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


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
The forums are currently locked and only available for read only access
sp_TopicIcon
Gnosis - Will it make all present day religions redundant?
June 30, 2006
8:22 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Beatrix Murrell, in the closing paragraphs of her article called "Noetic Gnosis: Cosmic Consciousness", wrote:

"There seems an evolutionary movement afoot, moving from the religious construct to the cosmic construct. Yesterday's "seers" were often persecuted in their own time, later restored either to sainthood or even relegated to being sons of God."

Was this why many religions are on the slide nowadays? Was Christ, the Buddha, Mohammed, etc misunderstood mystics just like so many others?

Beatrix Murrell continued:

"... ...Translating from the "noetic gnosis" of such special people, lesser souls built whole institutional religious systems (and power hierarchies) around these supra-conscious experiences. Eventually, through this translation, so much of the experience of the initial gnosis became lost."

Hence is this why today's version of Christ's teachings devoid of more than 26 gospels that were perhaps too difficult for "lesser souls" to understand, with only 4 remaining?

Beatrix Murrell continued again with:

"... Still, perhaps not entirely totally! These great religious systems, built upon a teacher-prophet-founder's gnosis, have served to perpetuate humanity's cultural and moral evolution."

From an evolutionary perspective, there are benefits perhaps. But are there even greater disadvantages?

Beatrix hints at this when she says:

"... But, alas, dissolution sets-in. Our present era is witness to this eroding dissolution of our old religious traditions and institutions. Yet the Peak Experience, the Noetic Gnosis, continues...but not yet having found a new place within a new societal container system. Currently there seems to be no perceptable translation of Noetic Gnosis into "something." So where might supra-conscious awareness head?

Presently it looks diffused, but maybe not for long. Consider Teilhard's conception of a Noosphere...not only in terms of empirical, intellectual knowledge but also a spiritual knowledge synthesizing into a Great Consciousness Base of the Planet. We seem to have the necessary ingredients already in place: the advanced communications, an on-going spiritual revolution...New Age, New Consciousness Movements, etc...an integration of studies through systems research and interdisciplinary programs, and a world community of minds coming together via the Internet."

Are the scientific community, mystics going to combine their "gnosis" and then drag the "lesser souls" at large, through the internet, up by their bootstraps?

On this very optimistic note, she finishes the article with:

"... Though still partial, perhaps our individual consciousnesses are slowly here and there evolving into supra-consciousness, Noetic Gnosis, that will ultimately become the forerunner for what will become the Earth's Noosphere. If possible, then it is just as possible that other Noetic Congregations will rise forth from the presumed higher life-forms throughout the Cosmos...to become the *whole unfoldment* of Cosmic Consciousness!"

Of course if we do not reincarnate most of us will 'miss out'. On the other hand, if we do, then wow! The superstitious primitive religious beliefs of "lesser souls", as Beatrix Merrell seems to label these members of traditional world religions, and the ignorance of athiests and agnostics alike, might eventually be surmounted by this 'new enlightenment'. Ahhh! Is there hope for us humans yet?

The full article is to be found at:

http://www.csp.org/experience/.....nosis.html

June 30, 2006
9:25 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

The simple reason for why all these religions are on the slide is: there is no evidence or proof of their prophethood or "divinity" or holyness. Adding to that there's bad stuff, errors, attack on human rights etc written into the holy books.

Each next generation is just less bothered. If it made sense, if proof existed they would continue believing.

Religious extremists also put religion in a bad light for the new generations.

Its a big slide all the way until no one will believe any of this. Why? Again, simply: No evidence of the extraordinary claims (book/prophet from God?) and presense of questionable stuff.

June 30, 2006
9:30 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Beatrix Murrell writes:

"These great religious systems"

What great religious systems? One which says its Ok to stone people to death? Or the one which.... you get the point. Author is trying to gain some points and convincing power by saying a false positive statement. There's no great religious system, nothing great about any of them.

June 30, 2006
11:19 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Who made Beatrix Murrell a prophet? If God did, we'd better listen to her. If he didn't, her viewpoint is no better than anybody else's.

Does she claim that God spoke to her? If not, whatever she says can't make anything redundant. It's only the voice of a person.

July 1, 2006
1:41 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Similarly: Who made Jesus a prophet? And claiming that God spoke to them doesnt make them a prophet one bit. Make sure you apply the same questions to your side and have solid irrefutable 100% convincing answers for that - for the person who is not biased.

