Hey SGA, howdy! I was thinking of tossing this out on your topic CM. I've got a busy week ahead and may not be checking in as infrequently as usual, but there's some stuff I've been studying for several years by a philosopher named Henri Bergson. I've read two of his books, Memory and Matter and Creative Evolution. (which sounds like Creationism in title, but has nothing to do wth that).
I'm currently reading The Creative Mind. Bergson is dealing with intellect and intution in this collection. His views on time and "reality" are really interesting. He poses that science and philosophy can produce knowledge that isn't exclusive but can be in harmony so that seemingy contradictory perceptions of reality converge. I'm not really versed in his whole philosophy but have enjoyed the studying of it. I might propose some of his ideas for discussion, understanding that I'm still very much a student. I posted long ago on WayDale (?) to see if anyone was interested in him, but no one responded. I wondered if you were familiar with his stuff sirguessalot.
One basic idea he proposes that's been a help to me is in the basic idea of time and how it's viewed by a person. Although it wasn't new he makes a very good case for seeing time as a continuous strip of, call it matter for want of a better word. Whereas I typically would view time from a view of "things lived" or done standpoint that separates it into events and measurable increments, the idea is that time is all connected and so the past , present and future is one long undivided strip of consciousness. (okay I get a little nervous when I start using words like consciousness cuz my left brain starts thumb wrestling with my right brain and it turns into a food fight but hopefully that starts to get it across)
Where I have at times looked at my past life of events as separable from who I am at this moment, they are in fact not when looked at from Bergson's view. In fact a simple conclusion of that idea would be that I am right now exactly what I have been in the past up to this point. I will be tomorrow more of the same. Now that's not earth shaking but I found that I haven't always thought that way, rather I've tried to look at the past as a string of good and bad choices, actions, things I liked or didn't like, things that were done to me or that I did, etc. Instead with this view I simply look at it (or try to) from more of an "all at once" kind of attitude and at that point, I find there's a kind of peaceful result. I am, simply put, who I am. You are the same, and in fact we are joined together by the common ground of this "duration" of reality, as he puts it.
Where this resonated in relation to the thread topic is that the idea of believing, or having a faith of some kind that doesn't....seem to...have grounding in reality is that Bergson proposes that the intuitive part of our lives is that part that can add to the intellectual part of life. Together they form a person's "reality", not exclusive or at odds but a whole view.
Hmmmm, maybe it's not really connected to the topic, but it seemed like it was for a second, so I'm tossing it out. :)
i'm not familiar with Henri Bergson, but i found this
looks like a heck of a nice read, with all kinds of white rabbits
but just in skimming it
and going by what you have written here
looks one of many many western mysticish thinkers and writers of his time
his connection to William James is interesting, too
especially considering that that second paragraph on the mysticism entry:
"Mystics claim to experience intuitive knowledge of transcendent dimensions, beyond the phenomenal or material concrete objects of ordinary perception. The mystic claims to see things that are not part of ordinary experience. William James used the words "ineffable" (which means that something cannot or should not be spoken) and "noetic" (from the Greek νοῦς nous: "relating to consciousness or intuition"), to describe the mystical experience."
as far as the rest of your post...
as far as what i know of the states and stages of oneness and timelessness and whatnot..
...i think it all relates very strongly to Clay's notion of a boundless heart
a conversation i am also interested in having in more depth, some day
though in a way that allows for more patience and curious ease with each other
cuz i think we can also get even more skeptical and very specific with it all if we want, in that kind of space
It's all there, in the song. The lyrics, the melody, the message combine to express the ineffable wisdom of the ages. There is nothing else we need to know.
It's all there, in the song. The lyrics, the melody, the message combine to express the ineffable wisdom of the ages. There is nothing else we need to know.
ha. yeah. sounds to me like something someone says when they are more or less stuck in a mystical state
Well, I'm still not real clear on the point of this thread, which in a nutshell summarizes my thoughts on the bible. I don't think my lack of clarity has anything to do with not looking. I see plenty going on. Unfortunately, not much of it guides me into the belief that there is an active and benevolent God directing the affairs of human history. If I had to guess, I would say it is precisely because I am looking that I am having my doubts.
Contrast that with the Penn and Teller piece which is direct and to the point. Perhaps a bit childish in its presentation but its content is clear and hard to argrue with. They say what they mean and mean what they say. (Did I say that??) Could not the God of the universe have communicated at least that efficiently?
Re:"If I had to guess, I would say it is precisely because I am looking that I am having my doubts."
Well, you're in deep trouble now, dude. I can tell you from personal experience that once you start down that road of looking honestly, you're going to wind up a dang infidel!! Now, there may be hope for you yet! YES! Just don't allow yourself to consider the more extreme positions (like.. all the religions are pretty much the same and hence are all man made) and maybe stick to the premise that *Christianity* is the one true religion.
Because if you throw it ALL up to inspection, you will find it ALL (and that's 'all' without exception :P) comes out wanting. How can I say this? Look at what you'll find! The Christians say they are the one true religion and have holy books to back them up that say if you aren't a Christian, you aren't going to Heaven. The Muslims say they are the one true religion and have holy books to back them up that say if you aren't a Muslim, you aren't going to Heaven. The Mormons are the one true religion of the one true religion by way of an extra book.. the book of Mormon (praise be upon its typefont) and is one of the FASTEST growing religions around. Its really doing good in South America where they preach all the Indians are decendants of the 10 lost tribes of Israel who got in dugout canoes and traveled to the Americas from Israel before the time of Jesus... WHO incidentally appeared to them in the Americas after his resurection.
The Jews have Jehova talking to Moses (anyone TODAY hearing the voice of the Almighty is thrown into protective custody) from a burning bush on Mt. Whatever (Oh, yeah, now I remember.. been a long time since PFAL... Sinai) and folks accept it without batting an eye because they WANT to. They don't subject it to real analysis like you may be doing. It depends on how seriously you look into it and how brutally honest you are willing to get. You have to be willing to accept what you find. Few people are willing to do that. If they were.... we would all be the same religion.
I guess it comes as no surpise to you, Jumpinjive, that I've already done what you are now in the process of doing. I've looked at it long and hard. And wanting something so BADLY to be true doesn't make it so. Case in point? The Rainbow Bridge thread posted in the Open forum. Click HERE!! and see how it works right here on Greasespot. I, too, would love to see pets after I die. But that doesn't make it so, does it? But to some?? Why, "How could a loving God not..."?
All comes back to what exists... and what doesn't. And wanting it to be one way or the other doesn't change what *is*. The question to you is... how honest are you going to be with yourself?? Hmmm??
