| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| |||||||
|
Registered: 02/24/12 Posts: 12,791 Last seen: 4 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
Im just trying to get opinions. Being a christian myself... This makes me not want to be one anymore
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 09/15/13 Posts: 437 Last seen: 1 year, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
I don't know man, I certainly wouldn't want to believe that God is evil that would be psychologically unbearable. I think the Old Testament has all these strange things in it that are bad, but it depends on the interpretation of them. Like for instance that story in Kings about those bears killing those 42 children. That likely never even happened, it may have just been a spiritual/allegory used by the Prophets to explain something. Numerology may also be involved when it says "42" children. Really, the Old Testament is not a literal book to be taken literally, some of it is some of it isn't.
Even if there were brutal things done back then that God ordered, you got to think that maybe it was because the people back then were so brutal that it was the only way God could get to them. Like, God was only being as brutal as the people were at the times so its more the peoples fault than anything... But I prefer not to take the Old Testament so literally and leave it open to speculation. That is why the New Testament exists is to interpret the Old, the Old Testament really is a mysterious collection of texts.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 12/23/08 Posts: 8,292 Loc: Manchester, UK Last seen: 4 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
As any woman (women are amongst the main victims of this sick mindset) who knows what what will tell you, the Bible is patriarchal, and the patriarchy is exactly like what is being exposed. Utterly hypocritical, and sadistic. We are seeing exactly that in the world today, right now. They are insane----they are connected with this abusive book. Totally connected to it.
Look at their creation myth. It is really about stopping people having access to psychedelic fruit--hence they are told off for eating the fruit of knowledge, and barred from the Tree of Life. This Tree is symbolically meaning psychedelic vegetation. So straight away that tyrant 'God' is stopping our ancestors being able to freely explore their consciousness, body, and the natural world. And what do you see to this day..............? the so-called WAR ON DRUGS and of course included is war on psychedelics. War against us exploring consciousness, and understanding that nature is alive and sacred! So my point is is that that sick mindset carries on even from those ancient times, and it does so via pushing you toxic myths. 9/11 was/is a toxic myth, etc. They create FEAR, GUILT, SHAME, and this is supposed to divide and control and have you clining to their author-itry (their CONTROL OF THE NARRATIVE). And look at how people will defend this tyrant 'God', and also this tyrant 'State'. they become blind to their own victimhood and abuse and end up abusing themselves and others. Edited by zzripz (09/17/13 02:22 AM)
| |||||||
|
Ascended Registered: 11/14/10 Posts: 5,401 Last seen: 2 days, 1 hour |
| ||||||
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 09/15/13 Posts: 437 Last seen: 1 year, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Do you see how people have made an idol out of the text of the Bible and misinterpreted it over the years? Its not that the book is evil its that the people abuse the text that's already there by misinterpreting it. You're misinterpreting what the Knowledge of Good and Evil is. What that is...is us thinking ourselves to be God instead of God to be God. We think we're God everytime we take something from this world, whether it be a drug or a bad idea and start to believe that this thing came from itself and that God did not make it. That is why they had to stretch for the hand and eat the fruit of the tree, they misused the creation of God. First they thought about it what the fruit would be used for, with the Wisdom of the Serpent that is, then the act came. The Wisdom of the Serpent is Wisdom which is self seeking and crawls along the ground like a snake. So in reality the story is about misuse of God's creation and coveting God's creation, believing that is belongs to us and not thanking God for it and ascribing it to God. We put ourselves in God's place when we do that. Edited by SpiritualWarrior (09/15/13 07:11 PM)
| |||||||
|
newbie Registered: 04/20/03 Posts: 4,497 Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
The video is all wrong. God is good. Not just a little bit good but supremely good. The error is on the part of man and this error is basically loving created things more than their creator. this self love causes people to view life from a wrong perspective. They view things from the standpoint of their body instead of the standpoint of the immortal soul. Lacking the right perspective, they make all kinds of ignorant choices that lead to suffering and then blame God and think God isnt good. Only when people cease holding imperfect images in their minds will the earth begin to become the paradise God envisioned for it.
We create reality our reality. Heres an example. Lets say you have a scientist doing research on monkeys trying to cure a disease. He takes it all very seriously. TO him he is doing very important work, trying to study and cure a disease and the potential human lives it could save justifies the suffering of the poor innocent monkeys. But what woudl an enlightened being do? to an enlightened being is it necessary to do experiments on monkeys in a lab? an enlightened being views the whole situation differently. The enlightened being would simply look within to God for the answer. If he wanted to rid himself of the disease, he would know that prayer was a more effective means than scientific study. Here is the paradox though. lets say you tried to explain this to the scientist. He would scoff at you. He would sya show me evidence prayer works. Of course from the point of view of the scientist prayer doesnt work. It doesnt work because humans are in a low state of consciousness in which they have limited control over their creative powers and dont understand that they have the power to cure sickness with prayer. Because of their lack of understanding and lack of belief, prayer doesnt work. So the scientist studies will come back showing prayer doesnt work and he will say "aha, you see. prayer doesnt work. Now get out of my way while i do my actual evidence based research that actually brings things into the world that work". You see, if humans adopt the belief that scientific research is the only sensible way to accomplish anything, then the universe is simply going to reflect that belief, and humans will become more and more entrenched in that viewpoint. Most atheists dont even realize that their views are based on faith, faith in the human intellect and its ability to discern the truth. Its no different from believing in God. You cant prove that the intellectual method yields the truth using the intellect any more than you can prove that the Bible is true with the Bible. If the spiritual worldview is correct, which essentially states humans are caught in the illusion of maya or fallen from grace, or something then it only makes sense. whenever you see atheists aruging against religion, they are always making intellectual arguments and talking about logic and evidence. what is the underlying assumption here? That the other person must share their viewpoint. the other person must have faith that the human intellect is the ultimate judge of truth and falsehood (things like the scientific method are just functions of the intellect, the scientific method cannot be used by a rock to learn about the world, it requires an intellect) and that if there is a god, he must make sense to the intellect and be explainable in such a way that it satisfies their intellect. What atheists dont seem to realize is that those are pure assumptions. There is no reason those thigns have to be true. another culture could develop where prayer, meditation and spiritual communion are what it puts in faith in. for such a society, it is quite possible that prayer would work just as science "works" for us (gaining credibility by helping us build machines and computers and crap we dont relaly need). Atheists will say ok that might be true but there is no evidence for it, so i have no reason to believe it. Again, this just shows their complete and total faith in the intellect, as the intellect is what demands evidence to function. other faculties of the soul do not need evidence to operate, the soul learns to nagivate based on feeling, sensation and emotion. its a whole way of thinking/being that atheists are unfamiliar with and they have closed off the possibility of it existing because of their faith and devotion to the intellect. the irony is that they are behaving so much like the religious people they abhor. the religious put their faith in God and latch onto to all experiences which comfirm their belief in God and that faith and prayer are our greatest tools, atheists put their faith in intellect and latch onto all experiences which seem to confirm to them that that logic and reasoning are our greatest tools. How can these two sides ever be reconciled? certainly not through an intellectual debate. expecting a religious personn to be able to prove or explain religion to you in a way that satisfies your intellect is like a religious person expecting an atheist to be convinced God exists by getting on his knees and praying. why do atheists never queston the assumption that religion should be explainable or should sound logical to them? Basically each side in this debate has completely different assumptions and neither side can in any way prove their assumptions. Quote: Whoa dude, I see a lot of completely unsupported assertions in your post. If you are going to make claims completely contrary to the way the Christian faith has been practiced and understood for the past 2,000 years, you'd better provide some solid evidence. Psychedelics are fun toys which allow one to play around with spiritual states of consciousness, they are not nearly important enough to be the focus of the geneses myth about the true knowledge and the tree of life. The knowledge of good and evil is the mindset mankind has adopted in which he has set himself up as the judge over what should or should not happen, rather than letting God be the judge. Before eating this fateful fruit, man was in a state of grace. His heart was joyful and at peace in the Lord and so nothing that befell him on earth troubled him because he trusted in the Lord. If something seemed painful or bad, rather than judging it or trying to resist it, he just accepted it because he knew that there must be some greater purpose or reason for it, or the good Lord would not have sent it upon him. After eating from the tree and falling from grace, man lost his special connection with the Lord. He became his own master but lacking wisdom, he was like a sheep without a shepard. He gained the knowledge of good and bad from the standpoint of his body, but lost the knowledge of what was truly best for his soul. This is what has happened to us, we have become identified with our bodies to the point where we seek to gratify the desires of the flesh (the good) and avoid pain and injury (bad) instead of seeking only to do the will of the Lord. Psychedelics and nature worship can raise ones consciousness and put them in touch the divine. However, it cannot take them all the way to the goal, which is union with God. That was the great insight of Judaism and the reason for the condemnation of paganism. Its not the paragnism wasnt real spirituality, on the contrary, through nature worhsip you can become much more spiritual than the materiaslitc people our society generates. However, you will never get all the way to the goal, you will never attain union with the most high, through such means. You speak of the sacredness of nature. Nature is indeed quite sacred, but only because the good Lord made it so. Thats the insight of Judaism and its daughter religion, Christianity. The fact the Lord is the source of all that is good and we need only to look to Him and only by looking to Him can our souls ever find true rest. What does an entheogen do anyway? the word itself means to make God appear within. THats what they do, they fill you with a portion of the Holy spirit for the duration of the trip and it shows you things. But its just temporary. You see, psychedelics and nature worship can only take us so far. In fact, humans are more spiritually evolved than plants and animals and nature spirits. The nature spirits might seem quite spiritual to you, because they dont suffer from the delusions and afflictions of modern society, they are much more pure. However, nature spirits lack the development of self awareness and self consciousness that is possessed by humans. Hence from the standpoint of the evolution of consciousness, human beings are the most evolved species on the planet and you would do well to pay attention to the sacred writings of human beings. That doesnt mean you cant have a great love for nature, i have found that as my love for the Lord grows, so does my enjoyment of the natural world, for it is God's creation. The more you love your creator, the more you will love creation. Just be careful not to love creation more than the creator. That tendency is original sin. \
| |||||||
|
Registered: 08/13/11 Posts: 6,325 |
| ||||||
Quote: What do you mean? The point of experiments, models, and studies is to test assumptions against reality, where as you seem to be making up assumptions on the spot (such as healing prayer works only through belief, and the problem it hasn't worked is because not enough people believe), base it off of absolutely nothing besides maybe a gut feeling you have, and then believe it out right. I look at that assumption, and see no reason to believe in it. There seems to be a large negative coloration between high religious populations and public health. India, Africa and South America all have major health problems such as AIDs, and they have very high religious observation. Not to say that religion causes disease, but the most likely explanation is that poverty is a positive casual factor for disease, and statistics show poor people are more likely to be religious.