If a religion is from God, it would convince an unbiased person very easily. Unbiased doesnt mean they'll accept every claim. They'll think about it and see that its irrefutable. Get it, I guess not... anyway had to express.

July 1, 2006
2:25 pm
Avatar
garfield9547
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

GOSH

I believe people constantly look for answers because they see things as literally and not spiritually.

Looking at the creation as a natural happening would be desaterous,

I believe in the spiritual meaning of the bible and that is the only way it makes sense to me

Garfield

July 1, 2006
4:05 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Same goes for the Quran then. Dont limit your views. Like I said, apply the same thing to other Holy books too. If the Bible is from God, so is the Quran - accept it.

I'm athiest ofcourse.

July 1, 2006
4:14 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

so guest when you die, where will you go?

but then we are deviating away fron another of Tez's threads again....

July 1, 2006
4:33 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

yes we are.. it hink there's no way the discusson can not go to other places. Seeker started it saying who's Beatrix to be a prophet and stuff. Anyway whatever.

July 1, 2006
5:53 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

yep! lol!

July 1, 2006
6:37 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest,

Don't let me stop you from taking the discussion where you want it to go. Don't go codependent on me, now. :o)

July 1, 2006
7:19 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

I dont know I'm just stuck on the original post where the article calls the religious systems as "great". Great in what sense? As in "Opium of the masses" sense great. Bah

July 1, 2006
8:02 pm
Avatar
free2choose
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez.

Very interesting article.

I think her use of the term "lesser souls" is not meant as an insult.

She talks of "Yesterday's seers" as having what she refers to as a "supraconsciousness". And that people who follow tham are not on the level of the evolution of the soul as they are/were.

I think this is what she means by "lesser souls". Not that one soul is "Worth" less than another, just that one may be more advanced or evolved than another.

Modern religions are built around the teachings and following of these "evolved souls". Lesser souled individuals recognize the individual Truth of some of these people, and follow that as the ONLY truth.

The advantages are that through religion, morals and values are set and people strive to adhere to them. Religion gives people a sense of community, a place of belonging, and a place to pray and be spiritual.

Th disadvantages are that in recognizing someone else's Truth and taking it as your own, you put limitations on defining your own Truth. Religious people may end up Denying who they truly are or thier true purpose because thier religion teaches different.

If everyone recognized that Jesus, Budda, Mohammed, etc. all speak THIER truth, and that we can learn from thier teachings, yet also carve our own way and find our own Truth, then we would all evolve into the "supraconsiousness" they had.

Christianinty's main flaw is that it takes personal salvation and enlightenment OUT of the individuals grasp and places it into the hands of the church and "Jesus".

If people would recognize Jesus for the teacher that he was, and not the God, they would not take everything in the Bible so literally. I prefer to think of the Bible like any other self help book. Read it, see what is true for you, what aplies in your life, then take what you need and leave the rest!!!

Same goes with all other insitutionalized religions.

Ultimately, for the soul to evolve, we must break out of the mold of following, and into the light of our own Truth.

Just my opinion,

Free

July 1, 2006
8:07 pm
Avatar
free2choose
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Guest guest,

I am right there with you man!!!

The problem with Christians is they are so convinced that the coices they make in finding their truth must be the choice everyone makes, and if they don't they are wrong.

THE BIBLE, is not PROOF of anything!!!

No more than the Koran, the Torrah, tarrot cards, or the book "Conversations with God".

What makes something proof is fact.

There is no proof the bible is 100% fact.

What makes something a persons personal Truth, is thier BELIEF in it.

The bible may be Truth for a Christian, because that is what they believe, but it does not make it FACT for the non believer!!!!

Free

July 1, 2006
8:12 pm
Avatar
free2choose
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

On My WAY asked,

"so guest when you die, where will you go? "

The same question could be asked of you On My Way...

When you die, where will you go????

To your christian Heaven???

Do you have PROOF? that this heaven exists? Do you have PROOF to substantiate your belief?

The Bible is not Proof. I am talking hard fact.

You have NO MORE proof that guest guest dos about what he believes.

You can no more say where your dead soul will end up than I can, because the truth is, NOONE KNOWS!!!

We can say what we BELIEVE....but belief and fact are two seperate things.

Stop lauding your beliefs as self righteous proclamations of fact.