Sudo, why do you bother? really? you talk about brutal honesty, yet...
you are so dishonest about this subject in so many ways, one could dedicate an entire thread to it
and you basically only repeat your same limited bitter reductionist story
...which, btw, is so textbook and typical of one who is highly uninformed as to what science has discovered regarding human thought and behaviour and consciousness
...i am almost afraid to tell you (not that you would listen to a punk like me)
i mean, what is at stake here, for you, anyway?
what keeps you hounding and picking away at the conversation with no new information and new point of view?
and for as much you like to poop and spit on the tables other people have set
your truer intent is still hidden behind your suggestively loaded questions
which is just creepy, imo
btw-did you read the cynic entry on the wikip?
doesn't that pretty much sum up what you probably look and sound like to others?
or can you even see yourself from the perspective of others?
btw - i would still like to have that conversation on the boundless heart some day
but all it takes is one "wailing banshee" to shut down the whole thing
(according to the studies)
to finally see that there is no god as described by the mythic believers is a good thing,
but it produces its own new problems, which requires even newer structures of consciousness to solve
(if they are even allowed to come...which, in cynical doctrines, are not...).
and so, depending on how one comes to this stage, here are two extreme interpretations of the same conclusions:
1) there is no mythic god, and this is horrible news, and i am ....ed off at everything and everyone
2) there is no mythic god, and this is good news, because that was not what most of the traditions were talking about anyway
to one, the value of myth remains, as well as the ability for social activity and sharing and wishing for things together...
to the other, our personal mythic self suffers, and maybe we can hardly stand the thought of breaking a wishbone...
basically, something was broken on the way up jacob's ladder,
and it comes back to haunt us til we comeback down to deal with it
(which typically means making the cause of the anger a "mine" rather than an "it" that you blame on "other")
...
socks,
i really like your own words on it:
Where I have at times looked at my past life of events as separable from who I am at this moment, they are in fact not when looked at from Bergson's view. In fact a simple conclusion of that idea would be that I am right now exactly what I have been in the past up to this point. I will be tomorrow more of the same. Now that's not earth shaking but I found that I haven't always thought that way, rather I've tried to look at the past as a string of good and bad choices, actions, things I liked or didn't like, things that were done to me or that I did, etc. Instead with this view I simply look at it (or try to) from more of an "all at once" kind of attitude and at that point, I find there's a kind of peaceful result. I am, simply put, who I am. You are the same, and in fact we are joined together by the common ground of this "duration" of reality, as he puts it.
Reminds me of what has often been called a "book of God's memory" in many traditions.
The view that everything that ever has been simply always still is underneath.
In other words...in one sense, how nothing ever goes away.
It is all just added/consumed...universally, which means this one "tree" is huge huge huge and blossoming very rapidly right now
...always getting more huge...this is the awesome might and terror of god
...where answers naturally get dramatically less simple as creation/evolution marches on
(though, thank god our capacity to process the info tends to increase, too)
Ive also heard it called the "Akashic" record, in some old stories.
The notion that what is, simply is, and always will be, just like the Bible stories try to get at here and there
...even skeptics might agree on this one
In one sense (in some places in the texts) what some of the ancients were often referring as "God" is also this very "tree."
This one single thing that simply is if you simply include everything...every every every thing
but that is still only part of the story
because the question remains...who or what is it that looking at this grande "it?"
and when you wrote this:
I'm currently reading The Creative Mind. Bergson is dealing with intellect and intution in this collection. His views on time and "reality" are really interesting. He poses that science and philosophy can produce knowledge that isn't exclusive but can be in harmony so that seemingy contradictory perceptions of reality converge. I'm not really versed in his whole philosophy but have enjoyed the studying of it. I might propose some of his ideas for discussion, understanding that I'm still very much a student. I posted long ago on WayDale (?) to see if anyone was interested in him, but no one responded. I wondered if you were familiar with his stuff sirguessalot.
..it reminded me of how the this "one tree" is best observed. And that is from a timeless, choiceless, radically neutral perspective that can be defined as presence, really.
An infinite, wide open, clearing..."nothingness" and "emptiness" are other words often used, but more hindered by stigmas, it seems
this is the condition that predates the big bang
this is the condition that fills every cell and molecule
Here and now, there is no past or future, both are just useful illusions in our head
(or illusions that torment, in many cases)
Each moment is the only thing that exists is right now, in a sense
...which is always everything
when we can fully relax into this, we are witnessing with the very "eye of God" the prophets were referring to
only, it is no longer a mere mythic otherworldly place anymore, but a native generic perspective
where even our own thoughts and feelings are not us, but objects that arise in this clearing that we also are
in other words...we are not merely our thoughts, we not merely our bodies, but we are also that which is simply observing and feeling them
like when the kid and the others said "i am"
its a burning bush fer sure, cuz in a sense, the great Everything becomes that burning bush in your perception
all of reality becomes a fiery inferno engulfing itself
nothing is real, from this state of pure "witnessing awareness"
(which is still only part of the story...more later on that, perhaps)
and it can be shocking to find out how most (even some biblical) ancients used very hard drugs to get here (like those altars of heavy heavy incense in tents, or some serious tobacco soup in peru)
but some also did it by mere meditation, intense prayer, intense diets, fasting, various yogas and dreaming stuff and other methods of deeper interior exploration
some of them...practiced ever cleaner and cleaner ways to literally stop their thinking in order to dwell in this thinnest highest state of awareness
...or maybe stay awake and aware during their dream states and deep dreamless states
varieties of forms of mystic behaviour span all cultures and traditions, regardless of language, often producing the ground of both new science and new religion
and as "history trucks along" (in other words...as this endless "tree" keeps violently exploding in every NOW)
we are always adding new and crazier ways to reach this state of timeless choiceless awareness
in fact, we probably have developed some of the most easy and direct methods to date
this boundless heart, as clay so aptly called it, is a real state of mind and being that can be demonstrated, but requires a deeper subjective participation...
but often times, all it takes is one person to effectively object, and the almost no one can get there
ive read/heard of a variety of classifications of mysticisms:
(most of which, many of us here have experienced and continue to)
- nature mysticism
- psychic and subtler mysticism
- causal mysticism
- formless mysticism
- nondual mysticism (which includes all previous)
again, these are not magic or mythic, but post-rational post-conventional states and stages of normal human awareness.
though as human consciousness evolves, newer states and stages continually emerge to deal with the limits of the previous
of course, there is a lot more to say on such a subject
but that is what feel out of my head from what you wrote
…
to add, i think where people can really lost with it all
and get very very bitter
is when they are stuck with 3rd person of 3rd person perspectives
and finding out that God was nothing all along
and it comes across as real bad news that cant be processed
rather than the good news it really is
(once the language is unravelled a bit, and more brutal honesty (like shadow work) is applied)
and another christmas wish of mine, i guess
is to find ways to help bitter atheists become happier atheists
by seeing the good news of greater inter-subjectivity and more skillfull ways of including the mythic and magic states and stages of life
and find a reason to sit still and shut up and listen long enough to experience the boundless heart for themselves
...basically perform such an injuction for peer review, or admit you've never known or bothered to
though i can understand why someone would become afraid of this, by mistaking it for mere mythic group behaviour
Re:"Sudo, why do you bother? really? you talk about brutal honesty, yet...
you are so dishonest about this subject in so many ways, one could dedicate an entire thread to it."
I bother because I see *myself* 20 years ago in the postings of Jumpinjive. He needed to see that he wasn't the only one who has been down his pathway and to prepare him for what he might find. I'm dishonest, you think? Naw.. I'm being brutally honest here, my man. I have no ax to grind because I have no pie in the sky alternative for our new found friend. If you want to offer him Jesus for everlasting and eternal life singing hosanas then go fer it. I can't prove you're wrong any more than I can prove that the Mormons or Islaamists are wrong.
