Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_TopicIcon
Are most truly sexy women unfaithful?
October 17, 2005
3:23 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Good.

October 17, 2005
5:31 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

I'm not sure that some Mormans would agree.

Perhaps having multiple wives has its advantages.

Ohhhh ... but think of the multiple nagging. 🙂

October 17, 2005
11:15 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Don't know about Mormons, although yeah they used to didn't they?

Have you ever heard of a group of people who call themselves Christians, who inhabit a portion of Colorado Springs, in Colorado? I know you live in Aust. but these people, "in the name of God" have muiltiple wives, their own laws, their own rules, and they beat their wives and get away with it. There is actually a book written about this town, will ask a friend what it is, as I do not remember, but this is going on right here in the States, and I don't know of any other town in the States that even allows this. It's very bizarre.

October 18, 2005
12:25 pm
Avatar
tracylyn
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Now, now Tez ~

Such a narrow minded comment coming from such a broad minded man!!!!

October 18, 2005
12:31 pm
Avatar
bel
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 15
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yes Tez I guess the man would be a terrible nag huh???

October 18, 2005
6:46 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

On my way

In your posting of 17-Oct-05 you said:

"Have you ever heard of a group of people who call themselves Christians, ... these people, "in the name of God" have multiple wives, their own laws, their own rules, and they beat their wives and get away with it. ... It's very bizarre."

If one truly believes that the bible is the inspired word of God and not just Judaic mythology then I guess it all comes down to whose, amongst many interpretations of the bible, is considered to be the accurate one.

The bible says: "Spare the rod and reproof and spoil the child". Now it is an indictable offence in Australia to lay a hand on one's own child. Who is right the Christian God or the law?

The Christian wife's marriage vows used to contain the words 'Love honour and obey' the husband. How many Christian wives 'obey' their husbands today? Christian conjugal rights suggested that the man had the right to sex irrespective of the woman's wishes. That seems to have gone by the board now. I don't think that broadmindedness has any place in fundamentalist Christianity.

Genesis: "21 Then the Lord God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping , he took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh.

22 He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him.

23 Then the man said,

"At last here is one of my own kind -

Bone taken from my bone, and flesh from my flesh.

'Woman' is her name because she was taken out of man."

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united with his wife and they become one. "

This seems to relegate the woman to that of a mere extension of the man. Perhaps thousands of years of biblical conditioning of this kind has created the misogyny that results in wife beating. Or perhaps it goes far deeper than that. Perhaps the scriptures only reflect the patriarchal control and misogyny that relegate women to very secondary roles at best in the Christian religion. How many apostles were women? I would love to know the ratio of women to men saints. It is only in recent times that women in certain offshoots of the Christian sect of the Jewish religion have been allowed to take a primary leadership role.

Is this attitude fostered and condoned by the Christian bible? Is this why some women are unfaithful?

October 18, 2005
6:56 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

bel
18-Oct-05

"Yes Tez I guess the man would be a terrible nag huh??? "

I bet he spends all his spare time when he is not working to support his wives down the pub drinking booze in order to deal with what faces him when he gets home. Imagine six wives ganging up on him? Phew!!

"Such is life without a wife,
10 times as bad with one." - Proverbs.

October 18, 2005
6:59 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

tracylyn
18-Oct-05

"Now, now Tez ~

Such a narrow minded comment coming from such a broad minded man!!!!"

Awwwww ... Trayclyn .... That was the unkindest cut of all. 🙂 Hehehe.

October 18, 2005
8:12 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,
The name of the book is "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer. This cult is very un-Christian. From what I gather, they have made their own religious sect, and rules, and are getting away with it.

October 18, 2005
11:40 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hey Tez,

How are you? I have a question for you.

You said: "The bible says: "Spare the rod and reproof and spoil the child."

You used quotation marks, so I went looking for that direct quote. I couldn't find it. I did find these...

1. He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him. – The King James Bible

2. He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently. – The New American Standard Bible

3. Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them. – New Revised Standard Bible

4. If you refuse to discipline your children, it proves you don’t love them; if you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline them. – The New Living Translation

5. He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him. – New International Version

There are also several translations that talk separately of how the rod and reproof give wisdom to a child. Tell me, which scripture and verse can I find your quote?