| |||||||
|
newbie Registered: 04/20/03 Posts: 4,497 Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
I addressed that in my post. You're assuming that experiments, models and tests give us objective information about reality. How can you prove that? I understand that it seems to be the case but just because something seems a certain way does mean its true. Im not saying that we should assume it isnt true. Sometimes you have to go with the way things seem even if you have no proof. But that doesnt mean you should convince yourself there is proof when there is none.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 02/10/08 Posts: 56,232 |
| ||||||
Quote: And yet the views of the theists you describe are based on faith in the human intellect's ability to discern at least ONE kind of truth (specifically, the truth that the human intellect may be fallible). Both atheists and theists alike trust various conclusions that their minds have come up with, there's no getting around it. Instead, the difference between most atheists and theists that I've found is that they start out with other different assumptions, namely (in the theist's case) that gut feeling, emotions, and/or stubbornness trumps empirical observation and scientific evidence when judging the validity of a belief. The atheist feels that this is incorrect, and that empirical observation trumps mere feeling. I tend to side with the atheist here.
| |||||||
|
Elder Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida Last seen: 3 years, 2 days |
| ||||||
|
I lost my response yesterday, but these aspects of the way that Deity was represented in the Tenach, is saying a whole lot more about the mentality of the Hebrew people, and their prophets in particular, than about the nature of Deity. The descriptions of the father attributed to Iesous in the New Testament are automatically assumed to be a continuation of the God of the Jews, but given the quotations in this video, there is little in common with the benevolent parent that the NT describes. This is the crux of Harold Bloom's book, Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine.
This theme about the immorality of God is also what prompted all those Jews and Christians who withdrew from the orthodoxy of their religions, to call themselves Gnostics in various ways. Almost without exception, Gnostics understood God the Creator as an intermediary power, not the True God, or God-Above-God. The Creator was often called the Demiurge, which means craftsman, and many myths developed to explain just how and why this Demiurge created humankind, imbued them with Spirit, but basically trapped our Spirit in matter. In order for us to be freed from this Demiurge's entrapment, a divine teacher, usually Iesous, descends from our true home in the Pleroma [Fullness], and teaches us how to extricate ourselves, our essential nature, from it's identification with matter. It is Knowledge of a mystical order, called Gnosis in Greek, that results in our salvation, not some bestowal of grace by the metaphorical hand or nod of a capricious Deity. A post-modern version of a Gnostic myth is The Matrix trilogy. When Neo (which means both new, and is an anagram for [the] One) flies a hovercraft above the polluted atmosphere, and sees the Sun in a blue sky, it parallels the Pleroma - the Ultimately Real. The Architect character is The Demiurge who creates the machine world (William Blake depicted a Gnostic Demiurge called Old Nobodaddy as an architect with a compass). In classic Gnosticism, the Archons are sinister powers that try to prevent the spiritual awakening and ascension of human beings to their true home in the Pleroma. These Archons are depicted as Agents in The Matrix trilogy. Neo is the savior, who learns from the Oracle (the Gnostic version is Sophia, Wisdom), Temet Nosces, as the sign in her kitchen reads in Latin - Know Thyself. This is the Gnosis. When truly understood, Neo IS freedom. That gives Neo his ability to defeat the Agents/Archons, and for the Architect to come into balance with the Oracle. In some Gnostic myths, Sophia goes off and creates the Demiurge, which in turn creates the universe and humankind. The bottom line in The Matrix trilogy is that the Architect/demiurge is an evil creator. But humankind has been completely enslaved, and all that remains is its essential Spirit of freedom and free will which continues to eludes his grasp, particularly as manifested by Neo. So he keeps reproducing The Matrix as he had already done 16 times, as he tells Neo. The Architect continues to imprison humans in electronic simulacra. Even the survivors in Zion are "another level of control," who wrongly believe they have escaped bondage as human batteries. If Zion has been destroyed 16 times, they are all electronic reproductions. So this notion of an evil Creator, and our escape from its control is an essentially Gnostic theme. It also has its parallel in our psychological evolution from the bondage of the unconscious, to become conscious beings. We move from determinism to existential freedom to the extent that we escape our identification with instinctual, psychosexual, and psychosocial 'obligations.' In Gnosticism, it's all about Awakening. -------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
|
Registered: 08/13/11 Posts: 6,325 |
| ||||||
Quote: True, everything I'm experience could be a dream for all I know, but on a pragmatic level, I trust the scientific method in dealing with reality. I choose not to smoke tobacco, for example, because there have been numerous controlled studies have shown again and again that tobacco consumption has a positive correlation with cancer and heart diseases.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 09/15/13 Posts: 437 Last seen: 1 year, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: That's all way too complicated. The Christian Message of Christ is about simplifying things. It doesn't use the rational brain to live spiritually. Gnosticism claims wisdom and knowledge but does not have the true wisdom or knowledge of Christ. It calls for a human man-made form of wisdom that is of this earth and is really just philosophical thought. There is no general proof of any of it much like the theory of evolution. Its all in the head. You can think about what it is but what is it in practice? Is there any kind of special prayers that gnostics say? Or is there no prayer at all and is it just like another kind of buddhism where they meditate? Problem with gnosticism is it has no structure, there is no "ground and pillar" which it rests supported on like the church is. Its all theory and no practice. All scattered and not united. It does not produce true faith, only philosophy and empty words. "Beware lest anyone captures you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" Collosians 2:8-9 Edited by SpiritualWarrior (09/16/13 04:52 PM)
| |||||||
|
newbie Registered: 04/20/03 Posts: 4,497 Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: i dont see what you mean there. even atheists admit the intellect can be fallible. but theists like myself are not claiming the intellect cannot discern truth, only that its abilities are limited by the information available to it. the intellect works very well when it has all the information it needs to make a logical decision. but the more unknowns you have and the more that the so called knowns youre working with actually rest on assumptions, the weaker and weaker the intellects conclusions become. Quote: That's basically what I said, so I am not sure whether you were agreeing with me and just siding with the atheist's approach or whether you felt like you were saying something different. But yes, as Ive said the atheist maintains that we ought only to put a stake in ideas which can be supported through an intellectual process of evidence gathering. The theist on the other hand, claims that things can be known intuitively through the faculties of the soul or knowledge can be given to us by God through revelation. The thing is, when the atheist presents arguments for his position, he is pre-assuming the authority of the intellect. If I dont buy into his assumption that the intellect is the highest authority, his arguments are going to fall flat on my ears just like if he doesn't buy into God's existence, quoting him the Bible is going to fall flat most of the time. The other point I wanted to make was how reality will often appear to confirm whatever viewpoint we take toward it. Take a dream for example. In a dream you virtually always have far greater power to manipulate your experience than you understand or realize. If you were in chigaco in a dream but wanted to be in new york, rather than have to take a plane to new york, you could probably just think yourself there. Now im not saying you can necessarily do that in your waking state, but i am saying what if we have far greater power to manipulate our waking experience than we realize? just like how in the dream, someone who does not realize they can think themself to new york, will end up taking a plane or bus, absolutely sure it is the only way, scientists will spend lifetimes doing "empirical" experiments, absolutely certain it is the only way to learn about reality. but if there is a higher mind aspect to reality, and what see on the physical level is a manifestation of what is being held on the level of the higher mind, then the fundamental assumptions held by most people might be completely wrong. just like how in the dream, you could have thought yourself to new york but since you didnt know that, it seemed like you had to take the bus and reality seemed to confirm this fact, as you did not get to new york until you boarded the bus, similarly in waking life, if you believe that the only way to accomplish anything is throught he collecting of empirical data and analyzing it with the human intellect, then physical reality will outpicture that belief and collecting empirical data will become the only way to accurately know anyrthing. I believe that is why so many people are so absolutely certain their beliefs are correct, even though when it really comes down to it, they are based on nothing more than assumptions. anyway, i dont side with the atheist because in my experience, i have discovered that there are other ways of using energy to change my experience of and understanding of life than throught he use of my intellect alone. i would say that my consciousness is kind of like a flashlight or spotlight and by shining it on things, i can sometimes get an idea about how they work. i dont necessarily think we even need to be particularly unscientific or adopt magical thinking, i jsut think that most scientist types tend to look outside themselves for truth. They see everything through the lens of their intellect which has built up a large complicated conceptual system of evaluating all the information their senses bring in and judging and categorizing it according to past experiences. But what if God is the source of our consciousness itself? what if looking inward and observing our own mind clearly (and this is where i think a scientific mindset is a useful one for observation of oneself) can bring us untold insights into what life is and how we can make it more satisfying for ourselves? What if we find that endless scientific investigation of the sensory data we encounter is not as important as we had thought? These seem to be ideas which I have found do not appeal to most atheists. they seem to have a disdain for anything that could be considered spiritual, preferring to operate in the realm of the intellect, which is what they are used to and where they feel comfortable. They are resistant to learn to develop new ways of gathering information, perhaps fearing that if they put their faith in what they consider "gut feeling" they will be wrong and be embarrassed in front of other atheists. I dont know, whatever the reason, atheists dont like to consider the idea that all their beliefs and well reasoned logical arguments all rest on the flimsy assumption that intellect is the height of human achievement and there is no such thing as spiritual enlightenment, which gives us a different kind of knowledge.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 08/13/11 Posts: 6,325 |
| ||||||
Quote: There is actually quite a lot of evidence for the theory of evolution.