As I see it, since there are so many competing religons it is up to *YOU* to prove your brand of religion is right over the others. And of course, you can't do that. None of the religions can do that. If they could.. then there would only be one "true" religion, wouldn't there? Which just goes to show.. if there were some god up there wanting to be worshipped, rewarding those who did worship and punishing those who didn't (geeze, pretty cruel guy, huh?) then why did he make the evidence so flimsy that even those WANTING to worship him couldn't come to grips on who the right prophets and holy books were anyways?
And sirguessalot... you think I'm being dishonest? Phttttt... No my friend.. I'm being totally honest which is probably plenty apparent. Your saying I'm being dishonest is just a way of your negating my points. And deep down.. you know that, I hope.
As I see it, since there are so many competing religons it is up to *YOU* to prove your brand of religion is right over the others. And of course, you can't do that. None of the religions can do that. If they could.. then there would only be one "true" religion, wouldn't there? Which just goes to show.. if there were some god up there wanting to be worshipped, rewarding those who did worship and punishing those who didn't (geeze, pretty cruel guy, huh?) then why did he make the evidence so flimsy that even those WANTING to worship him couldn't come to grips on who the right prophets and holy books were anyways?
this is a big part of where i think you are being dishonest, my friend
cuz i basically agree with your overall arguments here
but it DOES NOT always apply to every use of religious language
yet you keep repeating it like it DOES always apply...like a broken record
which is dishonest, even if you are deceiving yourself
in this, you are ignorant, imo
and dishonest about the possibility of your own ignorance
your refusal to address your own slick reductionism is also dishonesty in this regard, imo
also, your persistance to repeat yourself is telling, imo
and your refusal to address this kind of stuff
and how it tends to shut down dialogue that might be meaningful to others
imo, Clay's notion of a "boundless heart" has very little to do with what you argue against
and you either dont know it, or refuse to acknowledge it, or something
this is also dishonest, imo
regardless, you keep pooping on a table where some folks wish to sit and break bread in peace
and you seem quite oblivious to where and how you are confused about the actual subject matter
and more or less oblivious of the actual intentions of many if not most of the participants
(yet keep claiming you know them, and that your reduced versions are somehow adequate)
once you remove yourself from the throne that rightfully belongs to the true God of the Heart, the chains will be broken, and this boundless heart will have it's chance here and now to defeat death and it's sting, or wait untill death andf life and hell and heaven is the only thing left to look at
Wow - I go a way for a few days and miss all this....
In my opinion, we may just have ourselves some religious-phoebes (read that line like Yosemite Sam) who do not distinguish between "belief" and "religious belief"... or somethin' else… and just want to squirt on a thread -
I read this thread from start to finish. I thought this thread was about seeing and then believing - Did I miss it???
Anyway... something - based upon the evidence we all see every day... the same evidence... At least that Clay posted.
CM - GREAT THREAD TITLE - (and as the thread topic “starter” - you get the same rights as anyone to set the tone and topic... IMHO). I thought your first post was quite clear.
But then… enter the phobes.
Yes, the religo-phobes -
It seems that some think this was a sort of salvo to start a fight... like wagging a bare butt in the Castro district... in front of a homophobe - flaunting "your belief in GOD” under their very atheistic noses...
Man – oh man - if anyone thinks that... was what was CMs idea... my only comment is - what have you been thinkin...?? Who has been beatin’ you guys up??? Who has p i s s e d in your Cheerio's?
My guess is, you've had your “self” degraded with terms like UN-believer – PAGAN… etc. by some religious folks. But those labels do not really hurt you guys….
No, I think it may have been the accompaning scorn – that got under your skins… and you don't like it...
If scorn is what you see... then scorn is what you have been seeing....
So if you see and "create" scorn from your own belief/perceptions... then you are stating what you believe in your posts.
Now let me say this… Not that I would NOW defend religious people who attack you guys - because I SURE would not - that is crap!!! (IMHO)
No matter if we got whacked during TWI years or --- when we suffer ridicule from “friends” and relatives AFTER we decided our new belief is that of proclaiming - splinter... or traditional... or ... atheism.
And Garth – that link – which I listened too – your point was what to Clay???? Honestly. I hardly think that Penn and Co. with their expletives and iconoclasm had much to offer except destruction or de-construction…. So – what were you reacting to… ???? - Clay’s statement???? ... which was:
in the air you breath
in the life you live
in the boundless heart
Did this sound to you like a MF stupid bible thumper....???
Do you have more in your heart than trite-stuff and bashing links… or bile for "believers"???
Garth, please read and check out The Knowledge of Freedom by Rudolph Steiner. This is written by a guy - about 100 years ago - who was rejected by nearly everybody... but ended up starting (although he did not try) a world-wide movement. A thinker. Articulated the concept of... Western Mysticism - tested by science.) My point is this...
We all – “believer” and “un-believer” could benefit from his work.
Why did I post this... ?
Because although my beliefs have changed DRASTICALLY, since TWI - I know that in my soul I am a believer…
Let me define, please... meaning: I use the lack of significant doubt to allow me to consider a thing… in my mind. That is what "I" mean by belief.
Like Descartes… I think. Therefore, I know – I am. And I know that I have an “I” because I BELIEVE…
We are not creatures of proof.
We are, creatures of belief.
And CM… just for the record:
I do believe in the air that we breath…
the love we share… and a boundless heart –
Oh and SUDO... this is not a resonse to your last post... nor anyone in particular... for that matter... I just happend to read this from start to finish and post.
I think the only one I mentioned by name that may have questions is Garth... but that was only because his link was ????? what to CM?
Well, I might say ditto TGN, this is one of those WD/GS things I guess, goes round and round. Tis the season to be jolly.
Sudo, you probably know how I feel. You're making your own argument, directing it at the usual suspects and taking cheap shots that don't do you or anyone else justice, plus they don't make much of a dent because they don't really deal with the original topic. It amounts to - dunno, it's like the same old joke about the same old guy who slips on the same old banana peel. Who said anything about Christians, Jews or Muslims? Your comments are, to me, the flip side alternative to a Pat Roberton spiel, very predictable. You're capable of much better exchanges my man.
Penn and Teller's video is entertaining, in the same way their act always is. I'm a fan. They're magicians, they do a magic act. They do the set up, explain why the trick isn't magic at all, and "expose" the trickery openly for all to see. See? There's no magic here! Just a busty broad in a tight outfit and a skinny faker with bad hair! They use misdirection to set you up for their trick which sneaks in at the end with an "oh - by the way" kind of nonchalance and it nails you! They're good, they're really good and I like their act.
I personally don't believe in "magic", and don't believe that faith in God is anything like magic. I think it's a shallow mind that sees the two as on the same plane. It eliminates the fact that matters of faith can be built on actual events and experience that can be explained in any number of ways, not just a single denial or affirmation. Which is where I'm reading CM's thread as going.
Well, you lost me Too Gray. I understand your thought regarding the thread being about seeing and then believing. Fair enough. But what does
in the air you breath
in the life you live
in the boundless heart
have to do with anything at all? These are meaningless words which bring us no closer to 'believing' than random words from the dictionary. Unless, of course, CM was thinking in a specific context, which I 'believe' he was. But his context wasn't clear from the beginning, hence several posts asking, "What's the point?" I don't know CM and haven't read his posts outside of this subject so maybe I'm a bit naive, but I suspect his context is a Way-like belief in God.
