Jump to content

Davidsun

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Davidsun

  1. Apropos Point 4: "Know that the way we behave towards on another is the fullest expression of what we believe." I wonder what peeps here think Jesus' advice to 'turn the other cheek' REALLY says about what he thought might be a 'good' expression. My understanding is that, far from 'meek' 'acceptance' of whatever others chose to dish out, he was advocating that one 'stand up' for decency (etc.) by protesting injustice in ways that one thought had the best chance of 'shaming' abusers into being 'decent' (etc.). You see, back then, if peeps were to openly/directly react to being police-abuse slapped about by Roman Centurions physically or verbally, they were likely to just give said Centurions the 'excuse' they wanted to shove a spear in their guts. By pointedly (dramatically!) 'turing their other cheek, abused folks could in effect SILENTLY loudly 'say': "Go ahead, you shameless bully of weaker folks, hit me again if that'll get your rocks off - I ain't backing down from and cowering before you, NO WAY, NO HOW!" I think many people misunderstand what they misperceive (because that's how they would like to think of him and his message) as Jesus's social 'peacefull'ness (completely ignoring quite radical statements he clearly made to the contrary, like "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."
  2. 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 ...
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Davidsun

    Free Will

    I mean nowhere 'better' (as a matter of 'free' choice) , that is.
  10. 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?
  11. Davidsun

    Free Will

    LOL (in spades!) Rhino!
  12. 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!
  13. 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.)
  14. 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
  15. 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.”
  16. I think both your choice of his words and your interpretations are selective, selected to suit your personal predilections. I have presented different interpretations of what the same words (in my opinion) indicate as well as additional sets of (his) words (his railings against the scribes and pharisees for example) along with demonstrative actions of his* as being illustrative of my points about his attitudes and intentions. * What he did with the money changers in the temple is just another illustration in this regard. The only (but totally discussion-sabotaging) thing I reject in the above-quoted sentence of yours is the gross presumptuousness and 'cooptive' (of Jesus's 'message') intention shown by your 'deliberate'(?) use of the word 'we' to characterize what you personally think about Jesus, which I obviously think is biased to the point of being not 'true'. That 'cooptiveness' and the attitude underlying it (which IMO is the same 'sin' displayed by RC Church officials'' not vociferously speaking out about various 'injustices', which as an illustrative act-of-omission example) makes engagement in truly mutually-appreciative discussion with you impossible. Over and out. I know better than try to find an opening in a bricks-tightly-cemented-together wall. Bye-Bye, Bro.
  17. Davidsun

    Deleting 'god'

    That's that then. I appreciate your definitive (hence non-dilettant-ish in the present case, IMO) engagement with the issues at hand, Paul.
  18. "I imagine some humans could very easily conceive ignoring Hitler or paedophile priests would in some way allow them to further God's work otherwise. That's not an excuse for them but simply an observation on human behavior." How very 'understanding' and 'accepting' of you, infinitely imaginative Paul, especially in relation to the 'supernatural God' which you disbelieve even exists! Clearly, I did not manage to get my 'point' across, because your clearly missed 'getting' it. I think, maybe, the best summation of my values (hence personal attitude and positionality) relating to the many 'variables' touched on in this discussion is contained in 'The Serenity Prayer' ('prayer', in my lexicon, meaning focus of desire and intention) for : "serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference."
  19. Davidsun

    Deleting 'god'