It only serves to further alienate people.

Free

July 1, 2006
8:41 pm
Avatar
bevdee
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 259
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Guest, I agree with you where you say - "Same goes for the Quran then. Dont limit your views. Like I said, apply the same thing to other Holy books too. If the Bible is from God, so is the Quran - accept it."

July 1, 2006
9:01 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

guest_guest

On the 30-Jun-06 You said:

"There's no great religious system, nothing great about any of them."

Not even "great" in regard to the number of professed adherents?

You said:

"No evidence of the extraordinary claims (book/prophet from God?) and presense of questionable stuff."

Perhaps this is why Beatrix and others like her have steered away from religion that is based upon revelational ways of knowing.

'Gnosis' is experiential in nature not revelational. In my view, mystics experience the Ultimate Ground of Being that is not a Person. I am not talking about some God who is a Person in this statement but the Ultimate Ground of Being upon which the electron, proton, neutron, meson, quark, photon, etc depend for their very existence and behavior!! It is this Ultimate Essence that mystics experience first hand IMHO.

I have a friend with a Physics Degree who many years ago took part in a controlled experiment using LSD. He actually vividly saw the very neurons of his brain firing!!! His experience was very, very real to him - not hallucinatory in nature at all. He saw many things. It changed his life radically just as my mystical vision in deep meditation did.

If you want some evidence of that which I speak look into the Noetic Sciences literature.

In particular look at the work done by Professor Charles Tart a main stream scientist of high repute - a colleague of many of the greats. If you are half serious about doing so then be prepared to 'get your finger out' and do some hard yards in the form of much reading, reflection upon and contemplation of Tart's findings over a lifetime of scientific research. The URL for some of his white papers is:

http://www.paradigm-sys.com/ct.....icles1.cfm

After you've read some of Tart's work, you might realize that there could well be a part of the domain of science that well and truly encompasses the ultimate nature of reality - including the nature of conscious awareness.

Professor Charles Tart has proposed a hybrid model for explaining consciousness. He proposes that we have consciousness (B) based upon the body (brain, nervous system etc) and consciousness that is completely independent of the body. He points out that our consciousness that depends upon the body ceases in death. He also maintains that the body functioning is also dependent upon a consciousness that emanates from what he calls 'mind/life'(M/L) which is totally independent of the body for its existence.

Further Prof. Tart proposes that the consciousness that is our day to day experience is the Emergent Interaction of both 'B' or Body based consciousness and 'M/L' or body independent Mind/Life based consciousness.

Charles Tart in the Abstract of one of his papers said:

"I have proposed the beginnings of a dualistic theory of consciousness, Emergent Interactionism, which is intended to be scientifically useful and has empirical, testable consequences."

Science is nudging the boundaries of religion in my view and promises to one day turn religious dogma in its ear.

July 1, 2006
9:20 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

free2choose
On the 1-Jul-06 you said

"I think her use of the term "lesser souls" is not meant as an insult."

I agree - I'm sure that she never meant her statement to dint any egos.

Neither was I intending that what I wrote, when using the word "lesser", should to be interpreted in terms of "worth".

July 1, 2006
9:53 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

yep, free i will be in heaven. know that for a fact after i die that is where i will be. does this make me better than anyone else? absolutely not! i just know where i will be. and i now i will bow out of this thread as it always ends up the same way, which is why i expressed good humor above.

peace,
omw

July 1, 2006
10:24 pm
Avatar
free2choose
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

OMW:

I am not trying to attack you. I am sorry if that is the impression you got.

I am just trying to make a point.

It was my perception of your question to guest-guest about where he will go after he dies that you were trying to bring in the Christian belief of Heaven to "prove" some kind of theory or thought.

But the point I was trying to make is that "belief" proves nothing! Belief is just that, belief.

It is not fact. And for you to wield it as a weapon of debate is really just impossing tyranical belief on someone else, then implying that the are wrong or stupid if they do not see the "Proof" of your belief.

I believe that is wrong. I also see that WAY too much from so called "christians". The same ones who ignore that part of the Bible that says, "Judge lest not YE be judged."

Your beliefs are no more wrong or right than mine. They are simply YOUR truths and mine are Mine.

But Guest is asking for PROOF. And all he keeps getting is belief masked as proof, and then he is judged for not responding to that as fact, or qeustioned self-righteously about his own beliefs.

