satori001

Hey, I learned something! Thanks.

Originally posted by ChasUFarley: A measurement is a fact about something. It is done with some sort of standard - as you would might measure customer satisfaction, unit sales per quarter, etc. This is what I mean by it is objective - it is done with a standard and results in a "truth" about the subject. However, the paradox in your initial post is when you introduce "perception". That is something that is not objective. It is in the opinion of the person who has the experience. For example, I can go to a doctor who I perceive is competent in his practice, while someone else might perceive he is a quack. Your example of "customer satisifaction" is what I'm referring to: an objective measurement of a subjective perception. The word "perception" is loaded. "Perception" can refer to a) reception of sensory information, or b) the recognition of its significance. The latter really occurs at a conceptual level - you conceptualize what is perceived, then match or contrast with other familiar concepts, but the word "perception" is used (I think incorrectly) in both cases. Anyway there is sensory perception and also logical perception. Logical perception isn't necessarily "logical," it only means there are comparisons going on. The best way I can think of to re-word my question is "Can perception be measured? Wouldn't that really be a contradiction?" As you use the term, perception is measured in terms of relative preference. Your example of the contrasting "perceptions" of a doctor, as competent or as "quack" suggests both are correct from the individuals' perspective. These are not perceptions but opinions, based on perceptions, or just as likely, misperceptions and misunderstandings. The more variables you introduce, such as biases, past experience, and so on, the less likely measurement is accurate. On the OTHER hand, our little "yardsticks" are as arbitrary as they are ruthless, and as often as not, will quantify nothing more than our personal biases anyway. Probably most of the time. I guess the thing that makes me go "hmmmmm" about your post is when you say, "objective assessment of what you value". I don't see my opinion as "objective". I see opinions as subjective - they can change as a person changes. Life is a constant. Your opinion may not be objectively based, but it can be objectively read, or, "measured." You say opinions can change, and that's true. How do we know they change? Because while there may be no science in the universe able to explain why you like green this month and yellow last month, you know for an objective fact that this month is green and last month was yellow. Opinions are personal measurements of appraisal or preference. Sorry for taking so long to reply. Regards...

Originally posted by frank123lol: If we could not forgive ourselves we would end his life pretty quickly. Not exactly so. Many (if not most) people live out the balance of their lives under some sense of personal guilt. More often, a long (and sometimes forgotten) list of should'ves and could'ves create a generally negative sense of life, building upon a foundation of minor but nagging personal failures. Me, I forgive myself after all I gotta live with myself. That's the bottom line. It amounts to taking personal responsibility for your own "redemption." Not eternal redemption - just the remaining years of being you, living your life. Many religions want to keep you from thinking about those. If they control your attention, they define your purpose in life. When you appraise your own life, your personal sense of purpose is strengthened. You can't meet their goals if you're busy living your own life. If they suspect you're leaning in that direction, they pour on the guilt to suck you back in. twi had power over us in that they did their darndest to always [make us] question ourselves True. Most religions do that. It is their parasitic nature to break your knees and then offer you a crutch, with strings (of obligation/debt) attached so they can pull it out from under you, if you should try to walk again on your own. Yeah we need reproof but the stuff they were shoveling even they could not live it. That's the point. They mean to keep you feeling perpetually unworthy. Your failure is a prerequisite to their success. As for their own misbehavior and failings, followers who questioned them were regularly raked over the coals. There's nothing about intimidation unique to religion. All leaders of dysfunctional groups practice it. Most followers eventually develop a "blind-spot" where leaders' behavior is concerned. Another name for "blind-spot" is "denial." Another name might be "brainwashing."

Thanks Mark. What tools/feature(s) did you use to produce your picture? I use Photoshop Elements 2.0, but I've never spent the time to learn what it can do.

It's a cookie. Can't tell you more than that.

Hope you get some sleep tonight. What did you use to create that composite effect?

People don't exactly "divorce" themselves, but they live their lives, estranged to themselves. It's called low self-esteem, among other things, depending on the severity.