    Thank you for your thought-full consideration and response, Paul. (BTW, I never said that any aspect of what my ideas referenced as 'super'natural - maybe you think that anything that isn't materialistic/physical (such as conciousness itself) isn't 'natural', in which case 'Houston, we have a problem!" My response to your post is that your 'agnostic' position/stance leaves something to be desired. Why? Because to choose anything, one has to have a 'hunch' that said something might be 'worth' exploring/experiencing (that is, if said hypothetical something even exists as hypothesized, but maybe even it is isn't so because then one will know more, in that case that 'reality' doesn't accord with said (hypothesized) something. Enjoy your maybe this maybe that maybe not this maybe not that 'speculation' ad infinitum - I have no truck with anyone who doesn't want to explore possibilities which I think are (possibly) really meaningful or submit possibilities which he or she thinks are (possibly) really meaningful in terms of possibly enriching Life-actualtizations. BTW, I think Ideas (philosophies, theories, etc.) are just 'tools' for exploring the REALM of CREATiVITY, and possibly 'building' (more) interesting CREATIONS within it. Enjoy what I (perhaps inaccurately) see as your dilettantish idea twiddling, Bro That ain't my 'game' of choice. Thanks for clarifying that you are not interested in 'playing' (with) my game. Perhaps, the following excerpt from http://www.prismagems.com/castaneda/ will get my point relating to the 'poverty' of 'agnosticism' across better than what I've already said: "As an example, this passage from Tales of Power where Carlos had told don Juan of his having taken his cats to be put to sleep and of how one of them, Max, had apparently sensed that all was not well and jumped out of the car and ran away when he had the chance. Following this passage in blue is my compiled version in purple. "What I've been trying to tell you is that as a warrior you cannot just believe this and let it go at that. With Max, having to believe means that you accept the fact that his escape might have been a useless outburst. He might have jumped into the sewer and died instantly. He might have drowned or starved to death, or he might have been eaten by rats. A warrior considers all those possibilities and then chooses to believe in accordance with his innermost predilection. "As a warrior you have to believe that Max made it, that he not only escaped but that he sustained his power. You have to believe it. Let's say that without that belief you have nothing." The distinction became very clear. I thought I really had chosen to believe that Max had survived, knowing that he was handicapped by a lifetime of soft and pampered living. "Believing is a cinch," don Juan went on. "Having to believe is something else. In this case, for instance, power gave you a splendid lesson, but you chose to use only part of it. If you have to believe, however, you must use all the event." "I see what you mean," I said. My mind was in a state of clarity and I thought I was grasping his concepts with no effort at all. "I'm afraid you still don't understand," he said, almost whispering. He stared at me. I held his look for a moment. "What about the other cat?" he asked. "Uh? The other cat?" I repeated involuntarily. I had forgotten about it. My symbol had rotated around Max. The other cat was of no consequence to me. "But he is!" don Juan exclaimed when I voiced my thoughts. ''Having to believe means that you have to also account for the other cat. The one that went playfully licking the hands that were carrying him to his doom. That was the cat that went to his death trustingly, filled with his cat's judgments. "You think you're like Max, therefore you have forgotten about the other cat. You don't even know his name. Having to believe means that you must consider everything, and before deciding that you are like Max you must consider that you may be like the other cat; instead of running for your life and taking your chances, you may be going to your doom happily, filled with your judgments." And my compiling of that passage, which, reading the original again now after over 20 years, I see that I didn't really capture the whole power of the original passage -- a good reason for you to read the actual books and not just this compilation. In my defense, however, I will tell you that this is one of only about three places where I sort of gave my own interpretation. The vast majority is very very accurately compiled to match the teachings presented in the books: Having to believe means that you accept the facts of something, consider all possibilities and possible outcomes, and then choose to believe in accordance with your innermost predilection. Believing is a cinch. Having to believe is something else. If you have to believe, you must use all of an event, account for all possibilities, and consider everything. Before deciding that you believe one way you must consider that it may well be another way."
  20. Paul said: "I enjoy discussion and debate (more particularly when I have time to do so). I know I am not always right but often I will debate because the answers provided don't provide me with satisfaction, no matter how convinced the other is that they are right. I think sometimes some take that as threatening to their position (they need to be right for whatever reason) and others will tolerate me until the cows come home! " High Five, Thumbs Up, Paul! I appreciate your choosing not to be unduly 'judgmental' and taking a firm 'position' on matter you are not personally directly involved in because you don't have/know all of the facts involved, Paul - up to a point that is. But PLEEEASE tell me you don't think that 'the RC Church' was actually 'following' Jesus' "turn the other cheek" (someone else's 'cheek' at that!) and 'give him your shirt also' (someone else's 'shirt' at that!) teachings when it/they didn't (contemporaneously) vociferously protest Hitler et al.'s verbalizations and behaviors against 'Jews'! Or when it/they simply 'forgave' (and reassigned) instead of vociferously protesting and publicly excommunicating those in its rank and file who pedophilically abused of children entrusted to its care! https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/04/sex-abuse-catholic-church_n_5085414.html Get REAL, man!
  21. Fair enough (and thank you! for engaging with me on this score). Your 'take' on/from Jesus' teaching (based on the way said teachings are 'packaged' in Matthew 5) may indeed , (meaning conceivably may) be 'correct'. And if that's what you/anyone thinks will really 'serve' to augment and enrich the quality Life experience and expression on earth as well are thereafter, then that's the kind of nice-nice thing you (said anyone) should (IMO) 'do'. I would suggest that that's not the 'wisest' course of action, however - either in terms of Life 'on earth' or beyond, in 'the Spirit world', and (so) that what's in Matthew 5 is a 'romantic' or possibly 'devious-purpose' serving distortion of the truth - of the whole truth, I mean. Like "Don't use 'birth control, just obedient;y (without any 'protest') trust in the beneficence of a 'paternal' God and 'his' ministerial priests. I personally 'see' Jesus' entire Life as being a demonstration of the kind of self-assertive 'protest' (against both Roman- and Hebrew-establishment 'domination') that I am talking about, however. In the case of the latter 'establishment', note is having (reportedly at least) protestationally said (in Matthew 23): " But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." Hitler for one (notable one) would have just 'loved' the people he aimed to bully and dominate thinking, feeling and behaving that (turn your other cheek and give me your shirt also) way, aye what? I have no proof regarding what Jesus actually meant/taught (regarding 'cheeks' and 'shirts', etc.) and only have the 'testimony' of my 'mind' and my 'spirit' (gut?) in this regard. Here's what I have 'deduced' about the 'nature' of Intelligence/Being/Creation/God/Life (whatever you wish to call It), which is what I am going on in the foregoing regards (quoted from my book Godspeak 2000): "The potentially liberating and amendatory truth (which, for [various] reasons, many don’t appreciate) is that everybody in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency. This was termed ‘atman’ or ‘soul’ by sages of old, who recognized everyone and everything as an immediate expression of the universally present, intelligently creative essence which they understood to be the real meaning of ‘Brahman’ and ‘God’. But, because such words have been misappropriated by custom and their significance sometimes grossly distorted by misusage, I generally refer to it alternatively, as Intelligence, Creativity, Life Itself or the Life-Force. However labeled, it is the source ‘element’ from which all Being springs, the core I-Am-That-I-Am, THAT Which IS! at root within each and everyone." Again, I appreciate your forthright engagement with me and furthering this discussion by doing so, Paul.
  22. Davidsun

    Deleting 'god'

    One can only know for sure what one thinks (about anything) oneself. I note that you didn't say (in your reply) what you thought about what I thought (and so specifically shared) about what Jesus's words actually meant. Hence I cannot engage in further con-verse-ation with you about that. The points you expressed are reasonable but completely peripheral to my interest (as reflected in what I specifically posted about what I thought (and so specifically shared) about what Jesus's words actually meant. Until or unless someone relates to what I said, I have no further comments
  23. Maybe you don't remember but it was you who (for your own reasons) introduced the give to 'beggars' theme into the 'turn the other cheek' conversation, Paul,. when you said: " By turning the other cheek to the evildoer (or giving even more to the plaintiff than sought in court, or walking an extra mile if forced to walk one, or giving to beggars and also not refusing anyone who wants to borrow from you) I think Jesus is saying show your preparedness not to perpetuate acts of aggression and retribution, not to harbour unhelpful baggage in life (i.e. wishing for revenge) and maybe help others not carry such baggage also - the aggrieved beggar who doesn't get help, or the destitute friend who desperately needs a loan to carry him through - both whom may be left feeling scorned if we don't help them when we could." I was just commenting that I thought that 'good will' notions (yours in this case) and consequently people's 'projections' as to what (some of) Jesus preachment actually meant were a tad nice-nice simplistic. Thank you for considering my (above) proposition(s) in this regard.
  24. Davidsun

    Deleting 'god'

    From the article you mentioned and provided a link to in your OP, Paul: "Did Jesus have a “theological premise” different from me, at this point; especially with regard to the use of the word “god?” Probably. If Jesus were alive today, would he view things differently, and express himself differently as a result? Maybe. But it’s probably the only reason it makes me wish I believed in something as fanciful as a Second Coming!" In response to that, quoting from the recently completed first chapter of my treatise title "What Jesus REALLY Meant": What anyone thinks Jesus really meant when he used such and related phrases and why he or she imagines he chose to speak of God as ‘the Father’ and himself as ‘the Son’ (of said Father) will, of course, depend on his or her personal apprehension and understanding of metaphysical realities and ‘sense’ of what the mind-and-heart sets of the people around Jesus were like at the time. My own conclusions in this regard, which I proffer for consideration and contemplation, are that he used ‘the Father’ to reference the progenitive Source (hence, ‘the Creator’) of all existential being, and ‘the Son’ to reference the totality of said Creator’s Creation (d/b/a Creativity), in other words The Entity of Life as It exists and continues to express Itself in Being. Besides elaborating the thinking (about what he is quoted as having said) which led me to the above conclusion, based on my (non--literal) interpretation of quotes of various of his others words I also explain, in non-allegorical terms, what I have concluded about the idea of 'his' "Second Coming" actually means in said 23 page chapter. Here is an excerpt of the relevant portion of that which I present to (hopefully) entice you and/other others into reading the whole article and considering 'the view' presented therein (click here for a free pdf download if your interest gets piqued): Jesus’ prescient depiction of the next such ‘coming’ event, wherein those who are prepared to do so soulfully ‘wake up’ to the Whole Truth and therefore enter into and thereafter continue to consciously live in communion with the Totality of Life while others ‘fall’ by the wayside and get recyled (so to speak), to wit: “As the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. … they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:27 30) does not mean that he will then literally flash across the sky and be seen everywhere as he ‘gloriously’ orbits the planet in person. People who are emotionally invested in worshiping Jesus himself as a super-magical genie kind of God will undoubtedly regard the explanation that follows as being unacceptably heretical, but assuming you are not one such – why would you still be engaged in exploring this thesis otherwise? – let me submit that the above-quoted statement only makes real sense if one interprets it metaphorically, with “heaven” being understood as referencing the realm of consciousness and (so) “the clouds” as referencing the particularities of ideological constellations, or philosophies, within it. “The Son of man” alludes to the corpus of human apprehension, or ‘knowing’ – often spoken of as Cosmic Consciousness – pertaining to the Life as a Whole; that is, the entirety of the living system composed by and of our creative Source (i.e. God, ‘the Father’), All That Is (i.e. The Entity of Creation, ‘the Son’, a/k/a Christ), and everyone’s relationally interfused interaction(s) therewith and therein, as postulated and discussed herein hitherto. The “lightning” that shines “out of the east … even unto the west” analogically dramatizes the way in which powerfully functional thoughts, i.e. ‘knowings’, are psychically transmitted and received and (so) spread throughout our noosphere.* The overall implication, of course, being that consciousness of what the words "“I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you” (John 14:20) super-succinctly signify will illuminatingly permeate the thinking of holistically inclined people wherever they may be located all over the world. * A noteworthy example of noospheric knowledge-gestalt transmission-and-reception phenomenon, well documented by clearly consequent changes in course of human history, is how Martin Luther’s knowing that the Pope wasn’t the sole, or ‘central’, interpreter and transmitter of godly truth showed up in Copernicus’ knowing that the earth wasn’t the ‘center’ of the universe and that it and the other planets in our solar system all similarly revolved around our sun, which knowings eventually ‘blossomed’ in the enterprise now labeled Modern Science, the entirety of which grew out of the knowing that the ‘laws’ or ‘principles’ of Creation were not ‘centrally’ dictated but universally pervasive, i.e. the knowing that Nature operates the same way in relation to any and all ‘participant-observers’ regardless of their relative space-time location or energy condition. Many speak of such prophesied ‘happening’, wherein those who have developed to the point where they are ripe (so to speak) for it psychically become aware of and consequently choose to participate in The Flow of Life by wholeheartedly enjoying and lovingly giving their all to augment and enrich Its magnificent process, as the Second ‘Coming’ (of Christ, i.e. Cosmic Identity, Consciousness), which they project as being yet to happen. Connoisseurs of history of ideas and cultural evolution, however, will recognize that this, slowly evolving at first but now exponentially rapidly accelerating, phenomenon has been underway for quite a while now, though the visibility of such trend is often clouded by the fact that the greater part of of our population, even of those who proclaim themselves to be 'Christians', has not been and still isn’t spiritually in synch with it. I suggest keeping “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few [relatively speaking] there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:13) in mind when viewing and contemplating the lay of the land in this regard.
×