| |||||||
|
newbie Registered: 04/20/03 Posts: 4,497 Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Yes, thank you. I am beginning to think markosthegnostic has lost his way and fallen into an almost entirely heretical belief system. Seems like in every post he is taking the view that the orthodox church has got it all wrong and that we need to take another look at the scriptures and completely revise our understanding of them into some kind of eastern philosophy of awakening. in my experience, this is completely false. In fact, this viewpoint is specifically condemned in the Bible. I'm not saying that Biblical salvation cannot be understood in terms of mystical knowledge, gnoses, or awakening in the eastern sense. The heresy lies in believing that it MUST be understood in this way and any Christian who is not studying these gnostic concepts and having mystical experiences of gnoses is doing it wrong. I used to think that way as well, and I have found it is a common delusion among psychedelic drug users. They think the path is all about secret knowledge that was revealed to them on psychedelics and your average mainstream christian is an ignorant fool with an infantile understanding of the scriptures. But now that I have matured a bit, I see what a silly intolerant way of looking at things that is (and ironically it comes from people who like to study multiple religions and profess to believe in religious tolerance). In reality, the message of the Bible is quite simple and there is no need to be some kind of mystic, biblical scholar or occult expert to follow it. The Bible teaches us the path of righteousness. It teaches us to treat others as we would wish to be treated ourselves, loving them as our brothers and sisters. It teaches us to refrain from immorality, building our virtues and avoiding every vice, that is keeping the commandments. It teaches us to have faith in God and to develop a relationship with him through prayer. It teaches the folly of self love and the love of creation over creator. It teaches us that true peace and happiness can be found through the complete surrender of oneself to God, our ultimate goal being learning how to serve Him and love him with our whole hearts rather than serving the desires of the flesh which is man's current, wretched condition. It teaches to lay up our treasure in heaven rather than on earth, worrying not about our own fate but seeking only to do what is just and charitable and pleasing to God and trusting that he will see to the rest. I could go on, but that is basically it. Anyone who can do all of the above perfectly is already a saint. So my question is the same as spiritualwarriors. what does gnosticism add? is there some special prayer that I can say as a gnostic that will somehow be more powerful than the way i pray currently? what can it possibly add? Here is a passage from the book of Job which supports what I am trying to say: Think how you have instructed many, how you have strengthened feeble hands. 4 Your words have supported those who stumbled; you have strengthened faltering knees. 5 But now trouble comes to you, and you are discouraged; it strikes you, and you are dismayed. 6 Should not your piety be your confidence and your blameless ways your hope? 7 “Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished? Where were the upright ever destroyed? 8 As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it. 9 At the breath of God they perish; at the blast of his anger they are no more. as Job is lamenting his misfortune, his friend counsels him telling him that he should heed his own advice which he gave to others upon their misfortunes. Notice the emphases is on innocent of wrong doing, who being innocent has ever perished? its not telling people to gain some kind of secret gnosis, its telling them to live morally upright lives. That message is found throughout the entire Bible, we will be judged by how we lived our lives, not on our knowledge of metaphysics. St. paul advises us to keep our conscience clear before the Lord. Quote: This is pure heresy. Its not that your understanding is incorrect, salvation does entail us being freed from identification with matter "the truth shall set you free" but its complete heresy to argue that this salvation is different from the salvation by grace through faith taught by the church. The ego cannot free itself from indetification with matter, grace is necessary. Salvation is always through grace. It is by grace alone that you even possess the knowledge that there is such a thing as salvation. You have done the exact same thing the church did, which was fall victim to the idea that their understanding of salvation was the only correct understanding and everyone with a different view had to be eliminated. There are countless ways to understand salvation and the view of the catholic and orthodox christian churches is just as true and correct as anyones. Salvation is by grace, through faith. Edited by Deviate (09/16/13 05:52 PM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 08/13/11 Posts: 6,325 |
| ||||||
Quote: lol, you must of missed the end of the story then (and the point of the Book of Job). When God shows up in the end of the book of Job, he tells Job that he was right (that he was suffering misfortune for no reason, even though he was righteous before God), and then God told the 3 theologians they were all wrong. Job:42:7: And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.
| |||||||
|
Elder Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida Last seen: 3 years, 2 days |
| ||||||
|
I am beginning to think markosthegnostic has lost his way and fallen into an almost entirely heretical belief system. Seems like in every post he is taking the view that the orthodox church has got it all wrong and that we need to take another look at the scriptures and completely revise our understanding of them into some kind of eastern philosophy of awakening.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but Awakening is not "eastern" in the sense that it belongs to India, Tibet, etc. Eastern Orthodox Hesychasm for example utilizes Yoga-like postures, breathing, visualizations, and mantras (repetitive prayer, the Prayer of the Heart). OF COURSE MY POSITION IS HERETICAL FROM AN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE! HELLO! I've been here since 1999 and you've JUST come to that conclusion? Congratulations! My tag is MarkostheGnostic. My philosophical stance towards Jewish and Christian scriptures is a radical departure from whatever mainstream orthodox theological perspective you apparently adhere to. I've been saying that for 15 years on these forums.YOU are considered by a Gnostic typological model to be a Psychic Christian. Sola Fide. I would be considered to be a Pneumatic Christian, with an entirely different take. You 'believe' this take to be an error. A Gnostic take is that the Pneumatic has the more mature position and can take the "meat" of Reality whilst the Psychic is still taking "milk," comforting mythic stories that attribute spiritual growth to a superego-like Deity, a loving parent, who has already won 'salvation' for their 'child of God.' This is the position of almost every self-proclaimed Christian I've ever met. I have never seen anyone transformed by mere 'belief.' Programmed, as any cult can do yes, but truly transformed to the core, no, never. Belief is a mental content. It is not Being itself, the Logos, the "mind of Christ." With Gnostics, it is much more a matter of "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" as Philippians 2:12 says. The 1 Thessalonian 5:17 "Pray without ceasing," is no longer understood merely as an Evagrian 'prayer of the mind,' or a Macarian 'prayer of the heart,' but of a continuous transpersonal center that has 'turned on' as a synthesis of mind-breath-heartbeat - an active Sacred Heart, a Heart Cave. Eastern Orthodoxy, I am assured by my old Greek Orthodox childhood friend, that unlike Catholic iconography which is deemed to gauche or gaudy to represent, is implied in Orthodox iconography. In Kabbalistic terms, one has crossed the 'Veil of Paroketh' to Tiphereth, The Sun, The Heart, on the glyph of the Kabbalistic Tree. One has stopped identifying so much with the earthly body-personality, and has come to experience oneself more as 'a spirit having a human experience' than 'a human having a spiritual experience.' One is metaphorically no longer on Earth looking at the Sun, one realizes that one is essentially the Sun looking at the appendage of one's body-personality. And in this metaphor, the Sun is the Son. Iesous identified with the Logos more than with his earthly body-personality He is the paradigmatic, mythic example, but not a unique specie of historical human being. That is the Christ mythos. The scriptures may reflect the living experience of Gnosis, but living experience is the center of Reality, not the written word. Perhaps unlike yourself, I had experiences that I only later saw reflected in scriptures, but for me, experience preceded anything I ever read. Hopefully I have explained my position. You view it as erroneous, which is just a recapitulation of lots of previous history. I wonder how violent you might have be towards those of Gnostic bent if you lived in the theocracy of the ancient persecutors of Gnostics. Those with profound doubts have always tried to suppress the reminders of their doubts. I, on the other hand have no problem with the average Christian going about with a head full of stories and beliefs that myth was actually historical. This dichotomy between Pneumatic and Psychic exists in every religion on Earth throughout history. I do not adhere to any of the myths, biblical OR Gnostic. I express myself here, but I have no expectation that anyone will adopt my view. Chances are, those who are in agreement with me, developed the way I did. Gnostics have traditionally been very tolerant of other's takes. Live and let live. Judgement is not your job or mine. I do not speak ill of your faith any more than I'd tell a child or an elderly person that they are wrong. Better a millstone be hung around my neck and me tossed into the sea. Their understanding is just what it is, just as your's is your's and mine is mine. So ask yourself where your self-righteous criticism has its origins. In the future, perhaps less middle school talking ABOUT me, and more adult talking TO me would be indicative of a courtesy befitting an adult. -------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 09/15/13 Posts: 437 Last seen: 1 year, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: He was talking about Orthodox as "correct" Christianity not Eastern Orthodoxy. By the way Hesychasm has nothing to do with visualizations, you're dead wrong on that one. Your Greek Orthodox friend sure is stupid to have you as his friend and let you be confirmed in your heresy. Maybe you could learn from him that in reality the Orthodox Church has way more in common with your own beliefs than you actually think. However it does not go into the philosophical thought and theory that you do, the EOC is about mystical union with God through Christ and the Incarnation. When mystical union with God takes place, then the person reaches theoria then he sees all of creation radiant with the presence of God. This is an activity of the grace of God and there are many other different effects of it. Point is, we are not "Psychic" like you said but very Pneumatic. We believe that we must have God's Spirit inside of us and it is only through the Sacraments such as Baptism, and Holy Eucharist (body and blood of Christ) that God is able to enter a person and confirm on him Holy Illumination and mystical union. And we teach that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and that the "Prayer of the Heart" which you said was nothing really does turn into an active "Sacred Heart" as you said. The entire body in fact becomes radiant with the presence of God. So it is "Pneumatic" as well as "Psychic". We believe in the dynamic energies of God and a dynamic union with God through the grace of the Holy Spirit. We receive God's Energies because of Jesus Christ, Prayer, and the Sacraments. We believe that spirit must become united with matter in order for God to fully dwell inside us. As an Incarnational Faith, we believe Jesus was God and Man, Matter and Spirit, and He symbolizes as well as fulfills that union by his miracles and Passion and Resurrection. Without this affirmation the faith comes to nothing. The Eastern Orthodox tradition is like Christian Gnosticism but it is not the kind of Gnosticism which you ascribe to. It is Gnostic because of its deep spiritual traditions and teachings about God and the Holy Spirit, and that you can read a state of Holy Illumination and Theoria (Union with God). Something other Faiths don't teach because they did not have a monastic tradition. I think you lost the way when you passed the EOC up. You didn't see what was already there, that the traditions and monastic teachings really were that of the Truth. Have you ever read St. Symeon the New Theologian? Eastern Orthodoxy is different than other forms of Christianity. It is the true Gnostic Christianity which you missed out on. By the way Eastern Orthodoxy is only one ancient sect of Orthodox Christianity, there also are the Egyptian Orthodox, the Syrian, the Armenian etc. These places are where many great monastics came from who taught about God. Edited by SpiritualWarrior (09/16/13 11:40 PM)