As foolish as that might sound, I wonder how many people have ever apologized - to themselves - for bad choices in their lives. People talk to themselves all the time. They write letters to themselves (sometimes called journals) for purposes of self-discovery. Why not take it a step further? Could be therapeutic.When you think about it, what do we usually tell ourselves about bad choices? We berate the chooser (also ourselves). Why not step into the chooser's shoes (thereby taking responsibility) and apologize?

There are parallels, I guess. I don't believe that existentialism has any interest in God, only in the fallibility of the human consciousness, among other things.

If the ego was capable of telling the truth, that is what it might say.

Yes, the ego "creates" God in our own image to prevent us from knowing anything beyond ourselves. The image is a part of ourselves. Until we look away from that image, and the source of that image, we will never see the true God.

Abigail, you seem to be saying that my position is represented by 1. and yours by 2. But your perspective is entirely different. Are you saying that getting "caught up in... ego," or in "thoughts of 'sin' or separateness" are spiritual hazards along the path of godliness? If so, we are miles apart.I am saying those who imagine themselves on a path are really lost and wandering through the wilderness, making their way toward a mirage of their own making. Your presumption is as different from mine as night and day. You seem to be saying that "our oneness with God" is our default state, and that we may lose it due to pride, fear, greed, etc. That's a popular, "new-age" perspective. I'm saying this: it's ALL part of the mirage, the distractions along the path, and the path itself (as we perceive it). The ego-drama which is the true gulf which separates us from God, creates a false sense of proximity to God by manipulating our emotions. Why? To the ego, survival is all, and what the ego believes it requires to survive is our undivided attention. It will do anything to keep that attention, and if impersonating the path, or God Himself, will do the trick, the ego has the mind's vast resources at its disposal. It's easy as dreaming. In other words, 1 and 2 are equally valid because neither is valid.

Abigail, try not to miss the meaning just to indulge in a little contrarianism. You can say, intellectually (and I have acknowledged), that God is everywhere, therefore there is no "separation." And yet, there is. You can pretend there is no such thing as "sin," and plenty of people do. You can insist upon holding intellectual belief in lieu of "communion" (the end of sin, or separation), and say you already have it. But the "you" in there, that point of awareness which responds each time you think the word "me," absent from full and direct AWARENESS of communion with God, is separate from God. That is the single pivot point - not what we "know," not what we believe, but what we are aware of, and directly aware of. What is "direct awareness?" Are "you" aware of you? How do you experience "you?" That is, beneath the appearances, thoughts, feelings, you being that which is indivisibly and unchangeably you, the source of your "being." Is your experience of being that of your own presence? Yes, it is (for the sake of argument). Anything less is separateness. In this sense, we can be nearly as separate from ourselves as from God, regardless of what our intellects may insist to the contrary. The machinery of the intellect may keep us fascinated for a lifetime, so much so, we may forget to look beyond it, behind it, beneath it, for that source from which it springs, in which we live and breath and have our being.

Here's a question that goes along with the first. Should you forgive you? Suppose God forgives you, but you just can't forgive yourself? Probably quite common. How does that affect a person's relationship with A. God? B. others? C. oneself? Can you even begin to accept the forgiveness of anyone else, including God, without first forgiving yourself? Try to imagine it, if you can. What is the willingness to be forgiven? Is it conditional self-forgiveness? "I'll forgive me if you will too." Is something like this essential for "believing" in Jesus Christ as Lord? Nightowls wonder.