Also, you said: "If one truly believes that the bible is the inspired word of God...then I guess it all comes down to whose, amongst many interpretations of the bible, is considered to be the accurate one."

Just so that I’m clear, by interpretations of the Bible, did you mean the many languages and tongues that the Bible has been translated into from the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic or did you mean the different English translations of the Bible –the ones noted above?

I ask because if you are referring to the different English translations of the Bible (as listed above) you noted wisely, there are many amongst which to choose from.

But you left out how they all tend to harmonize on the major point, as made by Solomon, as I believe inspired by GOD.

October 18, 2005
11:50 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

In this case, I'd consider them all the accurate one.

October 21, 2005
3:14 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests

"There are also several translations that talk separately of how the rod and reproof give wisdom to a child. Tell me, which scripture and verse can I find your quote?"

Ahhh... you have me there. I was quoting from vivid memory the obnoxiously frequent repetition of that phrase by big, black sons of wh..res misrepresenting themselves of the keepers of the truth and the word of the christian god as they justified the use of their vile 'straps' in raising welts on our wrists and hands for the slightest infringements of 'christian' behavior.

Do you mean to say that God's black garbed representatives got it wrong???

October 21, 2005
3:22 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests

on my way
On 18-Oct-05 you said:

"Tez, The name of the book is "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer."

I've never read of it. Is it worth reading?

October 21, 2005
4:09 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Young & Restless
In your posting of 18-Oct-05 you said:

"Just so that I’m clear, by interpretations of the Bible, did you mean the many languages and tongues that the Bible has been translated into from the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic or did you mean the different English translations of the Bible –the ones noted above?"

I was encompassing not only the linguistics but also semantics as well. It is one thing to literally and objectively translate a language word for word and quite another to extract the author's intended meaning during the translation process and to express that very 'subjective' interpretation in the genre of modern English.

'Judge not lest ye be judged'(single quoting from vivid memory of the black bastards' quotations!!) that I remember so well is 'interpreted' in the Good News Bible as: 37 "Do not judge others and God will not judge you." Professor Carl Jung said that when he saw a man raging against others he(CGJung) knew that the man must of necessity have firstly raged against himself. Jesus could well have been talking at a deep psychological level; a level well beyond the level of understanding of common fishermen and tax collectors of his day. Is this why Thomas was one of Christ's favorites? Maybe he understood the very much deeper meaning of Christ's message!! Thomas's writings reflect this depth!! Is this why Thomas's gospel was rejected and not included in the bible? Was it too deep and mystifying for the shallow thinking Roman Christians at Nicea and other Councils when and where anaethema's were imposed? Have we got just the shallow doctrines that were misunderstood and very inadequately misreported to the scribes over the many years between Christ's death and the first written documentation some decades later?

When Christ said that there are 'many mansions' in his father's house, this was interpreded by the black bastards for us naive young minds to mean many levels of rewards in heaven. Now I can see(symantically interpret) at least one if not two far deeper meanings than the shallow one force fed down our young throats with the aid of a strap as being 'facts' pertaining to the 'afterlife'.

I hope the above conveys the much broad meaning of the word 'interpretation' than just simple language translation that I had in mind when I used it.

What has the above got to do with 'truly sexy women being unfaithful'? Nothing! But because of the effort that you put in, I think you deserved a response.

October 21, 2005
7:18 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,
no never read it. just is sad that people do things "in the name of God" as in this book, and as in the "black garbed representatives" that you so angrily refer too. your battle is with these SOBS, not God.

peace,
omw

October 22, 2005
10:57 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

on my way

On the 21-Oct-05 you said:

"your battle is with these SOBS, not God."

I tend to differ.

Firstly my 'battle' if it can be called that, is with the root cause of the conditioning that governed the way those "SOBS" as you called them, behaved.

Surprisingly, in my more reflective moments I can even see them as 'victims' as well. They are victims of their own humanity and past conditioning just as am I.

I once met a guy who went to the same Christian Brothers school as I did.

He remembered things very differently. Not that he disagreed with me, but he just had very different emphasis when it came to what he chose to remember vividly and what he did not.

So I chose then to blame Irish Christianity for the conditioning of my father, and these infernal Christian Brothers.