| |||||||
|
newbie Registered: 04/20/03 Posts: 4,497 Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: This is where you and I disagree. I disagree that your interpretation is a departure from mine. Where is the departure? Quote: Of course belief is not the same thing as Being itself, I never said it was. Again, this is where I feel like the disagreement arises. You hold onto to a belief that your brand of spirituality is more mature than mine. Quote: Yes, thats exactly what has happened to me. Ive stopped seeing myself as a human being having spiritual experiences but instead as a spiritual being looking through the eyes of a physical body. Quote: No, i am the same way. I grew up in a non religious household and could not make much sense of the Bible. I was an atheist until I began experimenting with entheogens. I then later saw my experiences relflected in scripture. However, i also found value in scripture in helping me to integrate my experiences and deepen my realizations. Quote: WHen you say you dont adhere to any of the myths what do you mean? you dont believe God spoke to Moses or that Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt or what? I dont know exactly what you mean. Quote: I apologize for talking about you, I realized I had gotten carried away after I made that post. I think of the reasons I dont talk to you as often as I should is because sometimes I find your responses a bit too academic and difficult to understand and I dont want to look silly asking "what do you mean by this" all the time, so maybe it is an immature ego fear of looking silly that prevents me from addressing you directly. You clearly have far more knowledge than I possess. Anyway, from what you wrote here we seem to be in complete agreement. Where I disagree with you, is that your views are a radical departure from mine. THey seem the same to me. It is certainly true that a lot of mainstream christians today are largely unaware of the deeper (or even the more basic) spiritual truths expressed in the Bible on anything deeper than a mere belief level. I agree with you on that. Where I think i disagree is that gnosticism poses any sort of solution to that. Are you saying that if these people would study gnosticism they would suddenly wake up and have the experience of having the mind of Christ? In my experience, this is not the case. Thats why I say it happens by grace. you say that by saying salvation happens by grace, i am attributing salvation to a superego like deity and that that is somehow an inferior position. I dont understand why you think it is inferior. To me, it is just one way of describing what salvation is. Its not necessarily superior or inferior to other ways, its just one way. The basic thing being communicated in the statement salvation is by grace, is that the ego cannot save itself. Salvation comes from something that lies beyond the ego. Do you disagree with this assertion? If not, why do you see it as inferior? Edited by Deviate (09/17/13 12:02 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 09/15/13 Posts: 437 Last seen: 1 year, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain who lived int he 1700's says that man is a Macrocosm, not a Microcosm. Meaning he is a Pneumatic not a Psychic. This is what Eastern Orthodoxy teaches about the subject it has much in common with what you believe in Markos.
This is from his "Spiritual Counsels" book.
| |||||||
|
newbie Registered: 04/20/03 Posts: 4,497 Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Yes, I think this is the crux of my disagreements with markgos which have been ongoing and not restricted to this thread. He sees people like you and I as psychic yet by his own descriptions of psychic and pneumatic, we fit the description of pneumatic. Markos, (hey look I am addressing you directly) this is what was at the center of the debate we had in the other thread I just didnt know how to express in such few words. Anyway, what you described described is very close to my beliefs as a Catholic.
| |||||||
|
Elder Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida Last seen: 3 years, 2 days |
| ||||||
|
WHen you say you dont adhere to any of the myths what do you mean? you dont believe God spoke to Moses or that Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt or what? I dont know exactly what you mean.
Exactly. The Tenach is midrash - stories that are intended to convey spiritual truths. Theophanies are very colorful highlights to such stories. They were intended to be awe-inspiring, and they are, but it is the holy emotion of awe that is important and not the stories themselves. No, I do not believe that God walked in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day, or tha Moses was hidden in a cleft of rocks so that he could only see God's 'hind portion' pass over him. The flaming Seraphim that spoke from the burning bush, the pillars of flame and smoke that guided the exiled Israelites by night and day...Need I go on? The Hebrews had their midrash as the Greeks had their mythology, although it seems like splitting hairs to define them separately. Other religious people do not take their holy scriptures literally, except for the very young or very concrete minded. The great battle in the Bhagavad Gita is understood by educated Hindus to represent an inner struggle. There is a psychological understanding of mythos, not a historical misunderstanding. you say that by saying salvation happens by grace, i am attributing salvation to a superego like deity and that that is somehow an inferior position. I dont understand why you think it is inferior. To me, it is just one way of describing what salvation is. Its not necessarily superior or inferior to other ways, its just one way. The basic thing being communicated in the statement salvation is by grace, is that the ego cannot save itself. Salvation comes from something that lies beyond the ego. Do you disagree with this assertion? If not, why do you see it as inferior? Salvation does come from something that transcends the ego. If each of our egos is a little wave, the ocean that gives each wave temporary existence is God. God is an incomprehensible Mystery, and like the Buddha or the philosophically inclined Hindus before him, Saguna Brahman - God (with attributes) - was rejected. Likewise I reject the attributes of the Divine Mystery that are clearly obvious psychodynamics of the childhood mind, the mind of wish-fulfillment, of an Old-Bearded-Guy-in-the-Sky, Zeus in Greek turned Deus in Latin, turned YHWH in Hebrew, turned Abba (Father, familiar form, equivalent to Dada) in the NT. The Buddha took the Nirguna Brahman (God without attribute), and in medieval Christian Neo-Platonism, Pseudo-Dionysius referred to this same God-without-attribute as "the Superessential Godhead," of which cataphatic mysticism says nothing can be posited. Even saying that "God is love" [agapé] does not mean that the word we use for dispassionate warmth toward others IS Ultimate Reality. I refuse to project comprehensible psychological qualities, especially those rooted in infantile emotional needs, onto the Mystery that people call God. Or worse, talk about what God 'wants' as if: (1) God 'wants' anything, (2) a human knows the intentions of Ultimate Reality, AS IF the very Creator of the universe in all of its unknown dimensions intends human beings not to eat certain foods, or have sex before a ritual marriage, (3) a man-made collection of writings selected for political reasons is the very 'Word of God.' Word is a poor English translation of Logos, and Logos is a very sophisticated philosophical notion. It is not the Bible or JUST the Bible. These are a few of my objections, and the people who most insist upon these things do so because they serve as their sad frame of reference in an otherwise chaotic and incomprehensible existence. They are drowning in fear, and insist upon very specific ideas as a life-raft, when they could have a much more sea-worthy vessel constructed of a whole lot more sophisticated and helpful teachings - teachings that effect their very minds and Being, not just feeding childish wish-fulfillment fantasies about being rescued from Hell by a Big Brother and a Father figure sitting on thrones above the clouds. Grace, whatever that is, seems to constellate around those who live in The way. It is not something that comes off the hand of God as painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Gnostic religion is not a set of beliefs, although there are a plethora of myths. The Gnostic take is perhaps best illustrated in post-modern writings by Eckhart Tolle's The Power of Now. No esoteric writings, nothing academic and complex. Simply a profound shift from our "natural man" or egoic mind to Being or "the mind of Christ." -------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
|
newbie Registered: 04/20/03 Posts: 4,497 Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Yes, I would agree that it is the holy emotion of awe that is important and not the stories themselves. However, if you don't think the stories are important then why make a big deal out of not believing them? The Bible tends to mix in real historical happenings with the more fantastical supernatural tales. To me the line between the two isn't always clear. For example in the book of exodus we read that God spoke to Moses face to face, unlike the prophets before him, whom he communicated with in dreams and visions. Now there are several ways that this can be interpreted. I used to interpret it in a rather metaphorical way, until I was shown on psychedelics that God is quite capable of speaking to you face to face. So it is possible that at least from the point of view of Moses, this really did happen. My opinion is that it is best to receive these stories with a mindset of faith. That doesn't mean you have to believe in them in a literal sense, for instance I highly doubt the Noah's ark story happened just the way the Bible tells it. But at the same time, you don't have to reject everything supernatural as pure myth either. What difference does it make whether or not you believe God walked in the garden in the cool of the day? How do you feel about the supposed healing peformed by Jesus and the apostles? Quote: I can't tell you how you should practice but I think this is a very important difference in our approaches. For me, rejecting Saguna Brahman was one the biggest mistakes I made on the spiritual path, causing me to get stuck at a certain level of meditation unable to progress for years. It wasn't until I re-read Ramana Maharshi's teachings and realized there was no shame in worshipping Suguna Brahman that I began to make rapid progress. Focusing only on Nirguna Brahman lead me to a state of