ForumGarden

koan:-6

Got your message but when I tried to reply it would not go throught.

The answer is absolutely yes--add.

Been there and done that.

Shalom

Ted:-6

koan:-6

Success on the second try.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;464667 wrote: koan:-6

Success on the second try.

Shalom

Ted:-6


If only we'd have as much luck on this thread.

koan;464625 wrote: But, how does it make you feel?


My problem?

It makes me feel curious, koan.

And that's why I haven't given up on it.

So let me ask you once again, koan:

What sort of beings are Hadrian and Michael and the others you speak with? If they are 'not living humans' then what are they?

Glaswegian;464751 wrote: If they are 'not living humans' then what are they?What makes you think that any of us - you and I included - have an objective answer to that?

We each develop interpretions which allow us to engage productively with what we experience. The more that each paradigm correlates with the experience, the more successfully we can explore the world. This approach applies as much to the inner world of psychic phenomena as it does the outer world of the physical.

Neither physical nor psychic modelling is unsupplantable truth, all of it is description, interpretation, experimentation and projection. Any understanding is an approximate interpretive tool, not a revelatory absolute.

Glaswegian;464751 wrote:

What sort of beings are Hadrian and Michael and the others you speak with? If they are 'not living humans' then what are they?


You want to know what they are in human terms. That can't be done. Your ideas get in the way of understanding. There are two different "types" that I've spoken to but that they are "types" seems rather silly to them.

Basically your curiosity about spirituality is as thus:

You say (in general) I might believe in God if God proves its existence to me yet don't seem to be aware that God might be saying I'll talk to you if you prove your belief in me. Why should God pander to your requirements?

If you and God both want proof and you think your demands take priority then you need to reassess your ego control.

koan;464780 wrote: your curiosity about spirituality is as thus: I might believe in God if God proves its existence to me yet don't seem to be aware that God might be saying I'll talk to you if you prove your belief in me. Why should God pander to your requirements?A paragraph from Meister Eckhart comes to mind:Know then that God is bound to act, to pour himself out into you, as soon as ever he shall find you ready [...] Finding you ready he is obliged to act, to overflow into you; just as the sun must needs burst forth when the air is bright and clear, and is unable to contain itself. Indeed, it were a very grave defect in God if, finding you so empty and so bare, he wrought no excellent work in you nor primed you with glorious gifts.

You need not seek him here or there, he is no further off than at the door of your heart; there he stands lingering, awaiting whoever is ready to open and let him in. [...] He longs for you a thousandfold more urgently than you for him.

by Glaswegian

What you are saying in this sentence, zinkyusa, is that there is nothing more to Jesus than the attribute or property of being a symbol. That that's all there is to Jesus. Jesus=symbol. No more. No less. Simply that.


No that's not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Jesus is a symbol for a content of Mind that is beyond concepts..As I said in my post a symbol of my link or connection to God.



Here you have already moved a long way from thinking of Jesus simply as a symbol. In the eyes of rational men, a symbol is unable to do anything for itself: it is a mere sign or representation. But you have got no further than your second sentence when you start to anthropomorphise the symbol 'Jesus': more precisely, you allocate a gender to it ('His') and endow it with agency - viz. the capacity to teach ('His lesson is to help me learn'). Surely you cannot be blind to what you have done in sentence #2 of your post, zinkyusa? In case you are then let me spell it out for you. What you have done is make the symbol 'Jesus' take on a life of its own.

Not really, using my definition of symbol I not assigning any human attributes to my it so the term anthropomorphic does not apply. Yes, I am having a personal relationship with my symbol if you wish and I choose to use the pronouns him/he/his etc when refering to the object of that relationship. That is simply for my convenience to use in the relationship. The object I call Jesus is not human in any manner and is really a part of my own mind and yours as well. In fact it is irrelavent what the choice of label is, or whether the historical Jesus ever lived or not.

There is a picture of Stanley Kubrick on the cover of a book lying on a table near me: a picture which symbolises him. But I don't expect that symbol of Kubrick to so much as wink at me let alone teach me how to direct movies. So if Jesus is simply a symbol as you state in the first sentence of your post, zinkyusa, then can you explain to me how this symbol is able to teach you all that stuff you talk about in the rest of your post?

The symbol of Jesus teaches me in the ways I outlined in my earlier posts, feelings, intuition, advice from trusted friends, readings, all the things I appear to experience in my life can be used by Jesus in the ralationship. It is simply a matter of willingness and asking for the universal experience of reconnection to God or oneness. You are overly fond of semantics and word games and are missing the underlining content of what I have been trying to share with you. That is because you think of yourself as an ego, as a small separate mind walled off apparently in a body, who's purpose is to limit communication..

spot:-6

Some excellent posts.

Meister Eckhart at that. Great.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;464989 wrote: spot:-6 Some excellent posts.Thank you Ted - and I'm delighted to see you around again.