Which is okay, but, going further, it seems to me you have to have an object to believe in before you can believe. CM's belief in God is all well and good, if that is what he chooses to believe. Its just that his choice of prose doesn't convey it to me. His further statements, like
if the heart is bound, then unbind it
are equally meaningless. How is the heart bound and how does one unbind it. How does one know if their heart needs unbinding? Can one do the unbinding on their own or do they need spiritual help? If they need spiritual help, how is that help acquired? God in Christ in You? The seed of the dead Christ? Some other formula? What results are to be expected? Should we expect results when dealing with the things of God? ...?
Some, like Sudo and George approach and answer these questions differently than you or CM or sirguessalot might. But I'm not seeing anything illegitimate in their responses. Well, maybe some of the delivery could be refined, but its hard to argue with the content. I have not found a way in many years of trying to confidently understand what God is about nor do I see how that knowledge can be confidently ascertained from the pages of the bible. Looking outside the bible seems to me to be an honest location in which to seek answers.
You said "I know that in my soul I am a believer..." and I can appreciate and respect that. I feel that way myself. I want it badly and I'm seeking something far greater than myself, something well beyond this earthly life I live, but as Sudo stated, wanting it doesn't make it so. If its there I'd like to know more about it. I just have not found a way to do that.
Sudo could be right, I might be in deep trouble now.
Some folks here acuse Sudo (and of course other infidels here, like yours truly) of pooping on 'the table of those here' on this thread. Others wonder why we ever post our ((cough)) 'bitterness', our disbelief, our 'poopy' skepticism, et al. ... And yet, look at the thread title:
How can you not believe
Now, I'm no grammar and English professor, but I believe (Ohhh looky! GarthP2000 finally believes!) that that is addressed to those who don't believe. (Uh ohh, is this a throwback to PFAL? Ya know, 'to whom it is addressed'? :o Not to worry, I have no green cards for anyone to sign ;) )
So here we come with why we might not believe, and some folks here go ape-&$*#. (See my post earlier about when us blasphemers state why we don't believe in your deity and how the more religious rant and rave about that)
And the Penn and Teller video? I know that they are magicians, but the central point that they were making wasn't a magic trick, ..... unless getting you to think is something that parallels pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
Nowhere on this thread is any poop session going on. Deal with the fact that there are those who are more open about voicing why they don't believe, and getting your panties in a knot is no way to deal with that. Else those of us who don't believe will scoff, and make comments about how you help prove our points by doing that. I mean, how many times have we unbelievers been 'pooped on' by those who state openly that we are going to burn in hell, that we aren't moral, that we are ruining this country and that we just cannot be patriotic Americans because we don't believe. ... And that isn't the worst things that atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and the like have experienced over the years from religious folks, believe you me. Some of the unbelievers I know can tell of accounts that will drop your jaw.
So spare us the "I'm being pooped on here" drama queen routine, please. It gets old kinda fast, and I have a weak stomach.
I've seen myself change in this subject, as well the surrounding ones touched on in this thread. And one thing I know is there's much truth to anything we hold onto being found wanting if we don't know what we're holding onto. Robotic responses that keep you off the carpet don't buy a stick of gum in the real world. I guess for that I can thank twi. After accepting more than I should have I've learned to know the merchandise a bit more before I purchase. Yet I still can't prove to some how that can be. But that's okay by me and I reckon it can be for the other party as well.
Nowhere on this thread is any poop session going on.
ha! yet most all that comes out of his mouth is "crap! crap! crap! crap! crap!"
who cant see the "poop" everywhere
the elephant is in the room, garth
and your posts are that room
so i am going to return the favor
and crap on you, too
...say "cheese"
Some folks here acuse Sudo (and of course other infidels here, like yours truly) of pooping on 'the table of those here' on this thread. Others wonder why we ever post our ((cough)) 'bitterness', our disbelief, our 'poopy' skepticism, et al. ...
did you notice that the word "infidel" has not been used here by anyone, except YOU?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
i tell ya, all this may be "normal" behaviour to you, dude
which is a travesty
btw - i never called skepticism "poopy" either
i dont even believe that
and i dont even think yer an infidel atheist
or rather, that being one is wrong or evil
heck, i am an infidel atheist, too
but im not gonna badger the *%^#* out of someone over it
i just think yer rude and getting ruder, and disrupt the flow of conversation, overall
but somehow simply cannot will not admit that you are responsible for it
you reduce and mock and ridicule to cover your true reasons for posting
(unless ridicule and mockery are your only intent...either way..it sucks)
so, i am intentionally in your face being rude, dude
because i think your very specific manner stinks up the place
consider my behaviour an exaggeration of your behavoiur in a funhouse mirror
i think its more about a sense of style
and greater respect for everyone
including youself
for gawd's sake please learn a new note
realize that not every conversation started is your personal playground to crack beer jokes
though you may even think it is your patriotic right and duty to do so
So here we come with why we might not believe...
there is some more bs...you know it
fake pious crap, too
this thread never had a chance from the moment you touched it
and some folks here go ape-&$*#
yep. like i said above
wild-eyed war-painted GWB-style over what i see as massively disruptive behaviour
at least i own my crap
yes...i am being a mean nasty bonehead
because i too, have had it, and am also sick to my stomach
and i wish i could vomit on your lap right now
like yer drunken date
toasting beers in order to insult and devalue someone's opinions...
is the same as getting "panties tied in a wad"
its just that one of these is more fake
and i tell ya, overall
you make the same mistake as the other guys
over and over again
by misunderstanding the subject matter
and shooting off yer mouth
yall jumped the gun on this thread
based mostly on illusions in your own head
im not sure if its because your too lazy to investigate things
or have simply given up looking for anything altogether
either way, im sure it takes a lot lot lot less energy to respond the way you do
like taking the easy way out
i am here to ask you to stop thinking you have the right to push blame for your suggestive hmm hmm behaviour onto anyone else, while you needle away at a conversation... (like i am doing now)
accusations of insanity and mental illness and worthlessness suck
especially if the loudest mouths are ignorant and no longer interested in the subject matter
which has as much to do with psychology and perception as it does spirituallity and religion
overall, i think garth just likes to banter a lot a lot a lot
The clear implication of the title of the thread is that - not only is CM addressing the unbelievers - but there is something WRONG with them. They don't believe what he does. How can they not? What's WRONG with them anyway?
Well, maybe nothing. Maybe his criteria for what constitutes a plausible belief is what's ailing.
And Socks, I gotta disagree with you re: the Penn and Teller clip. I thought it was pretty well thought out. Bombastic and profane, fer sure, but definitely food for thought.
The best line I heard in the show was from Michael Shermer "Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons." Explained a lot for me.