Now I look way past the mad made Christianity and ask the question: Who started the initial cause and conditions off in the first place?

The Christian answer to that makes no sense what so ever. The image of the God projected in Genesis, the Book of Job, and other books of Judaism upon which the bible is constructed, is horrendus.

Further rational examination of the prerequisites of Godhood arbitrate against his existence in the form pushed by either the bible or Christian teachings of today.

Moving wider a field, one gets many views of this god from many different religions. All appear to be anthropomorphic - even the bible states that we were made in God's image. Where does the root of God's emotions lie? In the amygdala like ours? Emotions are both evolutionally derived and survival orientated . Could some man made God's survival be under threat or be enhanced?

Subsequent investigations in the light of the 3 Christian prerequisites of Godhood - Birkenau Auschwitz, Sobibor, Belsen, notwithstanding - clearly arbitrate in favor of a sadistic God, who is non loving and thus non-omniscient. Since this God fails on at least two pre-requisites of Godhood possibly all then no Christian God can possibly exist.

At least one 'religion' exists that is argueably agnostic and possibly even athiestic. Most if not all the rest to my knowledge rely on at least one Godhead, some more than one. In the light of the 3 pre-requisites for the CEO position of Godhood, all thiestic religions fail the rationality test.

Thus I find that either no God exists(athiestic) with which one can do battle or He is beyond knowing(agnostic).

However, the one agnostic or athiestic religion that I have found, says that the 'battle' needs to be fought within. It points out that the enemy is ignorance. From that ignorance stems all human failings, not from some errant, irresponsible God as portrayed in the bible.

Ignorance of the underlying cause, conditions and effects of intentional behavior, is responsible for dissatisfaction and suffering, not the black side of the Christian God called Satan, Lucifer, Beelzeebub, and the Devil. Studying psychology has only reinforced this belief of mine.

The key word here is 'intentional'. Knowing what one's intentions are, where they come from and why they exist goes towards the roots of the matter.

So the battle with the imaginary 'self' who does the 'intending' goes on.

October 22, 2005
11:20 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,
sorry. didn't mean to be so abrupt. it wasn't nice what i said...at least i don't think so. none of my business and i overstepped some boundaries, and this is my perception of my previous post to you. sometimes my foot just flies in, and if i keep it open long enough an elephant follows suit.

and i think we agreed to disagree about God awhile ago.

the Carl Jung thread looks challenging. was hopin you would hook up to that one. i just ain't got nothin' left in the God dept. to jostle back and forth. i am currently on read status, not particapatory.

October 28, 2005
12:23 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,

I’m not interested in “having you there” as you phrased it. That wasn’t the goal of my response. You quoted the Bible, I saw it an opportunity to learn something new, and hoped you could point me to the Biblical source of it.

You’ve given me another opportunity to learn something new; again, I hope you can point me to the Biblical source of it. You said: “…Is this why Thomas was one of Christ's favorites?” I’m curious about why you made this declaration. Just so that I’m clear, you are talking about Didymus Thomas right? The fellow who earned the title Doubting Thomas? Where did you find Biblical support for this proposal? Which Scripture? Verse?

You said regarding Thomas: “…Maybe he understood the very much deeper meaning of Christ's message!! Thomas's writings reflect this depth!! Is this why Thomas's gospel was rejected and not included in the Bible? Was it too deep and mystifying for the shallow thinking Roman Christians at Nicea and other Councils when and where anathema’s were imposed?”

Whoa! There are so many observations here. Perhaps you are right about the first one. Perhaps Thomas did understand a much deeper meaning of Christ’s message than the cannon accounts for. It is possible; however, we can’t rely upon the book bearing his name for discovering that information, because there’s no proof that it was written by Thomas. Most scholars date the piece of work to the middle of the second or even third century. The central theme of the book seems to be that salvation comes by learning cryptic spiritual ideas. This blatantly contradicts the synoptic Gospels, John’s Gospel, the writings of Paul, and even earlier material that scholar term Quelle- believed to have been a well preserved collection of Jesus teachings know by the early church- which weaves them all together.

Each of these works profess that salvation comes by faith.