I may have blown my chance of translation to the Durham bishopric when next it becomes free, even so. The British Public tolerate the incumbent downplaying the virgin birth, if I remember correctly, but the hairs on their backs bristle in the process.

spot:-6

Are there some problems with the Bishop of Durham, N. T. Wright?

Shalom

Ted:-6

I've just waded through this thread and come out with one question. If the OP believes his theory is correct why is he applying it to just Christianity? Don't Muslims talk to Allah, Buddhists seeks wisdom from Buddha?

Ted;465023 wrote: Are there some problems with the Bishop of Durham, N. T. Wright?"A former Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, caused a huge row in the Anglican Church in the 1980s when he expressed doubts over both the resurrection and the virgin birth. In 1984, three days after his consecration as the new Bishop of Durham, York Minster was struck by lightning. Many claimed that it was a ‘divine warning’ – the result of his heretical views."

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsi ... ction.html

The event has passed into English folklore.

spot:-6

Thanks for the link. Very interesting.

Yes that debate rages on and will for a long time to come.

It seems so cut a dried when one says it is either literal or metaphorical. Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately it is not so cut and dried. For the most part I do not subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Bible. However, the word, metaphorical, has many implications.

It is generally believed among those of us who do not subscribe to the literal interpretation that we as humans lack any language that comes close to describing or defining the divine; that all we are left with, in our humanity, is metaphor. Dom Crossan says that we should not ask the question, "Did it really happen this way?" but, "What does it mean?".

Because of the enlightenment folks came to think of things as reality if only historically accurate. However, this is not the case. Profound truths can be taught by metaphor or story if you will. Story is a common method of teaching used by most teachers.

Part of the problem that arose is the anthropomorphic view of God. If one does not accept literalism does that mean that for them God is not real? On the contrary with some deep thinking the reality of God becomes more apparent in metaphor than it does in literalism.

Shalom

Ted:-6

PS. No I do not subscribe to the virgin birth. LOL.

Sheryl;465029 wrote: I've just waded through this thread and come out with one question. If the OP believes his theory is correct why is he applying it to just Christianity?


Glaswegian wrote: The schizophrenic splitting of the personality which underpins the Christian's 'relationship' with Jesus also underpins the Muslim's 'relationship' with Allah, the Jew's 'relationship' with Jehovah, the Catholic's 'relationship' with the Virgin Mary, etc.


Please try to keep up, Sheryl.

Glaswegian;465200 wrote: Please try to keep up, Sheryl.We have another William Ess among us, it would seem.

Glaswegian wrote: What sort of beings are Hadrian and Michael and the others you speak with? If they are 'not living humans' then what are they?


koan;464780 wrote: You want to know what they are in human terms. That can't be done.


Yes it can. Because this is precisely the way in which you know them - in human terms. In case you doubt this, koan, let me show you why.

When I asked you earlier in this thread what sort of beings Hadrian and Michael and the others were that you claim to speak with you replied as follows:

koan wrote: not living humans


Evidently, you did not say that these beings you claim to speak with were 'not living giraffes' or 'not living porpoises' or 'not living dandelions'. No. You said that they were 'not living humans'. Now in order for you to identify them as such these beings had to possess one or more attributes which you perceived to be human in nature. Because if they were completely devoid of any attribute which was recognisably human then you would not have applied the concept 'human' to them, would you koan? Of course not. You would have applied a different concept to them: for example, 'not living toadstools' or 'not living seagulls' or 'not living lobsters'. But you didn't. You described them as 'not living humans'.

The concept 'human' is a concept which is familiar to you, me and every other (English-speaking) human being. We use it everyday. And it is human in origin. It has been produced by a species of thinking creatures like you and me, hasn't it? It is not a product of, say, the crabs under the rocks on the beach. Therefore, when you apply it to the 'not living humans' you claim to speak with, when you use it to make sense of them, you are conceptualising, understanding - knowing - them in human term(s).

So when you say that acquiring knowledge of these 'not living humans' of yours in human terms 'can't be done' you are not telling the truth, are you koan? For you do it - as I have just demonstrated.

You said that beings like Hadrian and Michael and the others you claim to speak with are human but not living. How do you know this? What makes you think that Hadrian and Michael and these others are not alive like you and me?

You make yourself hard to read. We're not doing gymnastics here it's a straight line. Just walk it.

There is a big difference between describing what something is and describing what it is not. I can only explain them by what they are not. You are asking what they are therefore I can not tell you.

Glaswegian;465240 wrote:

So when you say that acquiring knowledge of these 'not living humans' of yours in human terms 'can't be done' you are not telling the truth, are you koan? For you do it - as I have just demonstrated.