Sin is turning away from God. Original sin is the state of separation from God. God may be everywhere, but the separation is very real. Where is it? All around us. That place you are, when you are still, and that is "you" - that is where the separation is. "Goodness," by the way, does not get you back together with God. Goodness, in fact, is also a sin. Where goodness is good thoughts, good behavior, good works, etc, the "act" of believing it is "good" is the actual sin. "Good" by what standard? What was the original sin? Eating the fruit of... Owning your own morality may keep you in apparent control, but it separates you from God. Within that good-evil continuum, there is no alternative view. You're either good or bad. But there is a place outside of that continuum which appears when you sell your morality, your house rules, back to God. So what was the fruit? An apple? No, it was self-judgement, self-ownership - the "self" meaning only that little point of focus called the ego, which we call "I." "I think." "I believe." "I say unto me!" It is a "black hole" whose gravitational force pulls our attention irresistably away from God, toward its own artificial light. We believe if we ever look away, we will cease to exist, we will lose ourselves. It's half-true. We lose the illusion of power held by our artificial (ego-constructed) selves, and find our true selves reflected in God's presence.

To own forgiveness, relinquish ownership of the sin. Think of it as selling the sin to God. You must therefore let it go, let God alone have it.

And you both illustrate the corollary to the forgiveness problem - people don't understand "sin," either. Sin is nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, "shame" itself is a sin. It is often the outcome of other "sins." To confuse matters a bit, the "absence of shame" isn't necessarily a good thing, if it is due to the presence of something worse, like arrogance. Shame is more useful than arrogance because shame is transformative - at least, it acknowledges a higher standard (though it also sucks away the will to do anything about it), where arrogance holds no standard higher than the status quo. But both of 'em are sins. Forgiving yourself has 3 parts: 1. forgive the sinful motive 2. forgive the sinful act 3. forgive the sinful reaction

Shelly, If I've taken a side here (I don't think so), I may have found RG's initial post to be patronizing and self-serving, but that's nothing new. "Hey, I'm back from the mountain top, kids. Gather around." I don't take what they have said personally, as some have. It wasn't "addressed" to me, maybe, since I am apparently living in a different "administration" than they are. He and Catcup are still TWI staffers at heart, annointed once, annointed forever, though they wander now through the wilderness beyond New Knoxville, always chasing a mirage that looks a lot like HQ's "fountain of living waters," to quench their sense of loss and nostalgia, parched by their long march through the deserts of anti-Wayworld. They seem to pine for the days when honor and deference were theirs just for doing their little ministry thing, when they could "see" their spiritual radiance reflected back in the eyes of humble and mesmerized Wayfers, drinking from their chalice of rightly-divided research. Catcup's remark about being, or not being, treated "respectfully" calls that up for me. Her remark about their "sacrifices" does too. They weren't sacrifices. They were trade-offs. TWI was a trade-off, just like working for GM or Uncle Sam. "Hello, I'm a martyr. I have credibility." You think so? If the "martyrs" would only realize that 99% of their credibility only as good as the words they write or speak right here and now, they'd have a lot more to say, and a lot more credibility. Their experience is real, their knowledge may be sound, but if you have to drink from their martyr cup first, it ain't worth it, generally speaking. Why not? It's the cult mind-set, and it invites all kinds of negatives in - shame, guilt, grief - somebody else's baggage that you now must validate, AND own. They want your martyr-homage or they won't play. They become offended. Tough. They're strong enough to bear that cross without my help, if they love it so much. I realize, one to one, it's different. If I were a guest at their home (and I wasn't shot at the doorstep), I would give them due deference as their guest, and for the price they paid for being in a cult, but that stuff just doesn't translate here very well. Like when the "real John Lynn" (if there is such a thing) showed up. Lastly, however "victimized" they were, they didn't walk into it blindly, as many did.

outofdafog, I thought your handle was outofadog. Just want to say, I'm relieved.

Let's not confuse a reference to "doctrine," with a discussion of doctrine. Our TWI background gives us some common (biblical) ground from which to work our way back. We may find it helpful to walk over it. The entire concept of "forgiveness" is so skewed that we don't know what it means any more, and therefore don't know how to forgive, or to be forgiven. And that's a problem. A certain other thread is a good example of the confusion.