That is all I am saying. I hope you can understand that. I really hope you can see through your perceptions of me attacking your faith and religion and really HEAR what I am saying.

Free

July 1, 2006
10:58 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Science can prove things about the physical world, things we can discern through our five senses. It cannot prove anything about the spiritual world, things we cannot discern through those senses.

Guest, if you want proof of God's existence, let me know, and I can suggest a course of action for you to take to prove it to yourself.

July 2, 2006
12:28 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Hi Free_____, thanks for the agreement! its nice to have support :d

Exactly I agree when you said:

"What makes something a persons personal Truth, is thier BELIEF in it."

Even OMW I think said that, ultimately, its jsut the belief. Yea they know, if there was any evidence, they would give it. All they got is belief.

hi _____ bevdee__ thanks for the agreement as well.

Hi _____Tez_____ (me too lazy to use html and bold the nicks for easier reading, oh well,):

>> Not even "great" in regard to the number of professed adherents? << I think she was kinda praising the systems "These great religious systems", I mean what is she trying to say? Praising them? To me like I said she wanted to appear nice and convincing so she praised the religions. You know its like "yea, A is a nice guy, but he's basically a shmuck" - more convincing than "A is a shmuck". I glanced over Pr. Tart's page and was interested in "scientific study of the aura" - hoped to see actual results, but he was just suggested how it _could_ be studied. >>> He also maintains that the body functioning is also dependent upon a consciousness that emanates from what he calls 'mind/life'(M/L) which is totally independent of the body for its existence. <<< Well unless there was a scientific study etc which proves this, I cant believe it. Is this again an attempt for a person to deny the fact that, at death the person will cease to exist in every meaningful way? Pr. Tart also wants to beleive that somehow his conciousness will continue to exist after the death. If he's believing in the existence of conciousness after death, without any proof, he's not a scientist to me or an authority on this subject anymore than you or I am. "Science is nudging the boundaries of religion in my view and promises to one day turn religious dogma in its ear." Oh yes I agree, its going down.. its a big slide for religion all the way. But even this isnt making me happy. I need a GF and a new job and need to work on m body (thought it would be a joke but its true too)

July 2, 2006
12:36 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Tez, also as usual, there must be some stuff going over my head which you and Pr. Tart wrote but what I did read, for that I'd like evidence (e.g. for mind-indepedendent conciousness. I know I'm not gonna get it, or else everyone would be talking about that conciousness).

I probably disappoint you every now and then in my refusal to exert my brain on the high level stuff.

July 2, 2006
12:37 am
Avatar
bevdee
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 259
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hey Guestguest

I was curious as to your, or anyone else's thoughts on this - why are those "christians" so defensive of their beliefs? I wonder why they feel it is necessary for them to PROVEPROVEPROVE to everyone that their belief is the TRUE belief?

I find it annoying.

Bevdee

July 2, 2006
4:19 am
Avatar
free2choose
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bevdee,

The Christians should not have to PROVEPROVEPROVE their beliefs are true anymore than I should have to PROVE PROVE PROVE my lesbian relationship is worthy of equal rights under the law.

But I do...because those CHRISTIANS with thier Bible force thier BELIEF on everyone as FACT, and expect the rest of the country to just swallow, with out thought or care.

If Christians are going to insist on PUSHING thier belief down everyones throats all the while trying to pawn it all off as FACT, the I think they should have to come up with some substanial proof, some reason, why we should buy in to the shit, huh???

Look, I am not saying Christianity is wrong. I am not saying that Christians should not have the RIGHT to believe whatever it is they want, because they should. WE ALL SHOULD!!! That is the point. We all should be able to live free2choose our beliefs and lifestyles and whatever else.

I find it annoying that I have to justify my love for my wife. I find it annoying that everytime I call her my "wife", I feel that self-conscious little niggle at the pit of my soul because I know that no matter how much we love eachother, and how long we have been together, in the legal sense, she is not my WIFE, and I am lying to myself and to the world just using that word. MY RIGHTS to use that word and feel comfortable and honest about it has been STOLEN from me. And George Bush and his "Christian Soldiers" are the ones who did it.

So yeah...I am annoyed too.

Free

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 349
Currently Online:
33
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: 111138
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38716
Posts: 714574
Newest Members:
OsbornWebb, alpino12, Warnisses, degastro, kojuyu, NathanielClark
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer | Do Not Sell My Personal Information