About the only thing that you have demonstrated is your idiotic verbal offensive diarrhea. I don't know why koan even bothers to try to communicate with someone whose hearing is shut off and mouth is going high speed unintelligible thoughts. I find your approach demeaning and rather devoid of sense.

Excuse me, but that had to come out or I was going to bust.

This can also be turned around. the non believer always wonders at the back of their mind , could they be wrong? could there be something bigger out there than just what they can see? What if they are wrong.



Glas-i dont really care what you think of me. i truly believe there is a spirit or higher power that human words cannot possibly describe. i believe there is life after death on this earth. i wear a cross around my neck as a symbol of my faith. i pray for guidance for myself. you can call it anything you wish. My beliefs are what give me direction in my life. My values are based on those beliefs. i am happy and satisfied with it. you can ridicule it all you want. will not change who i am and what i stand for. You can argue that i hear nothing or believe the thoughts are given to me. doesnt matter to me.



Have a good day!

gupster

The implication that Glaswegian can do something just because I can do it is rather simplistic. Given time and motive I'm sure he could but otherwise the instant gratification request is extremely childish.

I suppose, if I get frustrated weber, I just let others vent it for me. Mostly I just find humour in it all.

koan;465265 wrote: The implication that Glaswegian can do something just because I can do it is rather simplistic. Given time and motive I'm sure he could but otherwise the instant gratification request is extremely childish.

I suppose, if I get frustrated weber, I just let others vent it for me. Mostly I just find humour in it all.


OK if you find it funny. Now I realize why sometimes the argument is worth it:)

Glaswegian;465200 wrote: Please try to keep up, Sheryl.




sorry must have missed it while I was trying to understand all the other garbage you had posted. :rolleyes:

This is, for me, one of the highly entertaining threads. To see how far it will go before no one posts anymore.

guppy;465262 wrote: This can also be turned around. the non believer always wonders at the back of their mind , could they be wrong?Gosh, I doubt that very much. Besides, non-belief is a perfectly reasonable stance. I'd find it very self-limiting to hold any belief as opposed to looking for first-hand experience, but I have no problem at all with people for whom none of this matters or even with those who have a firmly defined opinion toward atheism.

Mockery, on the other hand, is a diseased form of attempted cruelty.

spot;465347 wrote: Mockery...is a diseased form of attempted cruelty.


Tell me, spot: Would you describe the following examples of mockery of my posts by members of this forum as 'a diseased form of attempted cruelty'?

Sheryl wrote: sorry must have missed it while I was trying to understand all the other garbage you had posted


Ted wrote: I would only add that what I see from Glas. is nothing more than verbal diarrhea


Ted wrote: I'm not in the least bit interested in playing with verbal diarrhea


weber wrote: About the only thing that you have demonstrated is your idiotic verbal offensive diarrhea


Would you?

I would say the perpetrator is Glaswegian for the following reason:

Study with desire is real activity; without desire it is but the semblance and mockery of activity.

William Godwin

Glaswegian;465437 wrote: Tell me, spot: Would you describe the following examples of mockery of my posts by members of this forum as 'a diseased form of attempted cruelty'?They're not just examples of legitimate criticism?

Check thy contempt; Obey our will, which travails in thy good; Believe not thy disdain, but presently do thine own fortunes that obedient right which both thy duty owes and our power claims; or I will throw thee from my care for ever into the staggers and the careless lapse of youth and ignorance.

spot;465469 wrote: They're not just examples of legitimate criticism?


Phew! The stench of Christian hypocrisy.

Glaswegian;465479 wrote: Phew! The stench of Christian hypocrisy.You can scarcely get away, at this late stage, from the thread as it stands and your own comments in it. Anyone reading it is going to decide for himself who's the provocateur here.

The hypocrisy you refer to isn't remotely Christian, it's entirely my own.

spot;465347 wrote: Gosh, I doubt that very much. Besides, non-belief is a perfectly reasonable stance. I'd find it very self-limiting to hold any belief as opposed to looking for first-hand experience, but I have no problem at all with people for whom none of this matters or even with those who have a firmly defined opinion toward atheism.



Mockery, on the other hand, is a diseased form of attempted cruelty.


I really didn't mean this spot. i wouldn't dare presume to know what another person thinks. just turning glasgows words around backwards. I really have no opinion on what you or anybody else believes. no judgement anyway.

guppy,

the really humourous thing here is that Glaswegian completely missed who was mocking him.

All the posters that he quoted were merely expressing disgust. There is a high level of mockery and, if I may, the mockery was so successful it went straight over poor Glassy's head.

additionally

When I came in and accused Glaswegian of being the mocker he then accused spot of hypocrisy. :yh_rotfl

I'm actually starting to feel sorry for the bloke. He's a bit handicapped, it appears. I must cease and desist.

I can feel your pain, koan.

And that's why I'm going to leave you for a while....

Glaswegian;465534 wrote: I can feel your pain, koan.