Now see? To me at least, this apparently "positive confession" indicates an inner self-loathing, or at least the pretense of same. And if pretense is there, it is elsewhere, and close by. You say: 1. The amazing thing is that God can still choose to forgive me. 2. It is still beyond my comprehension that he could love me so much. You are saying that: 1. You have forgiven yourself - but that: 2. Something about you is so loathsome, so horrible, so evil, so despicable, that you are amazed that God "can still choose to forgive me." 3. Something about you is so loathsome, so horrible, so evil, so despicable, that "it is still beyond my comprehension that he could love me so much." How does this inconsistency square with having "forgiven" yourself?? If you were to forgive me in the same way, you might say, "I forgive you, you unforgivable awful specimen of human waste product that not even God in His infinite mercy and grace might love, yet somehow does anyway." If you offered me that sort of forgiveness, I might say to you, "Take a flyin' leap, bucko!" Yet you offer it to yourself, and within this disconnected contortion of "grace," you find no inconsistency. Consciously. I believe that we may fool our heads, but that our hearts are not so easily deceived. Now you may say, "But, I've forgiven myself, and I ain't nearly so bad as all that." In that case I might say, "Then why is it so inconceivable that a God of love might love you?" This is another place we get ourselves in trouble. We become very comfortable with what Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace." Cheap grace is our mental "Get Outta Jail Free" card, that lets us sleep at night. It's like a check written upon a non-existent account, which we write to ourselves. Again, I believe that we may fool our heads, but that our hearts are not so easily deceived. If we really took our words to heart, we could not use them with such casual disregard. Not just picking on you JT. I think it's a universal human condition. How 'bout them apples?

If you ask forgiveness, there is hope. Should be easy, with the confession out of the way.

Well I haven't been here very long, geologically speaking, but I knows a troll when I sees one, and I'm seeing double.

if i step on an ant, is that the same as killing my brother ?satori, i can't remember wanting to wound, maim or kill.... i swear my heart bled for my brothers when they were molested by a priest before they reached puberty. i don't know what i wanted to "do" to father butler. i was glad to see him exposed years and years later but i was hurt it took so long What matters (speaking only of forgiveness) is how you think and feel now. Obviously killing an insect or animal is not the same as killing a person.On the other hand, if one kills any harmless creature with malice, it is not the creature's insignificance but the malice that is recorded. Whether the malice is understandable or justifiable is irrelevant. It is there. What is the effect of indwelling malice upon the heart? We can guess, but experience is a better teacher, and we've seen the effect in others, if not ourselves. It is toxic. Temporary emotions, even toxic ones, are soon washed away. But chronic feelings of anger, grief, fear... those seem to reside in our muscles and organs, our nerves and joints, in our bones and even our breath. They tinge, taint, stain, or infuse the "yardstick" by which we measure the meaning of what enters through our senses, ignoring the good, or subtly altering it to confirm our incipient gloom. Forgiveness is the release of the objects of those chronic emotions (in a sense, no longer taking them "personally"), and without an anchor they can dissolve away, in time. The "gloom" may or may not lift on its own. Chronic emotions are opportunistic, and that means we may become addicted to them. Once the original reason for them has departed, they may use every day circumstances to justify themselves. "Just my luck." "That always happens to me." "Same s@#$ different day." They can transfer themselves to other circumstances, or even influence you to create new (negative) circumstances to support them. Here is where forgiveness (of yourself, or another person) is tricky. Once the initial wound is resolved/released, you may NEED to force yourself to "be positive." Without the initial and essential resolution of forgiveness, forcing "positive thinking" only complicates matters and makes you more miserable. With a resolution it may be necessary, just to break the reflex of habitual, emotional reactions, just like any other habit you mean to drop.

Anybody else wondering if Research Geek and Catcup are trolls? They're like a tag-team. One starts a controversial and provocative topic, then virtually disapppears, the other becomes extremely defensive, then gets everybody riled up with insinuations, recriminations and denials... Fiery darts are what they look like to me, zinging and whizzing back and forth, left and right, over and under... And now almost everybody's outta fellowship (except for Oldiesman)! Let's ask, where's the profit? Hmm? Well, hmmm?? Don't feed the monster!