Many of the ideas found in the Gospel of Thomas have been heavily influenced by the Gnostic mindset: An early religious movement known as the doctrine of salvation by knowledge. There are several other inconsistencies. Jesus was quoted in the Gospel of Thomas as saying: “For every woman who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” While Jesus was part of a Patriarchal society where women were indeed considered unclean, subordinate, second class… The other gospels show him as a man who challenged the misogynistic, sex and class demarcated notions of his day. He actually called people to see things…differently. It seems, at times, the canonical writers were so honest about Jesus choices that they could have gained cultural points by leaving things out. But they didn’t. They mentioned that women helped to finance Jesus Ministry, They mentioned that he appeared first to a woman in resurrected form, they mentioned that he intervened when a woman was about to recieve rightful retribution for adulty and so fourth. So, the supposed statement is in striking contrast to the Image of Jesus that that all the others potray. Something to think about huh?

He seemed to call people to see and do things differently…

You said: “Judge not lest ye be judged'… Jesus could well have been talking at a deep psychological level; a level well beyond the level of understanding of common fishermen and tax collectors of his day.”

Yours is an example of one of the two ways that Jesus communicated with the crowds while preaching, teaching, and healing them: through Aphorisms and Parables. Aphorisms are his short power packed sayings. And the Parables are the short stories. What they had in common then and now is their ability to show the reader things from a different light. Expose a view that may have been hidden from them. Compel one to engage in much needed introspection. Therefore, I strongly agreed with your point about how He challenges one to continuously higher levels of understanding.

Luke did mention an instance or two where the wisdom of Jesus confounded his disciples and they ask him to for more clarification; The Bible just reports that he extended the clarification or explained the parable. Weather or not it was beyond their understanding as laborerers is not for me to decide. It was Jesus who called them by name, took them in, roomed with them, supped with them, gave them a first class education that he considered a double treasure (because it involved both old and new testament), gave his spirit to them, and ultimately commissioned to go fourth and make disciples of all nations.

Personally, I find that much of what Jesus says and expects is beyond the understanding of me: Love your enemies, Forgive 70 x 7 times per day, Do good unto those that what to harm you, Lean not to your own understanding of things...have a little faith in me. I'd be confused if I did it alone. It helps to know that I don't do it alone. He assigns his Holy Spirit, which is a teacher and comforter to those who believe.

You said: “Have we got just the shallow doctrines that were misunderstood and very inadequately misreported to the scribes over the many years between Christ's death and the first written documentation some decades later?”
I don’t understand your question. Are you questioning the credibility of the scribes who translated the original Gospels; Or the credibility of the original Gospels ; Or the decades between Christ’s Death and the first written documentation?

Who are the Big Black Sons of Wh.. & The Black Bastards you refer to above? I refuse to infer from the context because. No good can come from that.

You said: What has the above got to do with 'truly sexy women being unfaithful'? Nothing! But because of the effort that you put in, I think you deserved a response."
You assumed that took effort; Interesting. Certainly, I understand why you’d think so. SO, thank you! And, I thought you deserved a response too.

October 28, 2005
5:50 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

on my way

On 22-Oct-05 you said:

"Tez, sorry. didn't mean to be so abrupt. it wasn't nice what i said...at least i don't think so. none of my business and i overstepped some boundaries, and this is my perception of my previous post to you. sometimes my foot just flies in, and if i keep it open long enough an elephant follows suit."

Whoooa ... matey, I wasn't the slightest bit offended, nor in any way put out.

I am staggered yet again to see how the written word can be so easily misinterpreted by the injection by the reader of intonations into the words. If I had spoken my posting to you over the telephone, I'm 100% sure you would have got a very different impression of what I was saying. So much intent and meaning either gets lost or distorted when the verbal and body language is hived away in written communications.

Hey, I dish plenty out any way!! Even if I was offended and I wasn't, I sure as hell had better be able to cop it back even that which is downright abusive!!

Apologies are totally unwarranted!!!

But thanks for your kindness anyway.

Luv yah.

October 28, 2005
8:39 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Young & Restless
28-Oct-05

Thank you for your well written and obviously well researched response. It must have taken considerable time.

You said:

"Who are the Big Black Sons of Wh.. & The Black Bastards you refer to above?"