Oh, and BTW, if religion and Godly worship and all that are so vital to a good, healthy, fulfilling life and all, why is it that life expectancy was only 28 yrs. in the time of Christ and is in the mid-70s today? Have we gotten that much more holy, closer to God, over the centuries? And all throught the Dark Ages - even though people were building cathedrals and attending mass and paying obeisance to The Almighty, nothing improved. But come the renaissance, and a rebirth of scientific thought and inquiry, lo and behold our quality and length of life improves exponentially. Gosh, I wonder why that is?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
10
30
7
Popular Days
Dec 26
27
Dec 28
26
Dec 27
24
Dec 24
11
Top Posters In This Topic
sirguessalot 23 posts
GarthP2000 10 posts
CM 30 posts
Sudo 7 posts
Popular Days
Dec 26 2005
27 posts
Dec 28 2005
26 posts
Dec 27 2005
24 posts
Dec 24 2005
11 posts
CM
5 possibly more? pfal still leaves it's marks
no no no the Lord don't play those games
either it happens or it don't
and he won't stop till he's done
Yeah...the boudless heart sirguessalot
we limit it by our own doing
and certainly it has an eternal flame to it
have we limited the ability of the Christ?
have we limited the ability of God
are they not in us?
not unusual to limit God who is limitless though..lol
(sheesh-the more i say it just adds to the post that's already there! lol)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I had a friend once who's Pappy used to call him that, he'd say "this'uns our favorite li'l mis-tik!" or sumthin like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
this might help all yalls in expanding the definitions of Satori's observation:
Wikipedia: Mysticism
and Wikipedia: Cynicism
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hey SGA, howdy! I was thinking of tossing this out on your topic CM. I've got a busy week ahead and may not be checking in as infrequently as usual, but there's some stuff I've been studying for several years by a philosopher named Henri Bergson. I've read two of his books, Memory and Matter and Creative Evolution. (which sounds like Creationism in title, but has nothing to do wth that).
I'm currently reading The Creative Mind. Bergson is dealing with intellect and intution in this collection. His views on time and "reality" are really interesting. He poses that science and philosophy can produce knowledge that isn't exclusive but can be in harmony so that seemingy contradictory perceptions of reality converge. I'm not really versed in his whole philosophy but have enjoyed the studying of it. I might propose some of his ideas for discussion, understanding that I'm still very much a student. I posted long ago on WayDale (?) to see if anyone was interested in him, but no one responded. I wondered if you were familiar with his stuff sirguessalot.
One basic idea he proposes that's been a help to me is in the basic idea of time and how it's viewed by a person. Although it wasn't new he makes a very good case for seeing time as a continuous strip of, call it matter for want of a better word. Whereas I typically would view time from a view of "things lived" or done standpoint that separates it into events and measurable increments, the idea is that time is all connected and so the past , present and future is one long undivided strip of consciousness. (okay I get a little nervous when I start using words like consciousness cuz my left brain starts thumb wrestling with my right brain and it turns into a food fight but hopefully that starts to get it across)
Where I have at times looked at my past life of events as separable from who I am at this moment, they are in fact not when looked at from Bergson's view. In fact a simple conclusion of that idea would be that I am right now exactly what I have been in the past up to this point. I will be tomorrow more of the same. Now that's not earth shaking but I found that I haven't always thought that way, rather I've tried to look at the past as a string of good and bad choices, actions, things I liked or didn't like, things that were done to me or that I did, etc. Instead with this view I simply look at it (or try to) from more of an "all at once" kind of attitude and at that point, I find there's a kind of peaceful result. I am, simply put, who I am. You are the same, and in fact we are joined together by the common ground of this "duration" of reality, as he puts it.
Where this resonated in relation to the thread topic is that the idea of believing, or having a faith of some kind that doesn't....seem to...have grounding in reality is that Bergson proposes that the intuitive part of our lives is that part that can add to the intellectual part of life. Together they form a person's "reality", not exclusive or at odds but a whole view.
Hmmmm, maybe it's not really connected to the topic, but it seemed like it was for a second, so I'm tossing it out. :)
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
hi socks
i'm not familiar with Henri Bergson, but i found this
looks like a heck of a nice read, with all kinds of white rabbits
but just in skimming it
and going by what you have written here
looks one of many many western mysticish thinkers and writers of his time
his connection to William James is interesting, too
especially considering that that second paragraph on the mysticism entry:
"Mystics claim to experience intuitive knowledge of transcendent dimensions, beyond the phenomenal or material concrete objects of ordinary perception. The mystic claims to see things that are not part of ordinary experience. William James used the words "ineffable" (which means that something cannot or should not be spoken) and "noetic" (from the Greek νοῦς nous: "relating to consciousness or intuition"), to describe the mystical experience."
as far as the rest of your post...
as far as what i know of the states and stages of oneness and timelessness and whatnot..
...i think it all relates very strongly to Clay's notion of a boundless heart
a conversation i am also interested in having in more depth, some day
though in a way that allows for more patience and curious ease with each other
cuz i think we can also get even more skeptical and very specific with it all if we want, in that kind of space
no...i know we can
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life is but a dream.
--
It's all there, in the song. The lyrics, the melody, the message combine to express the ineffable wisdom of the ages. There is nothing else we need to know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
ha. yeah. sounds to me like something someone says when they are more or less stuck in a mystical state
partially very very true
but sorely lacking very very much
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Well, I'm still not real clear on the point of this thread, which in a nutshell summarizes my thoughts on the bible. I don't think my lack of clarity has anything to do with not looking. I see plenty going on. Unfortunately, not much of it guides me into the belief that there is an active and benevolent God directing the affairs of human history. If I had to guess, I would say it is precisely because I am looking that I am having my doubts.
Contrast that with the Penn and Teller piece which is direct and to the point. Perhaps a bit childish in its presentation but its content is clear and hard to argrue with. They say what they mean and mean what they say. (Did I say that??) Could not the God of the universe have communicated at least that efficiently?
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Jumpinjive.. you posted:
Re:"If I had to guess, I would say it is precisely because I am looking that I am having my doubts."
Well, you're in deep trouble now, dude. I can tell you from personal experience that once you start down that road of looking honestly, you're going to wind up a dang infidel!! Now, there may be hope for you yet! YES! Just don't allow yourself to consider the more extreme positions (like.. all the religions are pretty much the same and hence are all man made) and maybe stick to the premise that *Christianity* is the one true religion.
Because if you throw it ALL up to inspection, you will find it ALL (and that's 'all' without exception :P) comes out wanting. How can I say this? Look at what you'll find! The Christians say they are the one true religion and have holy books to back them up that say if you aren't a Christian, you aren't going to Heaven. The Muslims say they are the one true religion and have holy books to back them up that say if you aren't a Muslim, you aren't going to Heaven. The Mormons are the one true religion of the one true religion by way of an extra book.. the book of Mormon (praise be upon its typefont) and is one of the FASTEST growing religions around. Its really doing good in South America where they preach all the Indians are decendants of the 10 lost tribes of Israel who got in dugout canoes and traveled to the Americas from Israel before the time of Jesus... WHO incidentally appeared to them in the Americas after his resurection.
The Jews have Jehova talking to Moses (anyone TODAY hearing the voice of the Almighty is thrown into protective custody) from a burning bush on Mt. Whatever (Oh, yeah, now I remember.. been a long time since PFAL... Sinai) and folks accept it without batting an eye because they WANT to. They don't subject it to real analysis like you may be doing. It depends on how seriously you look into it and how brutally honest you are willing to get. You have to be willing to accept what you find. Few people are willing to do that. If they were.... we would all be the same religion.
I guess it comes as no surpise to you, Jumpinjive, that I've already done what you are now in the process of doing. I've looked at it long and hard. And wanting something so BADLY to be true doesn't make it so. Case in point? The Rainbow Bridge thread posted in the Open forum. Click HERE!! and see how it works right here on Greasespot. I, too, would love to see pets after I die. But that doesn't make it so, does it? But to some?? Why, "How could a loving God not..."?
All comes back to what exists... and what doesn't. And wanting it to be one way or the other doesn't change what *is*. The question to you is... how honest are you going to be with yourself?? Hmmm??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Sudo, why do you bother? really? you talk about brutal honesty, yet...
you are so dishonest about this subject in so many ways, one could dedicate an entire thread to it
and you basically only repeat your same limited bitter reductionist story
...which, btw, is so textbook and typical of one who is highly uninformed as to what science has discovered regarding human thought and behaviour and consciousness
...i am almost afraid to tell you (not that you would listen to a punk like me)
i mean, what is at stake here, for you, anyway?
what keeps you hounding and picking away at the conversation with no new information and new point of view?
and for as much you like to poop and spit on the tables other people have set
your truer intent is still hidden behind your suggestively loaded questions
which is just creepy, imo
btw-did you read the cynic entry on the wikip?
doesn't that pretty much sum up what you probably look and sound like to others?
or can you even see yourself from the perspective of others?
btw - i would still like to have that conversation on the boundless heart some day
but all it takes is one "wailing banshee" to shut down the whole thing
(according to the studies)
to finally see that there is no god as described by the mythic believers is a good thing,
but it produces its own new problems, which requires even newer structures of consciousness to solve
(if they are even allowed to come...which, in cynical doctrines, are not...).
and so, depending on how one comes to this stage, here are two extreme interpretations of the same conclusions:
1) there is no mythic god, and this is horrible news, and i am ....ed off at everything and everyone
2) there is no mythic god, and this is good news, because that was not what most of the traditions were talking about anyway
to one, the value of myth remains, as well as the ability for social activity and sharing and wishing for things together...
to the other, our personal mythic self suffers, and maybe we can hardly stand the thought of breaking a wishbone...
basically, something was broken on the way up jacob's ladder,
and it comes back to haunt us til we comeback down to deal with it
(which typically means making the cause of the anger a "mine" rather than an "it" that you blame on "other")
...
socks,
i really like your own words on it:
Reminds me of what has often been called a "book of God's memory" in many traditions.The view that everything that ever has been simply always still is underneath.
In other words...in one sense, how nothing ever goes away.
It is all just added/consumed...universally, which means this one "tree" is huge huge huge and blossoming very rapidly right now
...always getting more huge...this is the awesome might and terror of god
...where answers naturally get dramatically less simple as creation/evolution marches on
(though, thank god our capacity to process the info tends to increase, too)
Ive also heard it called the "Akashic" record, in some old stories.
The notion that what is, simply is, and always will be, just like the Bible stories try to get at here and there
...even skeptics might agree on this one
In one sense (in some places in the texts) what some of the ancients were often referring as "God" is also this very "tree."
This one single thing that simply is if you simply include everything...every every every thing
but that is still only part of the story
because the question remains...who or what is it that looking at this grande "it?"
and when you wrote this:
..it reminded me of how the this "one tree" is best observed. And that is from a timeless, choiceless, radically neutral perspective that can be defined as presence, really.
An infinite, wide open, clearing..."nothingness" and "emptiness" are other words often used, but more hindered by stigmas, it seems
this is the condition that predates the big bang
this is the condition that fills every cell and molecule
Here and now, there is no past or future, both are just useful illusions in our head
(or illusions that torment, in many cases)
Each moment is the only thing that exists is right now, in a sense
...which is always everything
when we can fully relax into this, we are witnessing with the very "eye of God" the prophets were referring to
only, it is no longer a mere mythic otherworldly place anymore, but a native generic perspective
where even our own thoughts and feelings are not us, but objects that arise in this clearing that we also are
in other words...we are not merely our thoughts, we not merely our bodies, but we are also that which is simply observing and feeling them
like when the kid and the others said "i am"
its a burning bush fer sure, cuz in a sense, the great Everything becomes that burning bush in your perception
all of reality becomes a fiery inferno engulfing itself
nothing is real, from this state of pure "witnessing awareness"
(which is still only part of the story...more later on that, perhaps)
and it can be shocking to find out how most (even some biblical) ancients used very hard drugs to get here (like those altars of heavy heavy incense in tents, or some serious tobacco soup in peru)
but some also did it by mere meditation, intense prayer, intense diets, fasting, various yogas and dreaming stuff and other methods of deeper interior exploration
some of them...practiced ever cleaner and cleaner ways to literally stop their thinking in order to dwell in this thinnest highest state of awareness
...or maybe stay awake and aware during their dream states and deep dreamless states
varieties of forms of mystic behaviour span all cultures and traditions, regardless of language, often producing the ground of both new science and new religion
and as "history trucks along" (in other words...as this endless "tree" keeps violently exploding in every NOW)
we are always adding new and crazier ways to reach this state of timeless choiceless awareness
in fact, we probably have developed some of the most easy and direct methods to date
this boundless heart, as clay so aptly called it, is a real state of mind and being that can be demonstrated, but requires a deeper subjective participation...
but often times, all it takes is one person to effectively object, and the almost no one can get there
ive read/heard of a variety of classifications of mysticisms:
(most of which, many of us here have experienced and continue to)
- nature mysticism
- psychic and subtler mysticism
- causal mysticism
- formless mysticism
- nondual mysticism (which includes all previous)
again, these are not magic or mythic, but post-rational post-conventional states and stages of normal human awareness.
though as human consciousness evolves, newer states and stages continually emerge to deal with the limits of the previous
of course, there is a lot more to say on such a subject
but that is what feel out of my head from what you wrote
…
to add, i think where people can really lost with it all
and get very very bitter
is when they are stuck with 3rd person of 3rd person perspectives
and finding out that God was nothing all along
and it comes across as real bad news that cant be processed
rather than the good news it really is
(once the language is unravelled a bit, and more brutal honesty (like shadow work) is applied)
and another christmas wish of mine, i guess
is to find ways to help bitter atheists become happier atheists
by seeing the good news of greater inter-subjectivity and more skillfull ways of including the mythic and magic states and stages of life
and find a reason to sit still and shut up and listen long enough to experience the boundless heart for themselves
...basically perform such an injuction for peer review, or admit you've never known or bothered to
though i can understand why someone would become afraid of this, by mistaking it for mere mythic group behaviour
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Sirguessalot,
Re:"Sudo, why do you bother? really? you talk about brutal honesty, yet...
you are so dishonest about this subject in so many ways, one could dedicate an entire thread to it."
I bother because I see *myself* 20 years ago in the postings of Jumpinjive. He needed to see that he wasn't the only one who has been down his pathway and to prepare him for what he might find. I'm dishonest, you think? Naw.. I'm being brutally honest here, my man. I have no ax to grind because I have no pie in the sky alternative for our new found friend. If you want to offer him Jesus for everlasting and eternal life singing hosanas then go fer it. I can't prove you're wrong any more than I can prove that the Mormons or Islaamists are wrong.
As I see it, since there are so many competing religons it is up to *YOU* to prove your brand of religion is right over the others. And of course, you can't do that. None of the religions can do that. If they could.. then there would only be one "true" religion, wouldn't there? Which just goes to show.. if there were some god up there wanting to be worshipped, rewarding those who did worship and punishing those who didn't (geeze, pretty cruel guy, huh?) then why did he make the evidence so flimsy that even those WANTING to worship him couldn't come to grips on who the right prophets and holy books were anyways?
And sirguessalot... you think I'm being dishonest? Phttttt... No my friend.. I'm being totally honest which is probably plenty apparent. Your saying I'm being dishonest is just a way of your negating my points. And deep down.. you know that, I hope.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
yes Sudo, keep Him out of reach
for yourself and others
i've got no religion to prove
proof will be there..guarnteed
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
this is a big part of where i think you are being dishonest, my friend
cuz i basically agree with your overall arguments here
but it DOES NOT always apply to every use of religious language
yet you keep repeating it like it DOES always apply...like a broken record
which is dishonest, even if you are deceiving yourself
in this, you are ignorant, imo
and dishonest about the possibility of your own ignorance
your refusal to address your own slick reductionism is also dishonesty in this regard, imo
also, your persistance to repeat yourself is telling, imo
and your refusal to address this kind of stuff
and how it tends to shut down dialogue that might be meaningful to others
imo, Clay's notion of a "boundless heart" has very little to do with what you argue against
and you either dont know it, or refuse to acknowledge it, or something
this is also dishonest, imo
regardless, you keep pooping on a table where some folks wish to sit and break bread in peace
and you seem quite oblivious to where and how you are confused about the actual subject matter
and more or less oblivious of the actual intentions of many if not most of the participants
(yet keep claiming you know them, and that your reduced versions are somehow adequate)
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Its hard for me to follow you, Sirguessalot. I'll just chalk it up to my ignorance. May you have a great life full of blessings! :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
once you remove yourself from the throne that rightfully belongs to the true God of the Heart, the chains will be broken, and this boundless heart will have it's chance here and now to defeat death and it's sting, or wait untill death andf life and hell and heaven is the only thing left to look at
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
Wow - I go a way for a few days and miss all this....
In my opinion, we may just have ourselves some religious-phoebes (read that line like Yosemite Sam) who do not distinguish between "belief" and "religious belief"... or somethin' else… and just want to squirt on a thread -
I read this thread from start to finish. I thought this thread was about seeing and then believing - Did I miss it???
Anyway... something - based upon the evidence we all see every day... the same evidence... At least that Clay posted.
CM - GREAT THREAD TITLE - (and as the thread topic “starter” - you get the same rights as anyone to set the tone and topic... IMHO). I thought your first post was quite clear.
But then… enter the phobes.
Yes, the religo-phobes -
It seems that some think this was a sort of salvo to start a fight... like wagging a bare butt in the Castro district... in front of a homophobe - flaunting "your belief in GOD” under their very atheistic noses...
Man – oh man - if anyone thinks that... was what was CMs idea... my only comment is - what have you been thinkin...?? Who has been beatin’ you guys up??? Who has p i s s e d in your Cheerio's?
My guess is, you've had your “self” degraded with terms like UN-believer – PAGAN… etc. by some religious folks. But those labels do not really hurt you guys….
No, I think it may have been the accompaning scorn – that got under your skins… and you don't like it...
If scorn is what you see... then scorn is what you have been seeing....
So if you see and "create" scorn from your own belief/perceptions... then you are stating what you believe in your posts.
Now let me say this… Not that I would NOW defend religious people who attack you guys - because I SURE would not - that is crap!!! (IMHO)
No matter if we got whacked during TWI years or --- when we suffer ridicule from “friends” and relatives AFTER we decided our new belief is that of proclaiming - splinter... or traditional... or ... atheism.
And Garth – that link – which I listened too – your point was what to Clay???? Honestly. I hardly think that Penn and Co. with their expletives and iconoclasm had much to offer except destruction or de-construction…. So – what were you reacting to… ???? - Clay’s statement???? ... which was:
in the air you breath
in the life you live
in the boundless heart
Did this sound to you like a MF stupid bible thumper....???
Do you have more in your heart than trite-stuff and bashing links… or bile for "believers"???
Garth, please read and check out The Knowledge of Freedom by Rudolph Steiner. This is written by a guy - about 100 years ago - who was rejected by nearly everybody... but ended up starting (although he did not try) a world-wide movement. A thinker. Articulated the concept of... Western Mysticism - tested by science.) My point is this...
We all – “believer” and “un-believer” could benefit from his work.
Why did I post this... ?
Because although my beliefs have changed DRASTICALLY, since TWI - I know that in my soul I am a believer…
Let me define, please... meaning: I use the lack of significant doubt to allow me to consider a thing… in my mind. That is what "I" mean by belief.
Like Descartes… I think. Therefore, I know – I am. And I know that I have an “I” because I BELIEVE…
We are not creatures of proof.
We are, creatures of belief.
And CM… just for the record:
I do believe in the air that we breath…
the love we share… and a boundless heart –
Oh and SUDO... this is not a resonse to your last post... nor anyone in particular... for that matter... I just happend to read this from start to finish and post.
I think the only one I mentioned by name that may have questions is Garth... but that was only because his link was ????? what to CM?
Edited by Too Gray NowLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Well, I might say ditto TGN, this is one of those WD/GS things I guess, goes round and round. Tis the season to be jolly.
Sudo, you probably know how I feel. You're making your own argument, directing it at the usual suspects and taking cheap shots that don't do you or anyone else justice, plus they don't make much of a dent because they don't really deal with the original topic. It amounts to - dunno, it's like the same old joke about the same old guy who slips on the same old banana peel. Who said anything about Christians, Jews or Muslims? Your comments are, to me, the flip side alternative to a Pat Roberton spiel, very predictable. You're capable of much better exchanges my man.
Penn and Teller's video is entertaining, in the same way their act always is. I'm a fan. They're magicians, they do a magic act. They do the set up, explain why the trick isn't magic at all, and "expose" the trickery openly for all to see. See? There's no magic here! Just a busty broad in a tight outfit and a skinny faker with bad hair! They use misdirection to set you up for their trick which sneaks in at the end with an "oh - by the way" kind of nonchalance and it nails you! They're good, they're really good and I like their act.
I personally don't believe in "magic", and don't believe that faith in God is anything like magic. I think it's a shallow mind that sees the two as on the same plane. It eliminates the fact that matters of faith can be built on actual events and experience that can be explained in any number of ways, not just a single denial or affirmation. Which is where I'm reading CM's thread as going.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Well, you lost me Too Gray. I understand your thought regarding the thread being about seeing and then believing. Fair enough. But what does
in the air you breath
in the life you live
in the boundless heart
have to do with anything at all? These are meaningless words which bring us no closer to 'believing' than random words from the dictionary. Unless, of course, CM was thinking in a specific context, which I 'believe' he was. But his context wasn't clear from the beginning, hence several posts asking, "What's the point?" I don't know CM and haven't read his posts outside of this subject so maybe I'm a bit naive, but I suspect his context is a Way-like belief in God.
Which is okay, but, going further, it seems to me you have to have an object to believe in before you can believe. CM's belief in God is all well and good, if that is what he chooses to believe. Its just that his choice of prose doesn't convey it to me. His further statements, like
if the heart is bound, then unbind it
are equally meaningless. How is the heart bound and how does one unbind it. How does one know if their heart needs unbinding? Can one do the unbinding on their own or do they need spiritual help? If they need spiritual help, how is that help acquired? God in Christ in You? The seed of the dead Christ? Some other formula? What results are to be expected? Should we expect results when dealing with the things of God? ...?
Some, like Sudo and George approach and answer these questions differently than you or CM or sirguessalot might. But I'm not seeing anything illegitimate in their responses. Well, maybe some of the delivery could be refined, but its hard to argue with the content. I have not found a way in many years of trying to confidently understand what God is about nor do I see how that knowledge can be confidently ascertained from the pages of the bible. Looking outside the bible seems to me to be an honest location in which to seek answers.
You said "I know that in my soul I am a believer..." and I can appreciate and respect that. I feel that way myself. I want it badly and I'm seeking something far greater than myself, something well beyond this earthly life I live, but as Sudo stated, wanting it doesn't make it so. If its there I'd like to know more about it. I just have not found a way to do that.
Sudo could be right, I might be in deep trouble now.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
And since this is true for some,
The *boundless heart* should make sense to all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Like I said. Fascinating, just fascinating!
Some folks here acuse Sudo (and of course other infidels here, like yours truly) of pooping on 'the table of those here' on this thread. Others wonder why we ever post our ((cough)) 'bitterness', our disbelief, our 'poopy' skepticism, et al. ... And yet, look at the thread title:
Now, I'm no grammar and English professor, but I believe (Ohhh looky! GarthP2000 finally believes!) that that is addressed to those who don't believe. (Uh ohh, is this a throwback to PFAL? Ya know, 'to whom it is addressed'? :o Not to worry, I have no green cards for anyone to sign ;) )
So here we come with why we might not believe, and some folks here go ape-&$*#. (See my post earlier about when us blasphemers state why we don't believe in your deity and how the more religious rant and rave about that)
And the Penn and Teller video? I know that they are magicians, but the central point that they were making wasn't a magic trick, ..... unless getting you to think is something that parallels pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
Nowhere on this thread is any poop session going on. Deal with the fact that there are those who are more open about voicing why they don't believe, and getting your panties in a knot is no way to deal with that. Else those of us who don't believe will scoff, and make comments about how you help prove our points by doing that. I mean, how many times have we unbelievers been 'pooped on' by those who state openly that we are going to burn in hell, that we aren't moral, that we are ruining this country and that we just cannot be patriotic Americans because we don't believe. ... And that isn't the worst things that atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and the like have experienced over the years from religious folks, believe you me. Some of the unbelievers I know can tell of accounts that will drop your jaw.
So spare us the "I'm being pooped on here" drama queen routine, please. It gets old kinda fast, and I have a weak stomach.
Other than that, party on!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I've seen myself change in this subject, as well the surrounding ones touched on in this thread. And one thing I know is there's much truth to anything we hold onto being found wanting if we don't know what we're holding onto. Robotic responses that keep you off the carpet don't buy a stick of gum in the real world. I guess for that I can thank twi. After accepting more than I should have I've learned to know the merchandise a bit more before I purchase. Yet I still can't prove to some how that can be. But that's okay by me and I reckon it can be for the other party as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
who cant see the "poop" everywhere
the elephant is in the room, garth
and your posts are that room
so i am going to return the favor
and crap on you, too
...say "cheese"
did you notice that the word "infidel" has not been used here by anyone, except YOU?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
i tell ya, all this may be "normal" behaviour to you, dude
which is a travesty
btw - i never called skepticism "poopy" either
i dont even believe that
and i dont even think yer an infidel atheist
or rather, that being one is wrong or evil
heck, i am an infidel atheist, too
but im not gonna badger the *%^#* out of someone over it
i just think yer rude and getting ruder, and disrupt the flow of conversation, overall
but somehow simply cannot will not admit that you are responsible for it
you reduce and mock and ridicule to cover your true reasons for posting
(unless ridicule and mockery are your only intent...either way..it sucks)
so, i am intentionally in your face being rude, dude
because i think your very specific manner stinks up the place
consider my behaviour an exaggeration of your behavoiur in a funhouse mirror
i think its more about a sense of style
and greater respect for everyone
including youself
for gawd's sake please learn a new note
realize that not every conversation started is your personal playground to crack beer jokes
though you may even think it is your patriotic right and duty to do so
there is some more bs...you know itfake pious crap, too
this thread never had a chance from the moment you touched it
yep. like i said above
wild-eyed war-painted GWB-style over what i see as massively disruptive behaviour
at least i own my crap
yes...i am being a mean nasty bonehead
because i too, have had it, and am also sick to my stomach
and i wish i could vomit on your lap right now
like yer drunken date
toasting beers in order to insult and devalue someone's opinions...
is the same as getting "panties tied in a wad"
its just that one of these is more fake
and i tell ya, overall
you make the same mistake as the other guys
over and over again
by misunderstanding the subject matter
and shooting off yer mouth
yall jumped the gun on this thread
based mostly on illusions in your own head
im not sure if its because your too lazy to investigate things
or have simply given up looking for anything altogether
either way, im sure it takes a lot lot lot less energy to respond the way you do
like taking the easy way out
i am here to ask you to stop thinking you have the right to push blame for your suggestive hmm hmm behaviour onto anyone else, while you needle away at a conversation... (like i am doing now)
accusations of insanity and mental illness and worthlessness suck
especially if the loudest mouths are ignorant and no longer interested in the subject matter
which has as much to do with psychology and perception as it does spirituallity and religion
overall, i think garth just likes to banter a lot a lot a lot
which is not always called for, or welcome, imo
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
And might I add to Garth's post a bit,
The clear implication of the title of the thread is that - not only is CM addressing the unbelievers - but there is something WRONG with them. They don't believe what he does. How can they not? What's WRONG with them anyway?
Well, maybe nothing. Maybe his criteria for what constitutes a plausible belief is what's ailing.
And Socks, I gotta disagree with you re: the Penn and Teller clip. I thought it was pretty well thought out. Bombastic and profane, fer sure, but definitely food for thought.
The best line I heard in the show was from Michael Shermer "Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons." Explained a lot for me.
Oh, and BTW, if religion and Godly worship and all that are so vital to a good, healthy, fulfilling life and all, why is it that life expectancy was only 28 yrs. in the time of Christ and is in the mid-70s today? Have we gotten that much more holy, closer to God, over the centuries? And all throught the Dark Ages - even though people were building cathedrals and attending mass and paying obeisance to The Almighty, nothing improved. But come the renaissance, and a rebirth of scientific thought and inquiry, lo and behold our quality and length of life improves exponentially. Gosh, I wonder why that is?
Anyway, carry on...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
paleblueiris2
Penn & Teller "get us to think" - oh my we are in trouble
Picking a point of view to support and providing a weak argument for the other for comedic effect.
You guys seem to have such a hatred for people being duped yet you buy into Bullsh%t...
:blink:
yeah - carry on
Edited by paleblueiris2Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.