No. I really don't think you do. What you are feeling is likely your own pain.

Glaswegian;465534 wrote: I can feel your pain, koan.

And that's why I'm going to leave you for a while....Let me get this right... you're leaving for a while because you finally got your jollies by imagining you sense someone else's pain?

What a guy!

spot;465558 wrote: Let me get this right... you're leaving for a while because you finally got your jollies by imagining you sense someone else's pain?

What a guy!


He's leaving because he can't keep up with Koan...

zinkyusa;465618 wrote: He's leaving because he can't keep up with Koan...


Who Can?

YZGI;465671 wrote: Who Can?

Spot even went with the old, " Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" Theory.:-3

YZGI;465675 wrote: Spot even went with the old, " Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" Theory.:-3


All this flattery is really counterproductive.

spot;465495 wrote: You can scarcely get away, at this late stage, from the thread as it stands and your own comments in it.


Who said anything about getting away from the thread, spot? I certainly didn't. Look back and check my posts. It was you who said that. You're projecting again, spot. I stand by all my comments in this thread. Now, I can quite easily understand why you secretly want to get away from it....

spot wrote: Let me get this right...you're leaving for a while because you finally got your jollies by imagining you sense someone's pain?


Here you are projecting yet again, spot. Let me repeat: I haven't said I was leaving anywhere. I said that I was leaving koan for a while. And I do this out of compassion. I do it because I can feel her pain. It's not a nice experience to be unmasked. It can hurt.

And I didn't say anything about "jollies" either. It was you who used this term. Not me. Look back and check. Do you know why you used that term, spot? Because you are the one who is secretly delighting in koan's pain. But rather than admit this to yourself you seek to project your schadenfreude on to me. Now you too have been unmasked.

Glaswegian;465748 wrote: I do this out of compassionWhat you refer to as projecting I'd prefer to term interpreting. Where you use ambiguous sentences I'm obliged to interpolate meaning. You leave koan or you leave the thread, the wording you used is sufficiently imprecise as to make either possible. Who, in all conscience, cares?

Your claim to compassion, though, falls outside any question of misunderstanding. It's patently bogus. You have all the compassion of whatever Sigourney Weaver was up against on that fictional spaceship, with none of the underlying need. You chose to come here to pick a fight, you've bored everyone rigid, you can by all means waste more of your life spinning out the joke however tired it gets but - honestly - have you nothing better to get off on? Me, I'm interacting with my mates. Unless you bring a few in here with you, you've nothing left at the end of this episode but unshared memories. Being liked goes quite some way toward living in contrast to merely existing.

I remember spending a few days on business in Glasgow with a local guy called George who imported modems for a living. You remind me of him. Someone may have loved him - his mother, perhaps - but I certainly didn't. He stands out in my memory even now as "that tosser from Glasgow". There, now I've projected, to show you the difference.

Glaswegian;465534 wrote: I can feel your pain, koan.

And that's why I'm going to leave you for a while....


I don't know what you claim but I suspect it is not Christian. I and many others here are Christian and other religions or not and we manage to get along. You walked/typed into here demoralizing Christians and you complain that the Christians are demoralizing you. Do you think we should just take it lying down? You brand new walk in and knock us down and we're supposed to stay there because you think we are wrong. I personally, leaving beliefs out, wish you would leave because I have learned nothing from you, except perhaps in the study of people who are so unhappy that they try to make others unhappy. Forget it. We're happy here.

Might be best to look at Glaswegian's attacks as a cry for love.

zinkyusa;465788 wrote: Might be best to look at Glaswegian's attacks as a cry for love.


Thank you Zinky

I forget sometimes a lot that people who are trying to hurt other people have a lot of the time been hurt themselves and are sharing the pain.

I will remember:-6 :-4

ArnoldLayne;465487 wrote: As an athiest myself I'm amazed at the effort people put in to discredit religion.


What about Dawkins? Are you amazed at the effort he puts in to discredit it?

ArnoldLayne wrote: What does it matter to an individual what everybody else believes.


Here's why it matters:

The Inquisition, the Crusades, the 'Witch' Holocaust in Europe, the Russian pogroms, the extermination of the Cathars by the Catholic Church, the World Trade Center massacre, the Bali bombings, the murder of abortion workers in America, Hamas suicide missions, Baruch Goldstein's slaughter of Muslim worshippers in Hebron, etc., etc., etc....

Glaswegian;465802 wrote: etc., etc., etc....Thank you James. I hope you feel you've done something useful toward world peace after all this. Tell me, are there any other reasons beside religion which have resulted in abominations like those you've named, over the same time period? I'd like to find a common factor in the wider picture if we can focus on that.

weber;465786 wrote: I and many others here are Christian...and we manage to get along. I personally wish you would leave... We're happy here.


In case you didn't know it, weber, this is a religious discussion forum. Not a Christian group grope.