I was referring to the vast majority of Christian and Marist Brothers prior to the late 1950's who were maladjusted, sexually frustrated and perverted. The nuns who ran some of the orphanages in that era also qualify to fit in this category. I can only speak from my (non-orphanage)experiences. Many children fared much worse than I did. The present day church has had to be bludgeoned into admitting to the truth. Yet still perversion goes on in the form of sexual abuse. I don't have to tell you that.

The fundamental flaw in the Christianity is the perpetuation of the delusion that there exists a separate self that has permanent characteristics delineating that self into a 'soul' that requires 'saving'. This Christian belief is substantiated by your statement "Each of these works profess that salvation comes by faith."

Like a lake of pristine water that is obscured by leaves and debris, what humanity needs is the removal of these obscurifications that prevent us from seeing who we 'really' are - not more of same. As an exemplar see the St. Francis of Assisi quote: "What we are looking for is that which is looking."

When Christ said to Thomas, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."

I believe that these were the best, though totally inadequate, words that Christ could find to describe the indescribable.

Christ used the word "intoxicated" to describe the bliss and euphoria that accompanies 'seeing' with clarity into the pristine waters of the lake of the unconditioned mind, into that which 'really is'.

Christ takes credit only for clearing away the obscurification of Thomas's conditioning by using the words: "that I have tended". The bubbling spring is the resultant welling forth of clear vision from the fathomless depths of the pristine mind.

I have had this 'clear visionary' experience only once in very deep meditation. However the 'leaves' soon 'came back together'. I do not expect either you or anyone else to believe me.

I quote below for the complete context for my quote above.
_________________________________
13 Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."

Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."

Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."

Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."

Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."

And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"

Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."
___________________________________

Further, this clear vision into the pristine mind is in my opinion the "Kingdom" having 'come'- that is, the kingdom of enlightenment, 'seeing' through all our delusions created by the conditioned mind whilst still recognizing that they exist.

Christ tries to define this euphoric and powerful (kingdom) mental state of loss of either differentiation, discrimination or demarcation between subject and object, self and other when he said:

" "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, ... ... ... then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Again I quote from the Gospel of Thomas to establish the context. In addition I reference the version.

_____________________________________

"22 Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the kingdom."

They said to him, "Then shall we enter the kingdom as babies?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Scholars Version translation of the Gospel of Thomas taken from The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version. Copyright 1992, 1994 by Polebridge Press.
_____________________________________

Far from this Gospel being "cryptic" I find it full of depth and meaning not found anywhere in the bible.

I do not think it can be blithely dismissed as you have done in your statement: "Many of the ideas found in the Gospel of Thomas have been heavily influenced by the Gnostic mindset: An early religious movement known as the doctrine of salvation by knowledge."

The implication that I am drawing is that you seem to be saying that Christ was not the source of Thomas's version of Christ's quotes but the result of some Gnostic delusionment from which Thomas suffered. I would contend that this was not so. I base this statement upon the depths of the "bubbling spring" of truth from which Thomas's recounting springs.

What is contained in the Gospels that are to be found within the bible, is in my opinion only that which unenlightened minds were able to grasp and thus remember and recount. After all how many of us remember teachings that make no sense to us. This is why I believe Jesus chose Thomas with whom to discuss much 'deeper things'.

I maintain that Gnosticism possibly was strongly influenced by Thomas's writings not the reverse.

October 31, 2005
10:48 am
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,
maybe it is simply a matter of having layers uncovered one at a time, or lifting a veil,....the 'legalistic' thinking process has had the chance to bury or kill any truth that is there.

i know for me, truth is inside of me, but my legalistic thinking chokes that wellspring. it's a journey, but i sure do not want to spend the rest of my days trying to figure it out, i just want to heal. gets rather tiresome at times. i also see the truth but it becomes clouded by my own fatal interpretations, or my limited interpretations. i just want to live, have joy, trust, one day at a time, and accept "hardship as a pathway to peace' instead of a path to a shipwreck.

so what would you do?

October 31, 2005
7:05 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

on my way

You asked:

"so what would you do?"

You mean if I were you? I don't know.

I can only talk about what I do.

I remember a time when I thought that I didn't have the capacity or potential to know what was 'right'. I thus abnegated all responsibility for thinking things through for myself. Having done that, I had no other choice than to seek authority figures to do my thinking for me.

