Jump to content

Davidsun

Members
  • Content count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

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 :)
  1. Ecumentalism

    YIKES! Talk about exclusive-ness masquerading other-inclusive! He that hath ears that here, let him hear! As far as I can see (or hear ) the above statements don't at all (not really at least) relate to the substance what Craig said in is post. Other may of course 'see' (or 'hear') it differently I'm just telling the truth like I see (and 'hear') it, folks - in single sentence'paragraphs' no less! Caveat: I could be deluded!
  2. Ecumentalism

    Yup!. Methinks 'ecumism' as an unqualified 'ideal' is therefore not worth being taken 'seriously'. Hitler thought he was 'inspired' by 'divine' (in his eyes that is) 'spirit' as well! Maybe some here will suggest 'qualifications' (like 'amendments' to the concept of that 'bill') which might result in the discussion of the concept becoming more enlightened/enlightening.
  3. Ecumentalism

    Great! For the reasons I have stated, which apparently aren't 'valid' in your eyes, I don't 'respond' the way you do. News flash: because I am me, not you. I just tell the truth as I as 'see' it, as do you Bro. Some experience that (the parts of what I say that they don't 'soft-cotton to') as an 'attack'. From my point of view I am simply declaratively identifying (what I think of as) a spade as a spade without pretending to be 'nice' just for the sake of thinking or myself as being and appearing to being 'nice' - that isn't one of the personal-social 'mores' I personally don't think of as being especially 'good'. I am always 'personal', BTW - and don't think of that as being a 'bad' thing either. Neither do pretend, as some holier-than-thou's (ahem, ahem) here do, to be or do otherwise. You understand what I say in your way - I fully accept and relate to that as a FACT of LIFE which pertains to everyone. I sincerely hope you will someday make 'peace' with your understanding that I understand what you (and others say) in my way and then proceed to relate to that as (news flash!) me validly (personally) being me and me legitimately (personally) doing what I am here to do. Till then, we are just likely to repeat the current not-so-merry go round circle. So please know, that unless there's evidence of such a change having taken place, this will be my last attempt at communication with you. Sincerely - David
  4. Ecumentalism

    No, I wasn't saying you or anyone couldn; or shouldn't comment on my style or share personal reactions to it. I was just 'calling' (both) you and Burl out on your "nothing personal" and "I'm just saying what I'm saying to 'help' you to 'serve' your purposes", dare I say (condescending?), posturing. Regarding what you say in your last para, have you still not registered what I told you - that I am fine with peeps not reading or skimming and/or not responding to the ideas I share. I hope you understand, in retrospect at least, that you (and Burl) have been trying to foist your preferences off onto me under the guise (even hiding the fact from yourselves) that you were just doing so for my sake (any by extension or the sake of my ideas and values). That's what it looks and feels like to me, and so what I believe has been really going on here. Ecumenism - i.e. 'rubbing shoulders' with peeps who have different sets of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and values than 'you' or 'your' reference group - is great to talk about - but its required more than that to actually put it into practice. I hope some readers at least get an 'object lesson' pertaining to what's involved from what's been displayed above/here. Anyone want to respond to the video I posted the URL to, relating to the comments I made while posting it?
  5. Ecumentalism

    Maybe this will get my 'point' across: That (what you just said) strikes me as being like a parent who, thinking and feeling that he or she is thereby really giving his or her beloved child 'loving' advice and support in order to further said child's soul's 'success' in 'the world', tells him or her that it would be 'better' if he or she took up and practiced 'ballet' or 'the piano' instead of 'going out' for 'sports' (or vice versa). Has it occurred to you that my souls' 'dance-muse-ic' inclinations an preferences may be of a quite different nature than his or yours? Also, has it occurred to you that you are 'dancing' my kind of 'truth'-meaning-full dance with me right here right now (precisely because I didn't just 'graciously' 'accept' Burl's and your 'advice' but made a point of saying it didn't suit my purpose(s)? I imagine not, or else you wouldn't be persisting in your kind of 'lovingness' (of truth, spirit, etc.) in relation to someone as different from you (in said 'truth' and 'spirit' regards) as I am.
  6. Ecumentalism

    News flash - my writing style is personal, it is an expresssion of who I am quite consciously aiming to reach, those who can/will 'hear' my 'voice' (parallel with Jesus's saying intended), i.e. what I wish and choose to express as part of my God-Life-'service'. That you one-sidely (IMO) only see it from and sympathize with his 'points' says something (personal) about you to me (personally), Thormas.
  7. Ecumentalism

    Continuing with the topic of "Ecumentalism" (great word coinage, BTW! ): I wonder what peeps think might be entailed if they were to seriously consider 'ecumentally' including of this Irishman's world-view and belief-system: This is the first of a two part video exposition, which I heartily recommend as being 'right on' (in my opinion, that is) in terms of real 'truth': In it, he speaks of being "religiously" in collision with "the Bible" - meaning what's been includedThe Old Testament and so widely embedded in 'Western' cultural thinking about mankind's 'place' in 'nature'. I wonder how anyone using 'Christian' (progressive or otherwise) as a personal- or group- identity moniker can 'ecumanize' (lol) with such as he and vice versa. An interesting 'problem' to be considered and hopefully playfully resolved, methinks.
  8. Ecumentalism

    High Five, Craig! The idea of God being 'unfathomable' means we can't get to 'the bottom' of the ocean in this regard, but we sure can enjoy splish-splashing about and occasionall going on some 'deep' dives, both ideationally and experientially, in IT. As you say, thankfully! Woohoo!!! [To everyone else: I presented a link to the article that Craig references in my first reply to Burl. Since that is 'water under the (screen) bridge' right now, I just want to add that it is also downloadable from the Articles page of my website which should be accessible via my profile should you be interested.]
  9. Ecumentalism

    I think you miss my point, Thormas. I'll agree with you on this maybe when and if I feel more understood and (so) included. Am working (in my own way!) to be understood, but as the saying goes, "It takes two to tango!"
  10. Ecumentalism

    Fiirst and foremost, Burl, pleas know that I responded the way I did to you first comment to me the way I did because I 'saw' and experienced it as not being 'complimentary' Second, the "must" in your statement is presumptuously 'dictatorial', unacceptably (by me) so. My guess is that you are so steeped in an attitude of self-'right'eousness that you will probably remain blind to this fact even tho i use your own words to point it out to you. Sp please know that this statement is really an effort on my part to share what I 'see' as being the case here with others here. Thirdly, your disclaimer of "nothing 'personal' intended" rings hollow to me. Your statement in response to my posts have been quite personally implicative. The joke-line "Who died and made you 'God' here" comes to mind. I don't know if this will work as intended, but all of the above is intended to get you off of what I 'see' as a being like the proverbial 'high horse' and involved in a truly meaningfull discussion of pros and cons of the ideas being presented.
  11. Ecumentalism

    I said 'generally' - which indicates that the 'character'ization wasn't 'total'. I agree with you on this.
  12. Ecumentalism

    That proposal strikes me as me as a proposal to 'enable' them to sit back and wait for things to suit their 'tastes' - people have to be in touch with their 'hunger' of they are to not look at 'food' with an attitude of "I'll eat it if I like how its tastes" or "I'll eat it if you 'cook' it in a way that 'pleases' me." As you can tell, I am 'seeing' folks 'of this generation' (not just here, but here too) as generally being a bunch of 'spoiled' (by too much indiscriminate parental 'spoon-feeding') kids. Jesus's portrayal of God as an indulgently 'loving' 'Father' by saying things like "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? " was fine as a 'correction' of old jealous/demanding/punitive (for not being 'obeyed') johovic 'father' image. But the pendulum has swung so far in the 'opposite' direction that there is a need (here for example!) of a 'reverse' correction in the direction of taking persponal responsibility for one's 'creativity' and not expecting 'feed me what I like' mother/fathering. What's coming down the road is going to be far from 'coddling'! I am just a messenger in this regard (with all of the implications of this word), Bro: The Times They Are A-Changing!
  13. Ecumentalism

    Just occurred to me that a humorous way of putting this would be to inviteyou and others to (if necessary) expand their LGBT group(s) tolerance/acceptance philosophy/stance to include 'me' (along with my completely unusual writing 'style' of course!). It could be called LGBTDavidsun tolerance/acceptance - the 'Davidsun', though not actually my given name, designating 'me' as a singularly unconventional (in terms of the 'majority') being who, though unlike any other, may nevertheless really be worthy of open-minded consideration! I hope that, though it may strike some as having an unpleasant 'edge' to it, you at least 'get' all this is truly said in joy-full repartee 'fun'. Added P.S. Of course, my whole 'argument' in the above regard will carry no weight with someone who is LGBT tolerant/accepting only because he or she thinks, feels, and believe that LGBT folks are only the way they are by virtue of their having no 'choice' in being the way they are - I.e. 'forgiving' them ' in Christs' name because such folks 'unfortunately' jes can't hep being the way they are!
  14. Ecumentalism

    Points well taken, Thormas - as mentioned in my 'apology' I often get 'carried away' - I suppose by the intensity of my thoughts and the (thought) 'associations' which spring from them. People are free to 'disregard', 'skim', etc. when encountering my verbiage. Its all a matter of whether or not something in them 'pulls' them into engaging (with my words) or not. Please know that I am fine with 'being myself' (in terms of my 'way' of expressing' my ideas) , as well as with others having their 'own' preferences, in the above regard. If someone really wants to 'grok' what goes into my mentation they will - if not, they won't. Please open to considering the possibility that there may be "a method" to "my madness" - the short version of which is that I am not here to 'appeal' to everyone. And, to respond to your last 'suggestion', yes, I relate to everything as being 'important' - so the idea of " drawing the reader to one or two things that really are [important]" just doesn't compute in my 'way' of being-n-doing. It is up to any reader to 'isolate' what (if anything at all! ) in what I say is important to him or her as well as to 'hierachialize' any such importances for themselves, that is if there is more than one such 'important' (to them) thang to them in what I say. I truly hope you can appreciate and groove with my unconventionality, Thormas, because (based on my 'reading' of what your words reveal about you) you are someone who I genuinely wish to share the way(s) in which I groove with (our Entity's!) existence with. You understand that that doesn't mean that I will alter my communication style to suit your wishes, however. Yes? Sincerely - David
  15. 'Sharing' as being the proof of 'The Kingdom of God'

    Hello Anthony! From some writing I am currently doing: "... let’s aim to figure out what Jesus may and may not have actually meant when he said things like “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6), and “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47), the implication of that being that one wouldn’t or at least might not (have such life) if one didn’t (believe so). Many, interpreting such words literally, simply think that just believing without any doubt that Jesus was/is (literally!) the singularly Godly ‘son’ of our singularly Godly ‘father’, and therefore unreservedly accepting and embracing him as (literally!) being their personal ‘Lord and Master'** and so just thinking and doing as he instructed (including asking for and receiving his ‘forgiveness’ whenever they didn’t), will surely result in their (literally!) being personally ‘resurrected’ after their bodies die and thereafter forevermore ecstatically living with said Father-God and Son-Jesus in the absolutely blissful (completely suffering-free) heavenly locale where they project He and Jesus eternally reside, and wherefrom an enthroned King Jesus personally decides who will and who won’t be admitted and allowed to join them therein. ** Jesus did express himself using such figures of speech which those around him were familiar with and could meaningfully relate to (as elucidated in Chapter 1), but his focus was always primarily on attempting to alter people’s sense of what were and weren’t desirable, Love and Joy augmentative attitudes and service-functions between people regardless of any differences in social role and power status between them, as for instance in: “Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.” (John 13:13-16) Notwithstanding the number of the absolutely-believing promoters and guarantors of the fore-referenced belief and expectation scheme, and though I too acknowledge and frequently extol the miraculous-seeming power of mentally focused thoughts (beliefs, etc.) and emotionally embraced attitudes (expectations, etc.), I submit for logical consideration the proposition that the probability that anyone may thereby ensure such kind of ‘heavenly’ forever-after can really be no greater than the probability that believing and expecting, even without any doubt whatsoever, that any personally subscribed to belief-and-expectation-system related talisman, mantra, prayer, ritual behavior or combination thereof can and will ensure that any of one’s desires will be fulfilled as desired or that one will be ‘saved’ from experiencing anything one wishes not to as wished. Why? Because, though it is indeed amazingly ‘elastic’ (in the sense of being able to parallelly☺ accommodate a wide range of alternative probabilities), which fact allows for it to be locally pattern-shifted for periods of time, the matrixial ‘fabric’ of the stream of Life – which one’s (that is, everyone’s!) experience and expression is part of – is flow-woven together by much more than the power of any one person’s or subgroup’s effect-generating belief and expectation ‘weavings’. Besides, such kind of super-power dispensed postmortem ‘salvation’ and heavenly union-with-God ‘reward’ (or their opposites: hellish separation-from-God ‘punishment’ and ‘perdition’) scenarios may only be temporarily experienced in the context of a personally encapsulating astral realm movie-script, not in super-eminent, actually forever-ongoing, Love and Joy based Reality. Why? (1) Because, as sussed out in the preceding chapter, The Source (or ‘Father’) which sustains our personal existences and The Entity of Creation (or ‘Son’, which Jesus mentally and emotionally completely identified with and so actively represented and spoke in the ‘name’ of ) which flows therefrom (i.e. from ‘the Father’) and contains us are not persons (per se) but actually transpersonal features and aspects of LiIFE; (2) because ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ actually reference spiritual states of heart and mind not spatio-temporal environments; and (3) because the ‘nature’ of the ‘spirit’ of Love and Joy, a/k/a LIFE, is ever evolving, such that no (personal or transpersonal) gestalt of ITs Being-n-Doing ever lasts in the same ‘form’ or ‘state’ (in or out ‘worldly’ contexts) forever!"
×