Jump to content

Davidsun

Members
  • Content count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Davidsun last won the day on February 28

Davidsun had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

-5 Poor

About Davidsun

  • Rank
    New Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://davidsundom.weebly.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Arizona, USA
  • Interests
    Spiritual philosophy, meme-idea sequence engineering :)

Recent Profile Visitors

172 profile views
  1. Davidsun

    Deleting 'god'

    Ooops, I meant to write POOH-BAHs. Here's link which will (hopefully) render the meaning of the reference "clearer": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Poobah And I would remind you of my comments regarding the value of placing 'etiquette' at the center of the 'altar' of one's 'sacred' value-scheme, as well as of the fact Jesus' verbal engagements (which I've present many examples of) weren't always nice-nice advocating but often quite rough-n-tumble, the latter as a 'way' of communicating true-to-spirit (as opposed to conventional-social-moray) truths. I am neither violating violating not derailing my decision and intention to 'exit' from your presence, thormas. I am simply 'taking' the 'baiting' comments which you address meward and using them to further my truth-sharing mission and purpose in the course of doing so. Lob some more pitches my way if that suits your purposes, man - I enjoy engaging in repartee as a medium of revelation - and I'm in no hurry to go anywhere (else) in particular ...
  2. Davidsun

    Deleting 'god'

    I didn't say they 'violated' anything. Talk about 'capacity' to comprehend! I said that Jesus' teachings and 'actions' (verbal and otherwise) indicated that he and his teachings were at variance with the notion and value of 'etiquette' so centrally placed on the 'altar' here - and thus, of course, implied that what's going on here is not in keeping with what I consider 'Christianity' (Jesus' kind at lest) to really be. IMO, everyone is 'worthy' of being spoken to and what anyone say is 'worthy' of being considered. You think I haven't listened to/hears and considered what Paul, you, Joseph et al. have said? And given you the truth (as I see it) in response because I considered (past tense, now) you 'worthy' of being 'given' the truth as I see it to do or not do with whatever you will? Regarding my putting that in the past tense, please know that what a person deems 'worth' relating to and engaging with is always a relative assessment, and that anyone/everyone with any sense of what practicality really entails, instead of aiming to just live in a nice-nice-in-relation-to-everyone feel-good 'fantasy', will choose to make 'judgment calls' as to what may or may not be 'worth' expending his or her (limited amount of) personal energy attending to, nurturing, buddying up with, etc. Thank you for engaging and thereby giving me the opportunity to (hopefully) more clearly explain what has gone into my decision to depart from this (IMO, real-meaning-of-Jesus'-teachings-ignoring, unrealistically fantasy-based) we are all 'worthy' POH-BAHs arena. This is not to say that I endorse any other 'Christian-label-using "church's" or "social movement's" value system, mind you. Just that I think that the one that's been established here will, if it just continues in its present fashion, prove to have been (past tense!) creatively dysfunctional (based on my understanding of Jesus' teachings, of course).
  3. Davidsun

    Deleting 'god'

    No quibble with what you have concluded and said for the reasons that you have so concluded, JosephM. I hope you 'got' the fact that I have concluded that placing the 'etiquette' you speak of on the 'altar' of whole-iness is in effect derailing the real meaning of Jesus's message and teachings to the point of being 'sacrilegious' - analogous to the way Jesus thought of and so reacted to what the money-changers were doing and the scribes and pharisees were 'administratively' endorsing in the temple. Now, I am not interested in making a 'scene' so as to 'take stage' (so to speak) as Jesus did. I just want to clearly my 'criticism(s)' as stated to be 'heard' (to whatever extent that may be 'in the cards' for, i.e. possible by, anyone here) whether their import is appreciated or not, before moving on. Here is another of Jesus' teachings which I believe (as Paul has stated all 'conclusions', even Jesus', are basically just personally arrived at 'opinions') is functionally pertinent: "And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shale off the dust of your feet." (Matthew 10) IMO, it would be remiss for me to simply 'make peace' with those who (in my opinion) desecrate the 'truth' about Life (even is the do so 'in the name' of goodness/Christ/Life). If I thought there was a reasonable chance of my words making a positive difference here, I would stick around and keep sharing. Anyone now or in the future reading this who wishes to stay in touch with me or just 'follow' what I am up to may do so via my website.
  4. Davidsun

    Deleting 'god'

    That's another example of 'gap's and 'goofs' in my writing resulting from my getting 'carried away' by the intensity of my thoughts. In case it was beyond your capacity to figure out what I really meant from the context (of everything else I said), I was thinking of and relating to JosephM's statements, but only got the "M" part of it right.
  5. Davidsun

    Deleting 'god'

    No, I said that if one assumes (i.e. believes) that Jesus (i.e. what he taught) was right, then (given such assumption) you have it 'wrong'. I was questioning whether ThomasM's saying that he thought you may be pleasantly 'surprised' was in keeping with "Point 1' of the 8 points listed as 'axiomatic' to what is being postulated as being a "Progressive Christian" philosophy and outlook - and suggested that the thought that you me UNpleasantly 'surprised' by what you experience and realize after the 'death' of your body. You are perfectly free to not subscribe to any or all of Jesus' teachings and (so), by operational definition, to not be a "Progressive Christian" (as 'defined', that is, by the "8 Point" 'manifesto'). I fully recognize and 'accept' the fact that you are not one such. My comments were addressed to ThomasM who, by implication at least, identifies himself as a "Progressive Christian", thinking that perhaps (given the way I understand Jesus' teachings) he was not being 'true' to said principles. He has since clarified that he thinks and is acting on the basis of thinking he is, which I am also fully 'accepting' of.
  6. Davidsun

    Deleting 'god'

    P.S. Anyone wanting to consider evidence pertaining to the subject of reincarnation, just type "evidence of reincarnation" into YouTube's search box. Of course, as in the case of any set of evidentiary points - just look at what happened in O'J' murder tiral for example - peeps may arrive at opposing conclusions on the matter.
  7. Davidsun

    Deleting 'god'

    Assuming (as a theoretical proposition) that there is an 'afterlife' - say that there is such a thing as 'soul' living in and through our 'earthly' 'identities', and that such 'soul' may or may not continue to 'reincarnate' in progressively more advancing or regressively deteriorating 'personalities' (I can point to passages in The New Testament, quoting Jesus, which indicate he believed in 'reincarnation' if anyone is interested, BTW) and that it eventually may or may not grow to the point where it 'immortally' lives on in spiritual realms - which 'living on' or not 'living on' is what I think Jesus references when he said things like “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Matthew 16:25-26), ... ... in other words IF Jesus' world-view and understanding of Life's dynamics was and is 'correct' ... THEN, conceivably at least, Paul might UNpleasantly surprised, aye what? I mean, it's fine with me that Paul (or anyone) might choose to disregard certain ('central' or 'key') teachings of Jesus, but let's all acknowledge that he is choosing to believe and set himself up as more truly 'knowing' (that is based on the facts of Life as he 'sees' these to be) than Jesus, and that in a forum on the site of a 'group' which declares at "Point 1" that "By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who.... Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus.or more recently (2011) and alternately can be restated as ... Believe that following the path and teachings of Jesus can lead to an awareness and experience of the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life." .. albeit said 'group' members are 'religiously' understanding and tolerant of other, even contrary, points of view. Given your clearly belonging to said 'group' and therefore (ostensibly) subscribing to Jesus' Teachings ThomasM, I can't for the life of me understand your going along with and 'second'ing! the idea that Paul may be pleasantly surprised after he 'dies'. Do you yourself really believe that there are no 'consequences' for souls depending on whether or not they have led lives 'in keeping' with what Jesus taught ? I am not saying someone has to 'identify' themselves being a 'Christian', now - Jesus never taught that! Maybe you think that Paul is (without identifying that that is what he is doing) doing what Jesus taught (about 'losing' one's 'life' for LIFE's sake"), in which case I retract my above commentary in relation to you.
  8. Davidsun

    Free Will

    I mean nowhere 'better' (as a matter of 'free' choice) , that is.
  9. Davidsun

    Free Will

    The way I 'see' IT (LOL), we don't have a choice not to be ' IT, because THAT is what we are! But, given that ' IT is LOVE and JOY (or something like THAT ,) as and to the extent that we learn and become more aware of (alternate) possibilities, we do have (more and more alternative) choices to experimentally explore greater an greater LOVE and JOY actualization possibilities, and so have (a greater and greater! degree of) 'freedom' to change what we personally willfully subscribe to - this (IMO) is 'the truth' referenced in "the TRUTH" shall set you FREE ", I think. Watch out for 'sophists' who seek to derail you into their own (faddish?) set of 'sophisticated' but going nowhere meanderings (presumably so they can have 'company'), dudes and dudesses! JosephM, do you 'hear' me now?
  10. Davidsun

    Free Will

    LOL (in spades!) Rhino!
  11. Davidsun

    Batchelor's Agnostic Buddhism

    Everything I say or imply that I think or that I feel or that I have logically concluded is really what I think, feel, have concluded etc. So it may regarded as truly being what I know I think, feel and have concluded. Some may prefer to think etc. what I say I think or that I feel or that I have logically concluded is really just my personal 'judgment', hence no more than 'mere' opinion. You may think, feel or conclude anything you choose(?) to about the style of my writing and whether and, in that case, how much it 'detracts' (in your opinion ) from 'clear' expression. It is, however, how I really choose to 'aim' to get my meaning(s) across. This amounts to a 'take it (for what it is) or leave it' response-declaration. I am OK with your doing or not doing either or partly doing both. I hope you grok that the strength of my above 'retort' is a function of my having 'fielded' just such kind of reaction/response from people either not being able or willing (or both) to relate to my chosen style of expression and so 'suggesting' I change it to suit what they think, feel and so conclude would be more desirable many times before so suggesting that it would be 'better' if I did so. Sincerely - David P.S. I write the way I write because it heightens the intensity of my engagement (of my thoughts and feelings) as I do so. YThe bolded and underlined words are 'said' louder 'in my head' and the italicized words indicating that I am thinking of a 'particular' meaning (english words often have many meanings!) in said regard. I very much enjoy doing so, and do so in a 'spirit' of fun!
  12. Davidsun

    Deleting 'god'

    What is 'real' to one may be seen as just being 'hallucinatory' by another, this pertains to 'answers' as well, I think - I totally agree with you on the later point, Thormas. The Life being like "a bus careening through the universe, with no idea where we're going or what it means" scenario stand in glaring(?) contrasts to the Second Coming scenario I described in the excerpt I shared from (towards the end of) my "What Jesus Really Meant" chapter. Two (quite divergent, aye what) Realities/Hallucinations, aye what? It strikes me that statements like "You create your own (experience of) Reality" (implicit in Mark 11:24) and "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap" (Galations Ch.6) may really explain the dynamic (aye what?) divergence. And then again, especially if you don't believe that Spirit is universally 'creative' such that we are each (at some level at least) the determiners of our own Reality (or Hallucination?) experience, hence in a sense of our own experienced 'fate', maybe not (that is, maybe there no real explanation for the 'careening', just the vagaries of randomness.)
  13. Adding "a little bit of humor" to the mix: The issue raised pertaining to (someone's/anyone's) presumptuously ascribing his or her personal point of view and/or conclusions deriving therefrom to a collective 'we' reminded me of the joke relating to the Lone Ranger and Tonto who, according to the joke, were at one point surrounded and besieged by much greater force of hostile (colloquially called) 'Indians'. As they were running out of bullets with the Indians closing in on them, the Lone Ranger turned to Tonto and said: "We've had it, this is the end for us, Tonto!" To which Tonto replied, "What do you mean 'we', Paleface!" LOL
  14. Davidsun

    Batchelor's Agnostic Buddhism

    Hello romansh - my quirkily stated 'point' was related to was said in the linked-to article (titled "The Agnostic Buddhist), which included: "Huxley began to develop the idea. He saw agnosticism as demanding as any moral, philosophical, or religious creed. But he refused to see it as a creed in the traditional sense of the word, and saw it far more as a method. The method he had in mind is broadly that which underpins scientific inquiry. It means, on the one hand, taking one's reason as far as it will go and, on the other, not accepting anything as true unless it is somehow demonstrable. Here there are very clear parallels with the Buddhist tradition. Although we may not find it so much in Zen, in the Indo-Tibetan tradition there is a strong emphasis on rational inquiry. I spent many years as a young monk not working on koans but studying formal logic and epistemology with Tibetan lamas. It is a very strong, rational tradition and I'm immensely grateful to have had that training. All traditions of Buddhism agree that one should not believe something simply for the sake of believing it, but only if it can somehow be demonstrated as true, if it can be realised in some practical way. Huxley even described his view as "the agnostic faith," thus giving it the kind of seriousness that one might otherwise expect only amongst religious people. ..." My comment was a 'dig' at peeps who believed (without any doubt!) that the 'scriptures' (etc.) of their 'faith' encompassed 'the Whole Truth' (about Reality, Existence, Destiny etc.), who I regard as, in a way, being 'insane'. It takes the ability (maturity?) to comfortably entertain the idea that one doesn't know everything about whatever it is one is dealing with, that one doesn't have everything 'pinned down' (so to speak), to be sane in this 'crazy' world of ours, I think. But you've surely met peeps who thought they knew everything (at least everything of importance!) about a subject. P.S. Even (so called 'Agnostic') Buddhists often get 'trapped' in their own version of 'insanity' (IMO) because they don't realize the fact that having directly experienced something to be 'true' once or even a thousand times doesn't (not rationally now!) mean that one's experience of said 'something' will necessarily be the same the next time one encounters it. Hence the idea of Beginner's Mind 'preached' in Zen traditions. P.P.S. Apropos the idea of 'maintaining' "Beginner's Mind" as a rational philosophical base: Consider the wisdom of Heraclitus’ saying: “No man ever steps into the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”
×