Those authority figures were men of religion, science and those in prominance on the world stage, Freud being one of these people. I had a set of 'rules' in my head that I did not like or feel comfortable with. But I tried to comply and felt guilt when I failed. Some of the 'rules' were very contradictory and confusion often reigned supreme.

I rebelled, abandoned the rules, sought as many 'booty calls' as I could get and dived into the proverbial hedonistic trough. Alchoholism was at the bottom of that trough. A 'rock bottom' shattered all my faith in my way of living life. Neither the 'rules' nor the 'non-rules' worked. I had to find who I was not who I thought others wanted me to be. I had to find out what I believed not what others told me to believe. I had to gain confidence in my own ability to perceive 'my own' reality and not just take on board the reality of others just because it sounded half-smart.

I found some very important tools. I learnt that my intellect was both a very powerful crap detector and also very limited.

I learnt that there were other ways of 'knowing' besides cognitions. I discovered 'meditation'.

This was a powerful breakthrough in my life. I thought that it was about establishing a link with a 'supreme soul' and came to discover who was doing the meditating.

The deeper I went the further obscured the "I" who was meditating became until there was no "I" only the experience.

Things started to become clearer in my daily life. I began to ruminate and reflect at deeper levels at any time especially in the dreamlike state between sleep and fully awake consciousness.

I started to see new, deeper meanings in the writings of the mystics.

Most importantly I freed myself from the shackles of Christianity. I 'overshot' on the rebound into the shackles of a sect of Hinduism, called Brahma Kumaris Raj Yoga.

I freed myself from that and then vowed not to shackle myself into the straight jacket of any religious affiliation again.

I don't need or want the social pressures to conform to beliefs of any kind. I choose to trust my own inner 'wise man', my own Buddha or 'enlightened self'; that is, when I allow pristine mind to speak to me unshackled by preconditioned 'rules' in my head or 'legalism' as you call it.

That is what I do. The freedom is exhiliarating.

"What we are looking for is what is looking." - St. Francis of Assisi.

I find such a statement, coming from a Christian saint, staggering. The implication here is that St Francis thought that his God was looking through him or that his conscious awareness and his God were one and the same. This idea is expressed in the words of the Christian hymn, "God is listening in my heart, for He and I are one ..."

I find that by definition God cannot exist. But the Buddha Mind, that is a very different story. Substitute the 'Buddha Mind' for the word God in the words of that hymn and the words are profound. The Buddha Mind is, in my opinion, not only all knowing, all loving and all powerful but it is also all encompassing such that it is boundriless and beyond which there is no other.

However, praying to the Buddha Mind for 'salvation' from suffering, here and in the hereafter, is tantamount to begging your true 'self' to save you from ignorance. If you are the Buddha Mind what have you to do other than to realize it??

This is what I think St. Francis of Assisi meant in his above quoted statement. However, he would have been Bell, Book and Candled (excommunicated) had he expanded on what he said to the depths of what he meant. The obtuse pope of the time those since obviously have never realized the implications of what he said.

November 5, 2005
2:59 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I realize that I owe you one on this thread...

And, I'm excited about giving it to you.

Soon.

November 5, 2005
9:29 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Young & Restless

On the 5-Nov-05 you wrote:

"I realize that I owe you one on this thread... "

Nah ... you don't "owe" me anything. I do not expect a reply. If one comes then so much the better.

I write my posts and cut them adrift like little seeds on a swift moving stream. They may sink, drift aimlessly out to sea, be swallowed up by a bird to be evacuated over fertile land together with the bird droppings nurturing them.

What really counts either for good or bad are my intentions!!

November 13, 2005
2:26 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
100sp_Permalink sp_Print

Hi Tez,

What you said about you post above was sound advice. It reminds me of the parabel of the sewer and the seed.

Wh? umm...wh..what exactly are your intentions sir?