light without love, which while some what blissful was overall a very flat, uncompassionate, boring and meaningless form of existence which I would classify as actually inferior to karmic existence with its up and downs. It was through the Christian practice of learning to love God, that I was able to bring joy and enthusiasm into my spiritual practice and have it become meaningful again. let me quote an artcile I found that explains the difference, which I encountered: In Saguna meditation, the devotee considers himself as entirely different from the object of worship. The worshipper makes a total, unreserved, ungrudging, self-surrender to the Lord. He respects, honours, adores the Lord and depends on Him for everything, for food, protection and his very existence. He looks always for help of any sort from the Ishta Devata. There is nothing independent for him. He is an instrument in the hands of the Lord. His hands, legs, senses, mind, Buddhi, physical body belong to the Lord. A devotee does not at all like the idea of Jnana or merging. He likes to have his separate entity as a servant and to serve, worship and love the Lord always. He does not like to become sugar as a Jnani, but like to taste sugar and eat sugar. This method of worship is one of contraction. Suppose there is a circle. You have a position in the centre. You contract yourself to a point and merge in the circumference. This is Saguna meditation. This is suitable for people of emotional temperament. Vast majority of persons are fit for this line of worship only. In Nirguna meditation, the aspirant takes himself as Brahman. He denies and sublates the false adjuncts or fictitious environments as egoism, mind and body. He depends upon himself and upon himself alone. The aspirant asserts boldly. He reflects, reasons out, investigates, discriminates and meditates on the Self. He does not want to taste sugar but wants to become a solid mass of sugar itself. He wants merging. He likes to be identical with Brahman. This method is one of expansion of lower self. Suppose there is a circle. You have a position in the centre. You so expand by Sadhana to a very great extent that you occupy the whole circle, and envelop the circumference. This method of meditation is suitable for persons of fine intellect, bold understanding, strong and accurate reasoning and powerful will. Only a microscopic minority of persons is fit for this line of meditation. I take issue with you rampant promotion of the rejection of Suguna Brahman when I actually believe this is the most important and powerful practice for the vast majority of people in the world. Sure, it's true that the ultimate truth is non dual but can you really say you have no ego? As long as the ego lasts, one should admit the existence of Saguna Brahman and worship it. If you think the other path is for you, that's fine but why act like it is superior? What's important is reaching the goal, not the means of getting there. Love for God and faith in Him will certainly take one to the goal and it is a very safe and practical route also. Why discourage anyone following this path by calling their beliefs childish or "rooted in infantile emotional needs"? Don't all of our ego's consist of infantile emotional needs? Jesus did not reject Saguna Brahman, do you consider yourself above him? Quote: Again, I object. The teachings in the Bible and of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches DO affect peoples minds and being. Some of the greatest spiritual wisdom I have come across I have found in books written by Catholics, such as "the Imitation of Christ". If you have something that is so much better, please show me. Grace, whatever that is, seems to constellate around those who live in The way. It is not something that comes off the hand of God as painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Actually, it is. Grace comes from God. Of course it constellates around those who live in the way. First of all, they need grace in order to live in the way, secondly God showers his grace upon those who merit it. Of course, grace is ever present. It's really a process of learning how to accept it. Quote: What strikes me as odd is that you think this is any different from traditional Christianity. Catholics also speak about entering the mind of christ. It's the shift from the natural (carnal) man to the new man, who lives in Christ. This is not an idea unique to gnosticism, it's very much a part of mainstream Christianity. It's also known as being filled with the holy spirit. My question is, how does one go about obtaining this shift? Are there any methods and techniques one can use to help bring it about or is it entirely beyond one's control in which case whats the point in speaking about it? If there are methods and techniques what are they and how are they different from the traditional ones? Is there some special prayer gnostics say or something? On a serious, practical level, what spiritual tools can you give me that cannot be found in my catholic church? Edited by Deviate (09/17/13 06:22 AM)
| |||||||
|
Elder Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida Last seen: 3 years, 2 days |
| ||||||
|
I can't tell you how you should practice but I think this is a very important difference in our approaches. For me, rejecting Saguna Brahman was one the biggest mistakes I made on the spiritual path, causing me to get stuck at a certain level of meditation unable to progress for years. It wasn't until I re-read Ramana Maharshi's teachings and realized there was no shame in worshipping Suguna Brahman that I began to make rapid progress. Focusing only on Nirguna Brahman lead me to a state of light without love, which while some what blissful was overall a very flat, uncompassionate, boring and meaningless form of existence which I would classify as actually inferior to karmic existence with its up and downs. It was through the Christian practice of learning to love God, that I was able to bring joy and enthusiasm into my spiritual practice and have it become meaningful again.
let me quote an artcile I found that explains the difference, which I encountered: In Saguna meditation, the devotee considers himself as entirely different from the object of worship. The worshipper makes a total, unreserved, ungrudging, self-surrender to the Lord. He respects, honours, adores the Lord and depends on Him for everything, for food, protection and his very existence. He looks always for help of any sort from the Ishta Devata. There is nothing independent for him. He is an instrument in the hands of the Lord. His hands, legs, senses, mind, Buddhi, physical body belong to the Lord. A devotee does not at all like the idea of Jnana or merging. He likes to have his separate entity as a servant and to serve, worship and love the Lord always. He does not like to become sugar as a Jnani, but like to taste sugar and eat sugar. This method of worship is one of contraction. Suppose there is a circle. You have a position in the centre. You contract yourself to a point and merge in the circumference. This is Saguna meditation. This is suitable for people of emotional temperament. Vast majority of persons are fit for this line of worship only. In Nirguna meditation, the aspirant takes himself as Brahman. He denies and sublates the false adjuncts or fictitious environments as egoism, mind and body. He depends upon himself and upon himself alone. The aspirant asserts boldly. He reflects, reasons out, investigates, discriminates and meditates on the Self. He does not want to taste sugar but wants to become a solid mass of sugar itself. He wants merging. He likes to be identical with Brahman. This method is one of expansion of lower self. Suppose there is a circle. You have a position in the centre. You so expand by Sadhana to a very great extent that you occupy the whole circle, and envelop the circumference. This method of meditation is suitable for persons of fine intellect, bold understanding, strong and accurate reasoning and powerful will. Only a microscopic minority of persons is fit for this line of meditation. I take issue with you rampant promotion of the rejection of Suguna Brahman when I actually believe this is the most important and powerful practice for the vast majority of people in the world. Sure, it's true that the ultimate truth is non dual but can you really say you have no ego? As long as the ego lasts, one should admit the existence of Saguna Brahman and worship it. If you think the other path is for you, that's fine but why act like it is superior? What's important is reaching the goal, not the means of getting there. Love for God and faith in Him will certainly take one to the goal and it is a very safe and practical route also. Why discourage anyone following this path by calling their beliefs childish or "rooted in infantile emotional needs"? Don't all of our ego's consist of infantile emotional needs? Jesus did not reject Saguna Brahman, do you consider yourself above him? I agree with the writer, and with you. I appreciate the need, still, for petitionary prayer at times. But again, you immediately assume that what you read in the Bible pertaining to Jesus is something that happened historically. Was there really a reporter observing Jesus as he sweated blood while he prayed in Gethsemani? Was that reporter in Bethlehem taking notes on a baby that glowed like a 100 watt lightbulb in an obscure manger, while angels hovered about and an astronomical anomaly shining down on him like a scene from Close Encounters? God-with-attributes is a concept. I do not want to pray to a concept of my own mind. Sometimes I give credit to God for understanding my attempt at communication, but the idea that God is 'A' being with whom I can talk is yet another concept, and a false one. God is the "Ground of Being," which is a very different inference. I am reading a book by Tim Freke called The Mystery Experience: A Revolutionary Approach to Spiritual Awakening. Although he takes a Jungian approach, he speaks of the unconscious nature of God, except where God's creation (us) has attained not only consciousness, but self-consciousness. He differentiates the word consciousness from Awareness, and I long ago arrived at the same necessary semantics, but I digress. When praying in such a matter that one addresses God, who is other-than-oneself, the prayer does not have a spacio-temporal destination. If God is Awareness, formerly called Spirit, and Spirit does not exist in or as space-time, to Whom or to where is the prayer being addressed? If it has a destination, it must be (as Sri Ramana insisted as a practical matter) that the prayer is addressed inwardly, away from any vain imaginings above the sky, or 'out there,' meaning anywhere extended in space-time. As vast as space is, it is bounded by a receding horizon, beyond which is non-existence, the not-yet-created. Perhaps only 'beyond' the expanding boundary of the universe does one find God, retracting his Infinitely Dense Being omni-directionally to make room for the bubble of the expanding universe. Then the universe is something akin to a dream in the mind of God - not an original thought at all on my part. What strikes me as odd is that you think this is any different from traditional Christianity. Catholics also speak about entering the mind of christ. It's the shift from the natural (carnal) man to the new man, who lives in Christ. This is not an idea unique to gnosticism, it's very much a part of mainstream Christianity. It's also known as being filled with the holy spirit. My question is, how does one go about obtaining this shift? Are there any methods and techniques one can use to help bring it about or is it entirely beyond one's control in which case whats the point in speaking about it? If there are methods and techniques what are they and how are they different from the traditional ones? Is there some special prayer gnostics say or something? On a serious, practical level, what spiritual tools can you give me that cannot be found in my catholic church? I am not rejecting the truth embodied in Christianity. But I have no more use for the Augustinian, or Patristic theologies that bridged my quest for truth via Indian Yoga and Greek Neo-Platonism almost 40 years ago. If you remember our difference in what constitutes Christian maturity, be advised that I have not neglected my spiritual life since it began at age 18, and that I recently turned 60! The difficulty is, whereas one can appreciate the writings of Christian mystics like Teresa of Avila's Interior Castle, such a writing is not something that one can turn into a technique. It may serve as a map, but not a technique. The same with John of the Cross. His 'Dark Night of the Soul/Senses' is a record of his spiritual journey, psychologically expressed. It too may help as a map. When my intellect, Buddhi, craved 'challenge,' I delved into Pseud-Dionysius, and his predecessor Plotinus (The Enneads). Whatever methodology best teaches you the immediacy of God, of Timeless Being, existing simultaneously with space-time, is recommended. I have practiced Yoga, then as I moved into a Christian idiom, Hesychastic methods. Eventually, the words descend from head to heart, the breath and heartbeat become the 'ceaseless prayer.' But that is still a method, because breath and heartbeat cease with death, and only God remains, but 'we' do not. It is imperative to identify with agapé in the NT because if "God is love," then only love exists eternally, while everything else perishes. Love is not a technique, it is a matter of "letting be." If you still have a need to understand this intellectually, read John McQuarrie's Principles of Christian Theology. When I was still in my 20s, in seminary, we discussed Thomas Acquinas' comment when he had completed his compendious Summa Theologica. He said, "It is all straw," i.e., worthless. The professor said, 'Well, yes, but he first had to go through all that living and thinking and writing, before he came to the wise conclusion that no amount of thinking brings one any closer to God, or to understanding what God is.' Now I am apparently at a stage of life where along with Socrates, I endeavor to Know Thyself, because with regard to God, "I know that I know nothing." Rather, I try to become a hollow reed, a pot of clay, containing Emptiness. It is an Emptiness that is Compassionate to living things. It can be suffused by the presence of others, but it does not dwell long with vexing people. That is why I avoid loud, self-righteous quoters of the Bible. The louder they speak, the less they know, but they still think they know something that they are going to teach me. I have learned these lessons, they have not. If they knew anything at all, they would know to be still. They would Know that Psalm 46:10, "Be still and know that I am God" holds more Wisdom than any and all quoting of biblical words can contain. In fact, Paul's letters to various churches were not intended to become holy scriptures. They were simply letters to advise and encourage new church groups. Some of them are genuine, the pseudo-Pauline letters are forgeries. What's wrong with a childlike acceptance of the Bible? Everything. Study for a few years and see for yourself. When my mother fed me beets, I spat them out at her. I still don't care for beets much, although when I was taken to the Russian Tea House in NYC to eat borsht with my girlfriend's parents in college, I tolerated it out of love for her. The same with Christian theology. But on my own, I spit it out most of what has been spoon-fed to me. There's something wrong with people who put ancient bearded misogynistic, anti-Semitic, tyranny-supporting so-called Church Fathers on a pedestal. Get a little healthy self-esteem and question authority for God's sake! Paul himself was wrong about the immanent end of the world, and the political agenda that wove its way through theology is still with us today. There is the Christian Right in the USA that is the best example of a Christianity that Jesus supposedly abhorred. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's." The Christian Right has wrongly appropriated Christ just as Constantine and the murderous fascist Christian emperors who followed him in history. Gun-loving 'Christians' are an abomination, but this country is saturated with this militant fundamentalist mentality who hate their own reflection in Muslim fundamentalism, often depicted with upraised rifle in hand. They're exactly the same! They're Christian jihadists. Charleton Heston with a keffiyeh! Some people WANT to begin Armageddon just to show that the Bible is accurate! And now, my coffee-energy has run out... -------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
|
newbie Registered: 04/20/03 Posts: 4,497 Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't just assume everything I read in the Bible pertaining to Jesus happened historically. I just don't spend inordinate amounts of time trying to figure out which things did happen and which did not. That's why I asked you, do you believe that Jesus and the apostles performed "miracles" such as healing the sick? We both agree that the point of all this is to help us learn how to put on the mind of Christ. Therefore, when I read the Bible my main focus is what can I learn from it that will help me to attain the christ mind, not assessing it's historical accuracy. Sometimes I probably end up believing things that didn't actually happen. I don't see a huge problem with this. I want to know what you think I shouldn't believe and why its important, how will disbelieving it help me to attain the mind of christ? I guess I tend to think that faith is a more productive mindset than scepticism when it comes to practicing Christianity. Quote: St. Paul says that we don't know how to pray as we ought, but the spirit will teach us. There's nothing wrong with praying to a concept, what's important is opening your heart to God. I really don't understand your reasoning here. All spiritual practices are based on concepts that are false from the standpoint of ultimate reality but true from the standpoint of the ego. That is why Ramana Maharshi says "who meditates?" "practice seems to be necessary. Who is to practice? In looking for a doer, the act and accessories disappear". Furthermore, you are correct in saying that God as a being with whom you can talk is a concept, but incorrect in saying that it is a false one. On the contrary, Ramana Maharshi has said that you can talk to God just as you talk to another person and he hears, understands and answers prayers. God in the most absolute sense, is the ground of being, but God is also everything that appears to exist also. When you speak to me, you are speaking to God in the form of me. If I can hear, understand and respond to you, why would you assume that God could not? God is infinitely more powerful than I. Anyway, the purpose of worshiping God with attributes is to realize God without attributes. However, and this is a very important distinction which caused a great deal of confusion for me, Ramana Maharshi teaches that while the ego lasts, there is a personal God who controls what happens to you and to whom you can pray. What's true from the standpoint of ego and what is ultimately true are two very different things. But I am afraid you are making the mistake of failing to recognize that while certain things are realized to be false after realization, they are absolutely true from the standpoint of the ego and must be accepted. You reject God with attributes because you know that God is the absolute ground of being. But is that your experience? If its not your experience, then that itself is really just a concept for you. Ramana maharshi uses the example of someone who hears the teaching that he is not bound by karma, but his true nature is limitless being. The person then asks if he can go steal something, because he is supposedly not bound by the karma that would create. Ramana maharshi tells him, that so long as he can take the beating he would receive for stealing without feeling aversion to it, he is free to steal. Otherwise, he must accept that he will receive the fruit of his actions. Quote: Simplify. It is enough that you put forth sincere effort in prayer, then the spirit will do the rest. You dont need to worry your ego about where to address it, God hears it no matter where you address it. Thats my advice. Quote: So basically, that's a very long no you don't have any special techniques or prayers that I cant find in regular Christianity. For me, the traditional methods of faith, prayer, meditation, love for God, trying to keep the commandments, frequent reading of the scriptures regular mass attendance, reception of the Eucharist and last but certainly not least, CONTEMPLATION are working very well. They are teaching me the immediacy of God, his infinite and timeless nature and how to abide in Him. The path taught by Christianity may not be for everyone, but in my experience it is a very effective means for facilitating one's spiritual development.
| |||||||
|
Elder Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida Last seen: 3 years, 2 days |
| ||||||
|
Here is a techniques from Nicephoras the Solitary, taken from Kadloubovsky & Palmer's Writing From the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart.
As to your question on whether the miracle stories are historical, I refer you to a single book that I read just a couple of years ago and stuck firmly. She documents her sources most thoroughly and paints a most convincing picture that the New Testament culled most of its stories of healing and raising of Lazarus (L'Auzar: Of Auzar or Ausar, the Egyptian name for Osiris, god of resurrection) from the ancient Egyptian Pyramid texts and Coffin Texts. Whereas J.S. Spong illustrates how, why, where, and for whom the New Testament was constructed, and how it closely adhered in its stories to the Jewish liturgical calendar, D.M. Murdock approaches those same stories from a different vector, showing their origins in ancient Egypt. I cite these two books because they both embody the views I have adopted from them, which pretty much sums up my take on the Bible. Now, the further psychological, archetypal wealth of insight that can be gleaned from the Bible is another matter, but these two books provide a literary analysis with surgical precision that leave little room for the vestiges of fancy, imagination, childhood wish-fulfillment, or cherished notions of "I know my faith is correct." I have come to acknowledge Murdock's take as being probable, versus any historical veracity to multiplying fishes and loaves, restoring the vision of a blind man with mud and spittle, etc. I see these stories as having allegorical significance for the most part, but I look for the levels of interpretation that Jewish scriptures can be viewed by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par As for prayer life, it is a personal matter. I do not want to put an example of a very specific petitionary prayer, with its seemingly impossible fulfillment on a public forum (to be picked apart and violated), but suffice to say that I have had a lengthy prayer life without having held any concept of that Mystery to which I was addressing my petition. I pondered the possible mechanisms of why I asked for something so specific in the first place, why it came to pass in exactly the way I envisioned it suggesting such things as precognition (I somehow knew what was going to occur, and asked for it before it manifested), but that didn't seem to fit. Pure mathematical probability of the specifics seemed utterly impossible. Solipcistic creation of the entire sequence was considered. The reception of my desires telepathically by the exact type of family that actually moved in next door (after a series of horrible neighbors) was considered. And last but not least was the simple homespun answer that it was an answer to my prayers. I simply do not recognize the qualifiers of God as wrathful, jealous, loving, rewarding, etc. These are anthropomorphic projections that I prefer to banish from awareness along with any type of imagery. Finally, I do not judge anyone's prayer life, so long as animal sacrifice is not involved.
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 12/23/08 Posts: 8,292 Loc: Manchester, UK Last seen: 4 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Have you ever read John Allegro's The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross? He reveals how the text is composed in layers, and the core meaning layer is meant for the initiated. But you know what? ALL the layers are coming from a solar-patriarchal mindset. Quote: Do YOU know right now what good and evil is? If you say yes, isn't that a good thing? If you say no, what do you mean you dont know the what is good from what is evil. What do you mean 'God made it'? What like some architect in the sky? Explain. So your saying 'God' made the Tree and Fruit? HOW did 'they' misuse the 'creation of God'? Your not making any sense to me. The wisdom of the Serpent is far older story than than your 'creation myth'. The Serpent who also is the Great Mother ALWAYS guarded the Tree of Life. it is your tyrannical god who is the upstart and wants to suppress that meaning. Quote: That very story about Adam having dominion over nature is the CORE instigator of all the mindsets who think they can do what they like with other peoples who don't, and who DO, believe their control-freakery shit, and subjugate animals, and nature. So it is VERY hypocritical to assume that myth is for the good of all
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 12/23/08 Posts: 8,292 Loc: Manchester, UK Last seen: 4 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Psychedelic are "fun toys"....? I am sorry mate, that is your limited interpretation of psychedelic experience, and not mine, but I would also encourage you to read some good books about this subject, other than the Bible, if I was you as you are out of your depth..... Psychedelic have always been and remain THE main inspiration for mythology---they ARE the very source of the Dreamtime!! The Dreamtime, or Otherworld, or the mythical dimension is a place which is here in other dimensions, and brings us into direct contact with the sacred. Let me make it clear that life 'ordinarily' is also sacred, but there are depthless depths to reality one can experience in continuum with the one you are currently experincing.Mythology wasn't always writ down. Writing is fairly new invention, and once it began getting writ down really coincides with the beginnings of the patriarchy, and their strategy to divide and control and maintain a slave culture is evidenced in their writings. Read this great book, Shamanism and the Drug Propaganda: The Birth of Patriarchy and the Drug War, by Dan Russell Edited by zzripz (09/18/13 02:58 AM)
| |||||||
|
newbie Registered: 04/20/03 Posts: 4,497 Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
I have no doubts about the depths of divinity one can experience under the influence of psychedelics. I am well aware that they provide keys to accessing the other world, what I like to call the spirit world or spiritual realm. But why assume they are the only means or even the most efficient? Why assume that we even belong in all the realms psychedelic provide us with access to or that it is to our benefit?
I have studied shamanism by the way and read a lot about psychedelics. My usage of and study of psychedelics eventually lead me to begin investigating the source of the divinity I experienced on psychedelics. Invariably this search lead me to the Lord, and so I read the Bible and learned how to pray. I learned that prayer was a better means for accessing the sacred than psychedelics, though more difficult because it requires one to live an upright and holy life striving to free himself from the grips of ignorance and sin. On the other hand, a psychedelic drug user can sin all he wishes and yet still access the divine whenever he wishes through the use of drugs. I'm not saying psychedelics have no place in spirituality, they certainly served as a catalyst to my awakening. But they pale in comparison to the real thing. All trips come to an end, but God's love is eternal. The mature spiritual seeker does not desire kingdoms but only to love and serve the Lord. FOr me psychedelics are at best reminders/natural medicines that help keep my soul on the right path and at worst toys and distractions, or even just plain old drugs to get high off. No psychedelic compares to the purity of love I experience when recieving the sacrament of Holy Communion by the way, psychedelics are incredibly dirty compared to that energy. Why the obsession with psychedelcis? The divine is not contained in the drug, the drug simply temporarily removes the barriers that prevent the mind from descending into the heart, which contains the source of all that is sacred and divine. Why not abide in the heart always rather than only visiting from time to time with psychedelics? Edited by Deviate (09/19/13 04:20 AM)
| |||||||
|
newbie Registered: 04/20/03 Posts: 4,497 Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I am already familiar with the Philokalia and prayer of the heart from my studies of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. This illustrates the point I have been trying to make to you. Promoters of these alternative Christian sects criticize the mainstream churches, acting as if they are in possession of some higher spiritual wisdom or that they alone are the true followers of Christ while the mainstream churches have gone astray. So my response is excellent. I am always struggling to grow closer to God, so if it turns out that I have been doing things the hard way this whole time, following the wrong path then by all means, enlighten me as to the true teachings of Christ and the true way to follow Him. Then I always end up disappointed because as far as I have been able to tell, the alternative Christian sects do not have very much to offer that cannot be found in traditional thought and practice. In other words, there is simply no reason I cannot practice prayer of the heart as a Catholic. This method of prayer is not unknown in the Catholic church. It appears to me that there aren't a whole lot of short cuts on the spiritual path. Whether you are Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant or Gnostic, it's really up to you to put in the effort in prayer and the effort you put into seeking God is a lot more important than what brand of Christianity you adhere to. That's not to say I believe all Christian faiths are the same, there are specific criticisms I have for certain churches, for example I think the protestants have hindered a lot of peoples understanding of the relationship between salvation and sin. But that doesn't mean one cannot grow in holiness as a protestant. So why expend so much effort pushing gnosticism? why not just encourage encourage all Christians to live righteous, faithful and holy lives and to seek the Lord through prayer and contemplation? Is the goal spiritual awakening or is the goal advanced knowledge and understanding of the Bible? The former can certainly happen without the latter. Quote: Having not read the books or studied the evidence regarding these allegations, I am not in the position to comment on them. I will however post this for consideration: Even with all the differences between Osiris and Jesus, it is still striking that early men would imagine a God with even a few similarities, don’t you think? How could that happen? Is it really possible that someone could imagine something that could later become a reality, even if only in part? Well, let’s take a look at another example from history. What if I told you that a man named Morgan Robertson once wrote about a British ocean liner that was about 800 feet long, weighed over 60,000 tons, and could carry about 3,000 passengers? The ship had a top cruising speed of 24 knots, had three propellers, and about 20 lifeboats. What if I told you that this ocean liner hit an iceberg on its maiden voyage in the month of April, tearing an opening in the starboard side forward portion of the ship, and sinking along with about 2,000 passengers? Would you recognize the event from history? You might say, “Hey, that’s the Titanic!” Well, you would be wrong. While all these details are identical to the Titanic, the ship I am talking about is the “Titan” and it is a fictional ship described in Robertson’s book called “the Wreck of the Titan” or “Futility” (Buccaneer Books, Cutchogue, New York, 1898). This book was written fourteen years BEFORE the disaster took place, and several years before the construction was even begun on the Titanic! In addition to this, other writers and thinkers had also started to develop a mythology about such large ships. In the 1880’s, the well known English journalist, W. T. Stead also wrote an account of a sinking ocean liner in the mid-Atlantic, and by 1882 had added the detail that an iceberg would be the cause of the disaster. There are also quite a number of recorded premonitions on the part of passengers who cancelled at the last minute before boarding the Titanic for its maiden voyage in 1912, citing that the ship would suffer a similar fate. http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012 Now that could be way off for all I know. But at the same time, I don't feel a particularly strong psychological need to take on what would could amount to a massive undertaking of trying to sort out the actual truth behind the composition of the new testament. The fact of the matter is that regardless of why or for whom the Bible was written or whether it tells of actual events, the spiritual truth expressed in the stories seems genuine to me. Entire religions have been built around the Bible and many saints have arisen following the path it prescribes. Certainly many of these saints were real historical people who left behind their own teachings. Seldom do I find myself having to choose between the truth expressed by the saints and the truth expressed in the Bible. So if the Bible provides, good, sound, spiritual advice, why do I need to concern myself with questioning it's origins? In my experience, the best approach for fostering spiritual growth is childlike faith and innocent acceptance, even if it sometimes means potentially believing something that didn't actually happen. I believe in putting my faith in the Holy Spirit as the revealer of truth, rather than Biblical scholarship. Quote: You call them anthropomorphic projections, I call them figures of speech. For example, God tells us that he is a jealous God, to help us remember to love Him and him alone lest we be lead astray by the love of created things. It doesn't have to mean that God feels the human emotion of jealousy in the way that you are I do. Do you object to phrasing in your chemistry book if it says that two atoms which have formed a covalent bond "want" to stick together? Is that an anthropomorphic projection that must be banished from awareness or is it simply a figure of speech and an effective one at that?
| |||||||
|
just a girl Registered: 07/30/13 Posts: 29 Loc: NY Last seen: 3 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
The translation that the maker of the video uses is horrible. I don't like it. I personally stick with King James or NKJ versions. He reads 1-3 or 4 verses, but there is important points that must be understood in the words before and after the verses that will make for a clear understanding of the message. Ya know what I mean? In the last scripture Jeremiah 19:9, if you were to read the entire chapter, you would have knowledge as to why the people were eating the flesh of others. There was famine in the land and in order to preserve their lives, they had no choice if they wanted to live. Some people would die before eating their brother, but don't you think there were some people that made that choice to surive? As gross as it is. Anyway, these people were worshipping idols as it states in 19:4. It also goes on to say that the people were murderers of the innocent, they turned their hearts from God and made a choice to serve other gods. Those people had been previously warned and had turned their faces from God. They didn't want Him or accept Him. Free will. The consequences of sin is death.
It's important to understand the context of the words and to read The Word from a legitimate version. King James is the best, to my knowledge. I have never heard of the version that this man was reading from. I think that if anyone wants clarity of all those versus, then you have to read the entire chapter to understand the message in order to get the message right. There's no purpose in reading into just the verses he has quoted without knowing what is written before and after. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Elder Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida Last seen: 3 years, 2 days |
| ||||||
|
King James is the most beautiful, especially the Psalms IMO, but he does what virtually every scribe has done throughout the centuries - he makes insertions. Like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. There is no word for homosexual in Greek. It therefore could not have appeared in the original Greek manuscripts of the NT. But it is a matter of psycho-history that King James himself was homosexual, and no doubt a self-hating homosexual at that.
Luke 17:20-21 is another important example. ".. the kingdom of God is within you. The original Greek uses an -ento form, not an -eso form, according to my NT professors in seminary. The more precise translation, and the one I used, was the Revised Standard Version (there are even better ones today) which says "...the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." Now, personally, I never liked this because I am an introvert, and INTP, with a strong mystical bent, and I preferred to conceptualize the kingdom of God as having a transpersonal 'locus' in my psyche, and further, at my psychospiritual Center, which I identified for a number of reasons with my heart. The word "midst" suggests rather, a presence that exists inter-personally, between individuals, and this suggestion supported the 'social gospel' model of most of the Methodist professors I had. In fact, the first day of class, a NT prof asked if there were any Catholics in the room. A friend of mine kicked my foot, but I didn't answer because I was a Jew who received Catholic baptism and was suddenly in a Protestant seminary. Nevertheless, I could see that said professor wanted to be sure not to offend anyone before proceeding. I dropped his class and took the course with another prof - a Hindu-turned-Christian. He was not much better since he was influenced more by Marxist political philosophy than anything mystical. He did suggest one thing I remembered though: "Metaphor is more potent than LSD." -------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
|
Elder Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida Last seen: 3 years, 2 days |
| ||||||
|
We have come to the end of this communication as far as I am concerned. You have expressed your position, and I'll end with saying that I am more a Panentheist (not Pantheist) than a Theist. Yet, I find myself more a Theist than a Deist, in that I still make petitionary prayers, and prayers of thanksgiving, which I would not do if I were a Deist. I've coined a term for myself which is rather difficult to describe, so I won't: Monopanentheist. Couched within this fabrication is the notion that the Creator is singular, yet is not radically separated from creation, or else any of the Theist claims for responsiveness between Creator and creation would not exist. In other words, the creation is what the Bhagavad Gita refers to as the "material energies of God," and what western esoteric traditions refer to as 'The Goddess,' more colloquially, 'Mother Nature.' Within individual being, me, Wisdom and Compassion (as the Tibetan Buddhists like to express Ultimate Reality), Sophia and Christ, Head and Heart, are the essential metaphysical dualities that are simultaneously One.
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
|
newbie Registered: 04/20/03 Posts: 4,497 Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Yes, yes. What you described is exactly how I see things, exactly. It seems we differ only in our approach. I am really just trying to learn from you by questioning. If I seem resistant to changing my viewpoints, it's only because what I am doing right now seems to be working. Can I ask you what spiritual practices have helped you the most over the years?
| |||||||
|
Elder Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida Last seen: 3 years, 2 days |
| ||||||
|
Can I ask you what spiritual practices have helped you the most over the years?
BTW, I am not here to win coverts to my way of looking at things. If anything, I practice a kind of Socratic midwifery that intends for highly programmed individuals to be honest about their own experience, and birth truth from that. Those most deeply asleep continue to parrot scriptures that they believe address a particular facet of the human condition, even though those scriptures are ineffectual in reality. At some point, I have seen belief turn psychotic delusion in people. - Entheogens taken with the intention of uncovering truth has been #1 on my list of spiritual practices. - Training manuals included the book BE HERE NOW, and many of the books in its bibliography that taught me the disciplines of Yoga, for handling the energies released by Entheogens, and for showing the sheathes that need to be peeled like an onion in order to reach one's Center. The mental sheath contains religious beliefs that also need to be removed like the cognitive-emotional garment that they are. - Christian Orthodox Heschastic techniques simply bridged the world between India and Greek theologies, but while I was immersed in a Christian idiom, they helped in the same way as Yoga did. So did Ramana Maharshi's Self-Inquiry. - Sexual continence. Sometimes celibacy, even during the absolute worst time of my life, in my twenties. But later, controlled chastity, selectivity, quality over quantity. - Simple diet, preferably plant based. I am mostly vegetarian. I do not eat mammals. That seems to incur 'colon karma,' not to mention more subtle kinds. It's a matter of health and ethics. - The Buddhist Eight-Fold path has always informed me. So has Patanjali's Eight-Limbed Yoga (Ashtanga/Raja) - No discernible vices: prostitutes, narcotics, gambling, gaming, over-eating, drinking to drunkenness, or cannabis for that matter over the last 30 years. - Compassion is Buddha and Christ in practice. Compassion is my inner gyroscope for all thoughts and actions. -------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
|
newbie Registered: 04/20/03 Posts: 4,497 Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
I also think entheogens taken with the untention of uncovering the truth are very helpful. Without them i would most likely still be an atheist.
Why aren't enthogens used more in contemporary religion and spirituality? it is not just a Christian thing because for the most part, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus and Muslims dont use them either. I have also read new age indictments of psychedelics. They warn about how they are dangerous and can produce traumatic experiences, which i found silly because LIFE has produced far more traumatic experiences than mushrooms or acid. Ive only had one really bad trip on mushrooms (and it wasnt even all bad) and a few hours afrter it ended, i felt 95% recovered and i felt like I was a stronger person for having gone through it. i wish all trauma was that easy to heal from For me, entheogens played a central role in my awakening. I needed them to give me that push in a new direction. Otherwise my old thought patterns were just too difficult to break free from and it didnt seem worht the effort. I know that sounds silly but it really didnt seem like the kingdom of heaven was worth going through so much effort for. but after experiencing heavenly states of being on ethnegoens, i realized it was the only thing worth working for.
| |||||||
|
Elder Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida Last seen: 3 years, 2 days |
| ||||||
|
Why aren't enthogens used more in contemporary religion and spirituality? it is not just a Christian thing because for the most part, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus and Muslims dont use them either.
Pretty much everyone I've taken entheogens with, identify with being a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc., so the real question is addressing the relative number of people who do not use them, and perhaps you're asking why organized churches and temples haven't established them as sacraments, or moksha medicine. The esoteric members of any religion have always been relatively few in number compared to the multitudes. Most people go to church because they've been socially conditioned to do so. I'm sure that pastor who presented himself as a homeless man to his new congregation, and was treated like shit is a good example of what most church assemblies are like. Under a cloak of social responsibility, most people are just selfish secularists who play social roles. There is no seeking for the Kingdom of Heaven, no real here and nowness to their lives. As long as they are identified with self-importance, in driving the most prestigious car or getting junior into Yale, there is precious little awareness of Eternity in their lives. Entheogens would overturn the tables of their worldly mentality. "For the heart of this people is stubborn, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." - Acts 28:27 -------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
|
newbie Registered: 04/20/03 Posts: 4,497 Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
I dont know markos, why don't more so called gurus recommend them though?
I mean, to my knowledge Buddha advised against all intoxicants. Jesus didnt seem to have much to say about them, ramana Maharshi never endorsed them to my knowledge, meher baba came out very strongly against them, Eckart tolle didnt think LSD was anything special, etc.
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
Quote: Good choice. You can certainly do better on your own imo. -------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
Elder Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida Last seen: 3 years, 2 days |
| ||||||
Quote: And yet, Lama Anagarika Govinda, a German who lived and trained as a Tibetan Buddhist lama said that he never really understood what his training was truly about until he took LSD. Neem Karlie Baba told Ram Dass that LSD "was useful," especially if taken in a "cool place" (temperature-wise). He said that such substances were known in the Kulu Valley long ago, but the knowledge was lost. Buddha holds a medicine bowl' in much iconography. Huxley called psychedelics "Moksha Medicine." Perhaps that was the content of Buddha's medicine bowl. I never read Tolle's opinion of psychedelics. Medicine may have the effect of being inebriating, or intoxicating, but much more goes along with those feelings, like insight, prajna. Opiates can still pain, but they are initially abused for their intoxicating properties. I no longer need to be stoned, high, or whatever you want to call it, but when I was a kid I never wanted a trip to end. I used hashish to create plateau highs to bridge the time between trips. Tripping improves my mental health, it has given me some classic experiences which lent me further insight into religion as well as depth psychology, and yeah, it feels good at times. Other times can be a grueling struggle and not any kind of escapist bliss, which is what Buddha was opposed to. No doubt the Buddha knew about the Soma of the Rig Vedas, and while we are unsure of its identity today, Buddha may well have known exactly what it was in 450 BCE. It has been suggested that Buddha died from being fed poison mushrooms, accidentally, or pork, but I think trichinosis takes a while and it's unlikely he ate animal flesh. At the time of Jesus the Greek wines often contained so many herbal drugs that they had to be diluted 20:1 with water before being drunk, or they would kill you. I'm not sure exactly which herbs, but I suspect things like Datura species and drugs that today are referred to as 'nightmare alkaloids.' Atropa Belladonna, Deadly Nightshade, Henbane, and others are potent hallucinogens. These things are not mentioned in the New Testament, but Jews drank only kosher wines which probably did not contain drugs. Mushrooms growing from dung wouldn't be kosher either. Clearly, shamanism developed with the use of plant allies, and as practices left the substances behind, shamanism may have given rise to practices that became the various Yogas, of which gurus rather than shamans were the proponents. Yoga tended to move against dependence on nature, and developed an ascetic philosophy which abandoned dependence on most externals: spouses, food, shelter, possessions, and perhaps psychedelics other than cannabis. Just speculating. ![]() -------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 04/21/13 Posts: 290 Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Christianity........the "cop out" religion. ( |
12,990 | 80 | 06/10/07 04:05 PM by MushroomTrip | ||
![]() |
Altars | 2,167 | 15 | 10/04/06 06:48 PM by Silversoul | ||
![]() |
The Next Christianity | 5,640 | 16 | 01/30/06 03:54 PM by Gliders | ||
![]() |
So, I guess I'm Christian now... ( |
19,058 | 131 | 01/02/10 11:10 PM by andrewss | ||
![]() |
Christianity/Catholicism and the like, what's the deal? | 2,781 | 14 | 04/22/06 08:34 AM by psyillyazul | ||
![]() |
Pope reasserts other Christian denominations are not true churches ( |
4,911 | 23 | 06/10/10 11:19 AM by p4kSouL | ||
![]() |
how many real christians are there? ( |
6,888 | 59 | 03/02/20 03:08 AM by Amanita86 |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, Shroomism, Rose, Kickle, yogabunny, DividedQuantum 6,117 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

My tag is MarkostheGnostic. My philosophical stance towards Jewish and Christian scriptures is a radical departure from whatever mainstream orthodox theological perspective you apparently adhere to. I've been saying that for 15 years on these forums.
I am sorry mate, that is your limited interpretation of psychedelic experience, and not mine, but I would also encourage you to read some good books about this subject, other than the Bible, if I was you as you are out of your depth..... Psychedelic have always been and remain THE main inspiration for mythology---they ARE the very source of the Dreamtime!! The Dreamtime, or Otherworld, or the mythical dimension is a place which is here in other dimensions, and brings us into direct contact with the sacred. Let me make it clear that life 'ordinarily' is also sacred, but there are depthless depths to reality one can experience in continuum with the one you are currently experincing.

