do my best to keep Jesus, 'god' and the bible separated from this, because 99% of the interpretations of them say the opposite (and that's also have I understand it personally), and the last one percent I find better and more precisely expressed elsewhere.

I'm no great lover of new-age mish-mash relativism.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Maybe a few words on language wouldn't be amiss.

When I earlier in life changed horses and switchted from a mainly academic life to something considerably more down-to-earth, I got some craftsman's educations. And when I then functioned as a car-mechanic, it was ofcourse easier to refer to a carburettor as a carburettor rather than "this thingumajig there".

Similarly when addressing abstract subjects, I use the lingo of the soft, social sciences I know from my academic period. It's relevant and suited (though ofcourse not precise, nothing in soft sciences is precise).

So it's not meant to be intimidating. That I parallel can a verbal urchin I won't deny.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join