Down to business...
You said: “The fundamental flaw in the Christianity is the perpetuation of the delusion that there exists a separate self that has permanent characteristics delineating that self into a 'soul' that requires 'saving'…"

There are two separate issues here that I’d like to address, both from the stance of Christianity. Doctrine maintains that GOD is a tripartite being consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Doctrine maintains that GOD created man in the image and likeness of himself. Therefore, I believe the soul of man not to be a self separate, but a third of his magnificent, triune design of body, soul and spirit. Blessing of the Apostle Paul illustrate my point, and attaches centuries of veracity to the claim as he says: “I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:23). Note his positioning of the term ‘whole’ and how it requires a summing up of all the ladder terms.

Historians show that nearly every culture from ancient to modern times has a word to identify the qualities of man which are believed to transcend death, and amass a soul. Prior to Descartes’ distinctions of mind/matter and even the rich legacy of dualism in Greek Philosophy, there existed symbols and sounds which primitively represent the soul. In my opinion Tez, a subject with that kind of historical stamina and pervasiveness deserves very thorough investigation before it can be cast aside or tagged as flawed.

The Bible build a case for the soul…*******“…but he awaketh, and behold, he is faint, and his SOUL hath appetite” (Isaiah 29:8). *******“Further, as the soul quickens the body so does God quicken the soul…(Deuteronomy 30:20). ******* “And if you spurn and despise My statutes, and if your SOUL despises and rejects My ordinances…(Leviticus 26:15). Based on the provided instances of scripture (and many more) the soul of a man houses his emotions and desires. We can also observe that the soul is of value to GOD and capable of the full scope of emotions -from love to hate.

Doctrine maintains that in the Garden of Eden, Adam (Alpha Male-Father of the species) and his wife disobeyed GOD by yielding to the (soulish) temptation of an enemy and thus fell from grace. Doctrine maintains that consequently, all of humanity is born with proclivity towards an enemy’s (soulish) appeals and breaking of the laws of GOD. Doctrine maintains that there is a wage to pay. The Bible teaches that GOD so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son as payment for the debt. I believe atonement for the soul is in the form of Jesus…the lover of the soul and he who died to make it free.

You said: “Like a lake of pristine water that is obscured by leaves and debris, what humanity needs is the removal of these obscurifications that prevent us from seeing who we 'really' are - not more of same. As an exemplar see the St. Francis of Assisi quote: "What we are looking for is that which is looking."

You know, we may be on different paths, but I think our quests are quite similar. Those perfect moments of seeing purely and exactly are the very reasons I pursue GOD…to hear His true voice streaming into my spirit minus the conditionings of culture, society, and tradition- which can make him seem nebulous, apathetic, small and silent. The fundamental difference between our quests (I think) is that I’m working backwards from the idea that there exist a supreme GOD who is the keeper of the truth, and that it’s his good pleasure to reveal it to me. Of course I believe you when you say that you had a clear visionary experience; why wouldn't I? If you trust me with it, please tell me all about it; and spare no detail. For me, the more time I spend in independent search and research of GOD, the clearer and sharper his voice becomes. In my opinion, who better to show that which is looking, what they are looking for than he who sees all.

You said regarding the Gospel of Thomas: When Christ said to Thomas, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended." I believe that these were the best, though totally inadequate, words that Christ could find to describe the indescribable. Christ used the word "intoxicated" to describe the bliss and euphoria that accompanies 'seeing' with clarity into the pristine waters of the lake of the unconditioned mind, into that which 'really is'. Christ takes credit only for clearing away the obscurification of Thomas's conditioning by using the words: "that I have tended". The bubbling spring is the resultant welling forth of clear vision from the fathomless depths of the pristine mind.

Tez, that was, WOW! I did appreciate the captivating and multi-dimensional way you endorsed and described the indescribable. I enjoyed it! However, the surrounding block of text makes it difficult for me to focus on your point. You see, the alleged Christ quote does paint a pretty ineffective and impotent picture of Christ. Based on the study of his biographies, I get the impression that Christ was many things, but never impotent. Remember, this Jesus is the man who made the audacious claims about himself such as: I AM the way…I AM the truth…and I AM the light…And no man can come to the Father–except by me. With your passage, I can hear only a muffled and indistinct version of the Christ that thunderously resonates in the cannon Gospels.

You said: “The implication that I am drawing is that you seem to be saying that Christ was not the source of Thomas's version of Christ's quotes but the result of some Gnostic delusionment from which Thomas suffered.” I would contend that this was not so. I base this statement upon the depths of the "bubbling spring" of truth from which Thomas's recounting springs.”

What I’m saying regarding the Gospel of Thomas is this: I disagree with your previous observation of how the body of work was excluded by the early church in some attempt to stifle it. I think it’s more likely that the church council simply approved the scriptures that had already been in commission by the church for centuries. Yes, there were some basic criteria to meet which determined which works would compile the cannon. For instance, the work had to be of apostolic authority which means written or spoken by an apostle. And, the work had to be congruent with the established creeds and principles that already existed in the early church for centuries. I found the standards to be quite useful because those creeds and principles and saying date back to the lifetime of various eyewitness of Christ and I believe they were an excellent tool for preserving his voice and his message.

The Gospel of Thomas contains some “quotes” ascribed to Jesus, but no biographical info, no accounts of his three fold ministry, and no accounts of where he went, the awesome things he did or who he definitively claimed to be: lamb of God who brings salvation to the world. Perhaps the author could be forgiven for omitting all that highly relevant background information if there were some mention of atonement through Christs' death and resurrection. I mean, his resurrection is the central theme of Christianity; it’s what our collective faith hinges upon. The resurrection is mentioned by every writer in the canonical works because of the sheer enormity of the subject; but there is not reference of this event from Thomas’s Gospel- simply isn’t there. Why wouldn’t Thomas mention something so important? Do you think it’s likely that he forgot? You mentioned a closeness with Christ that Thomas had; Did he think he was doing Christ a favor. I have a different idea...

Let’s examine what we know about The Gospel of Thomas: The work was written much later than the cannon Gospels (possibly after the death of Thomas). The work didn’t surface in its entirety until around 1945. The work bearing Thomas’ name tends to place significance on learning obscure ideas that are loaded with pantheistic and anti-feministic statements. The Gospel of Thomas portrays a strikingly different image of Christ than do the cannon works including the the Gospels and the epistles of the New Testament.

From this information might flow two interesting theories: One, the Gnostic movement wanted a champion and chose the somewhat respected name of Thomas to drive the cause. Two, Thomas was a D student who was consistently inconsistent and missed the whole point of Christ. How would you account for the contrasts? How would you theorize based on what we know? Before you answer read this…

Let’s examine your quote from the Gospel of Thomas together in the context of comparison. As I read, I’ll be searching for things the unenlightened mind find difficult to grasp. As you read, search for the number of inconsistencies you find from one report to another of the same event, from the same moment in time.

*HERE’S WHAT THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS (Eye Witness) REPORTED ABOUT THE MOMENT: “Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like." Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger.”Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like." Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."

*HERE’S WHAT MATTHEW (Eye Witness) REPORTED ABOUT THAT MOMENT: “When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is? They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” But what about you? He asked. Who do you say I am? Simon Peter answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:13-20)

*HERE’S WHAT MARK (Traveling Companion and Transcriber of Disciple Peter (who is an Eyewitness) REPORTED ABOUT THAT MOMENT: “Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesearea Phillipi. On the way he asked them, “Who do People say I am? They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” But what about you? He asked, “Who do you say that I am? Peter answered, “You are the Christ” (Mark 8:27-30).

HERE’S WHAT LUKE (1st Century Historian and Physician) REPORTED ABOUT THAT MOMENT: Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still other, say that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.’ But what about you? He asked, who do you say I am? Peter answered, “The Christ of God” (Luke 9:18-20).

You said: What is contained in the Gospels that are to be found within the bible, is in my opinion only that which unenlightened minds were able to grasp and thus remember and recount. After all how many of us remember teachings that make no sense to us.

In my opinion, the quote (as well as what follows) is highly graspable and interesting and poetic. What the quote doesn't seem to be is accurate or very reflective of the moment. Therefore, I conclude that charge of inability to remember and/or recount lies within the Gospel of Thomas.

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 247
Currently Online:
26
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
onedaythiswillpass: 1134
zarathustra: 562
StronginHim77: 453
free: 433
2013ways: 431
curious64: 408
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 49
Members: 110914
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38535
Posts: 714196
Newest Members:
Striker1s, marcusz, Keara, Venn, Jolebio, loni89
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer