Monk--A Question

[heretic]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">^^^

So all we are left with are the findings/conclusions of eminent scientists on both sides of the issue? Misread Hawkins? Nope, I can post his exact words later. Science and faith not made out to be enemies? Like you say, it depends on what one is reading.
</div></div>

CEW please read this very carefully- there are no eminent scientists on both sides of this issue. Scientifically, there is only one side. ID is not a serious challenge to evolution. ID proponents can splutter and puff til kingdom come and this will not change. Evolution is not a belief. It is an observable fact. Even ID proponents must concede at least micro evolution. You simply can not replace the ToE with ID and have everything work the same way. ID makes no predictions, and generates no useful applications. And when it's claims are tested, as I've said, ID is falsified. Genetics falsifies ID. Geology falsifies ID. Biology. Paleontology.

I'll be very interested to read Hawking, directly. Perhaps he is critiquing something Darwin said or wrote, but Darwin is not the Theory, the Theory of Evolution is uncontested and it has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Comes back to what's been said on any number of issues - a number of people looking at the same evidence and walking away with different conclusions.
</div></div>

No, this is wrong. People who say that are wrong. You can not look at a strand of human DNA and chimp DNA and see the same genetic inherited scars and reach different conclusions. DNA evidence is rock solid. There is a difference, and there is definitely consensus and conformity amongst scientists about the general shape of Evolution, the fact of Evolution. Evolution can be tested. ID can be tested. For example, ID says that for ID to be true, certain biological devices must be irreducibly complex, therefore inferring they were designed- the flagellum is irreducibly complex. That statement is then put to the test, and in fact, the flagellum is reducible, and if evolution is true, then we would find examples of the flagellum's components being used in other organisms. This holds true for EVERY SINGLE irreducibly complex biological structure. There is not a single one which has withstood falsification. And this is exactly what we see, the very same scientist Behe cites discovered other bacteria with pieces of the flagellum adapted to other purpose. Therefore it could have evolved, in fact we would expect it to evolve, just like we see changes in multiple generations of bacteria and fruit flies and anything else we look at.

Even ID 'scientists' like Behe are forced to concede- then they go back and recreate a new attack, or simply continue to ignore proofs and repeat their statements to an unsuspecting, or uncaring public where there is no peer review or fact checking or rebuttal.

Maybe that is why in the Dover case, only 2 ID "scientists" appeared to testify as opposed to the 6 or 7 "experts" the defense originally listed for their cause.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have to admit however, that the proponents of evolution are doing a great job in controlling the media and passing off that "theory" as truth.
</div></div>

when you put 'theory' in quotes, you show your hand at just how misinformed the public is. We use theories all the time- we apply what theories state to practical working solutions. For example, I do not think you would include the quotation marks if you were to mention the theory of gravity, or rocketry, or cellular biology.

I would say the exact opposite, and this actually came out in the Dover case, the media and the press do a very poor job of explaining things. All the observers were overwhelmed by the body and weight of evidence on which evolution was built. Even the judge was overwhelmed.

But the proof is in the pudding is it not CEW? You benefit from the truth of the theory of evolution every day. We know it works, we know it is the best explanation of what we observe. There is always room to adjust- because inherently the theory does not need to be right- it can be replaced and if there are problems then the scientific method is a built in corrective force.

Can ID say the same? No it can not.

I do not think for one second you would rely on the predictions of ID to save yourself from cancer, or the bubonic plague...you would not, when struck ill, open your bible to genesis and look for a means to cure typhoid.

Evolution however, does provide us with the applicable understanding necessary to solve these issues. </div></div>Amen to dis.

[heretic]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silent_River</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Empress_Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The way monk has separate the two points is interesting and is a good point.

I think the reason that ppl get upset with the creation story being said as untrue is because if that aspect of the bible is false then who is to say what other parts are false including the main point of Jesus being the Son of God. </div></div>

And the opposite is also true.... </div></div>Meaning?

[heretic]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Empress_Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The way monk has separate the two points is interesting and is a good point.

I think the reason that ppl get upset with the creation story being said as untrue is because if that aspect of the bible is false then who is to say what other parts are false including the main point of Jesus being the Son of God. </div></div>This is exactly the problem. Talking donkeys is a nonsensical story, but the Christian that admits that donkeys cannot talk leaves himself vulnerable to the 'what else did your bible lie about?' question. So the delusion persists (even the nonsensical bits) in order to prevent the house of cards from tumbling down.

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk--A Question

well the way I look at it, and what is often said in my temple, is the dharma is self evident.

in other words, Jesus usually taught from what was obvious, should be obvious, considering the path he took.

so talking donkeys, showing sheep visual stimuli to effect their offspring, the greenlighting by God for massacres, rapine, and other evils, and all of that is easy to see for what it is...myth adoption, justification, and in the case of the sheep, ignorance of how the world and universe works. So much for the whole of it being revealed by God, lol...

but the problem is if you hold irrational beliefs like the Bible has to be true in order for there to be a God, you are sunk.

The Bible is only "true" because it declares itself so, and people for some reason believe it, and transmit this belief to others, who probably just have never sat down and thought about how this book descended to us, what it is made up of, and do all of it's claims make any sense when all things are considered.

When people can finally admit to themselves they have been hoodwinked, and that not only can the bible be wrong, it IS wrong- especially when it deals with matters of science such as the sheep example in Jacob- well what is the big deal. Already it is clear that those who hold the belief the Bible is literal seem incapable of putting their money where their mouth is so to speak, so in their minds already they must feel it is not the literal truth, else they would literally follow Yashua's advice, would they not?

They already do not follow Yashua's most direct and basic teachings.

[Nylah]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> They already do not follow Yashua's most direct and basic teachings.
</div></div>


please elaborate on what you see as Yashua's basic teachings.

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk--A Question

well a couple of times he was asked point blank what to do.

recall in Matthew, Yashua lays out a description of the last judgement. granting this is not entirely a corruption - I believe it must be partly corrupted eschatologically- we clearly see Yashua tell those gathered on his right what they did to earn salvation.

You will note that many of them are quite surprised that they helped him at all. According to Yashua's brilliant construction, the passage goes out of it's way to say they did not even know they were helping Yashua, or doing this in his name even- they were doing it of their own accord and of their own understanding of what is right and just to do. Yashua says they were doing it for him, it was symbolic. Likewise, the cursed proclaim they never would have denied or turned their back on Yashua knowingly.

I mean, can it be any clearer? It's freakin genius!!!

This, I think, torpedoes quite adequately this notion of faith alone, even torpedoes the idea one need be christian to gain heaven, and cements the teachings in the application and pursuit of right actions, and that acts of righteousness are self evident and the knowledge of their pursuit intuitive- and are worthy of their own sake. Good is good, not because of a known reward to come, but simply for it's own inherent value and sake.

Also, in the synoptics such as Mark, we see recollections wherein a man- or a lawyer i think in Luke- approach Yashua and point blank ask him what he needs to do. In return, Yashua lays it out, point blank. Simply put.

Do not kill. Do not lie. Do not steal. Honor your parents.

Love God. Love thy neighbor, as yourself.

When further pressed, Yashua again point blank tells the man, only one thing dost thou lackest- sell all that thou hast, give to the poor, TAKE UP THE CROSS and follow me.

I think here we see an obvious transcendental truth also at work. The work of salvation is not comfortable. To arrive at transcendental and intuitive understanding of truth and to be able to apply it practically is not easy- when looked at from a certain perspective.

That salvation can also be open to non christians I think is clearly implicated in the passage of the good samaritan, amongst others.

Again, works alone can save.

[DC]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The work of salvation is not comfortable... </div></div>
Agreed..Well, even the Bible says (yup it actually says) that one must work their own salvation with fear and trembling..


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
To arrive at transcendental and intuitive understanding of truth</div></div>..

Curious---And How do you define truth Monk? Its not an easy path, as you said...but from your worldview, how does one get to this truth?

ETA: Do we have more than one pathway to this truth?

[DC]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ch'an comes from the sanskrit word for meditation/contemplation. So this kind of practice is said to achieve a direct and experiential pointing to what is called the original mind. At this stage, only those who acutally, intuitively know, know. </div></div>

Interesting...Expand a little on this for me please.. the 'bold highlighted area'.

And are you at this stage?

[Nylah]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well a couple of times he was asked point blank what to do.

recall in Matthew, Yashua lays out a description of the last judgement. granting this is not entirely a corruption - I believe it must be partly corrupted eschatologically- we clearly see Yashua tell those gathered on his right what they did to earn salvation.

You will note that many of them are quite surprised that they helped him at all. According to Yashua's brilliant construction, the passage goes out of it's way to say they did not even know they were helping Yashua, or doing this in his name even- they were doing it of their own accord and of their own understanding of what is right and just to do. Yashua says they were doing it for him, it was symbolic. Likewise, the cursed proclaim they never would have denied or turned their back on Yashua knowingly.

I mean, can it be any clearer? It's freakin genius!!!

This, I think, torpedoes quite adequately this notion of faith alone, even torpedoes the idea one need be christian to gain heaven, and cements the teachings in the application and pursuit of right actions, and that acts of righteousness are self evident and the knowledge of their pursuit intuitive- and are worthy of their own sake. Good is good, not because of a known reward to come, but simply for it's own inherent value and sake.

Also, in the synoptics such as Mark, we see recollections wherein a man- or a lawyer i think in Luke- approach Yashua and point blank ask him what he needs to do. In return, Yashua lays it out, point blank. Simply put.

Do not kill. Do not lie. Do not steal. Honor your parents.

Love God. Love thy neighbor, as yourself.

When further pressed, Yashua again point blank tells the man, only one thing dost thou lackest- sell all that thou hast, give to the poor, TAKE UP THE CROSS and follow me.

I think here we see an obvious transcendental truth also at work. The work of salvation is not comfortable. To arrive at transcendental and intuitive understanding of truth and to be able to apply it practically is not easy- when looked at from a certain perspective.

That salvation can also be open to non christians I think is clearly implicated in the passage of the good samaritan, amongst others.

Again, works alone can save. </div></div>

something in here is not quite making me connect the dots. let me think on this for a minute.

[Nylah]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well a couple of times he was asked point blank what to do.

recall in Matthew, Yashua lays out a description of the last judgement. granting this is not entirely a corruption - I believe it must be partly corrupted eschatologically- we clearly see Yashua tell those gathered on his right what they did to earn salvation.

You will note that many of them are quite surprised that they helped him at all. According to Yashua's brilliant construction, the passage goes out of it's way to say they did not even know they were helping Yashua, or doing this in his name even- they were doing it of their own accord and of their own understanding of what is right and just to do. Yashua says they were doing it for him, it was symbolic. Likewise, the cursed proclaim they never would have denied or turned their back on Yashua knowingly.

I mean, can it be any clearer? It's freakin genius!!!

This, I think, torpedoes quite adequately this notion of faith alone, even torpedoes the idea one need be christian to gain heaven, and cements the teachings in the application and pursuit of right actions, and that acts of righteousness are self evident and the knowledge of their pursuit intuitive- and are worthy of their own sake. Good is good, not because of a known reward to come, but simply for it's own inherent value and sake.

Also, in the synoptics such as Mark, we see recollections wherein a man- or a lawyer i think in Luke- approach Yashua and point blank ask him what he needs to do. In return, Yashua lays it out, point blank. Simply put.

Do not kill. Do not lie. Do not steal. Honor your parents.

Love God. Love thy neighbor, as yourself.

When further pressed, Yashua again point blank tells the man, only one thing dost thou lackest- sell all that thou hast, give to the poor, TAKE UP THE CROSS and follow me.

I think here we see an obvious transcendental truth also at work. The work of salvation is not comfortable. To arrive at transcendental and intuitive understanding of truth and to be able to apply it practically is not easy- when looked at from a certain perspective.

That salvation can also be open to non christians I think is clearly implicated in the passage of the good samaritan, amongst others.

Again, works alone can save. </div></div>


isnt this just the difference between "believing" in the OT vs the NT?

and where do u draw the line in between reading the bible and believing that Yashua's teachings and what u consider not literal in the bible? that pat confuses me.

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silent_River</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
To arrive at transcendental and intuitive understanding of truth</div></div>..

Curious---And How do you define truth Monk? Its not an easy path, as you said...but from your worldview, how does one get to this truth?
</div></div>

I don't think you 'define' truth, in the standard sense of the word. Yet at the same time, you can arrive at what many people call truth because they have to have a word. Sorry to be enigmatic...but remember always in these matters we are dealing with the ineffable- and the ineffable means you can't define it through words and concepts. If pressed, I would say truth is more aptly expressed through a state of being. Buddha is such a state. The actual term is "The One Thus Come." Awakened.

That is why Yashua always teaches the big teachings through parables and layers of meaning.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
ETA: Do we have more than one pathway to this truth?
</div></div>

yes, of course there are many pathways to truth, because the truth as we are using the word is just recognition, intuitive, inherent, self manifesting, and reveals interbeing.

there is a story which I think may do better here to explain...in ch'an buddhism there is a tradition of a sort of contest of understanding, referred to as a dharma battle. You see there is the concept of interbeing- in the sense that a phenomena is conditioned by what it is not as well as it's own nature. For example, a sheet of paper is a sheet of paper, yet at the same time, it is everything that is not a sheet of paper, it is the tree from which the paper was made, and the tree was nourished by the earth, the sun, the water. Everything that is, once was. In that sense it is accurate to say that every drop of rain has the potential to have descended from the ganges, or the Jordan, or the Nile, and when it rains we perform ablutions in holy waters...so you see it is quite an encompassing concept. This very moment as you take breath you may be breathing in the stuff of stars, perhaps a piece of Jesus' very robe.

Anyway two masters came together. One master thrust forward an apple. He demanded of the other master, "What is this?"

You see it's a kind of trap. It's a word trap, a trap of duality.

But the other master turned to his disciple and said, "What's the matter with this fellow, doesn't he know an apple when he sees one?" And he takes the apple and has a bite.

We can call an apple an apple, or la mela...either way we arrive at the same.

Likewise to say, get to NY we have our pick of several highways, bridges, etc. We can walk, drive a car, take a train or bus. Each of these manifests a nature that is different, but we can see or choose to perceive the end result as the same destination.

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Empress_Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
isnt this just the difference between "believing" in the OT vs the NT?
</div></div>

no...Nylah it's the difference between intuitively internalising and manifesting the teachings, and swimming on the surface and sort of just getting some saltwater in your mouth or up your nose.

Remember, Yashua does not refer to all 10 commandments...in this teaching he carefully selects every one except the ones which favor form of the function...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
and where do u draw the line in between reading the bible and believing that Yashua's teachings and what u consider not literal in the bible? that pat confuses me. </div></div>

well, that part is confusing. That's why we see certain parables where people just don't get it, and it's not easy to penetrate into the mystery being presented. Many would say you need this initial state of confusion to progress anywhere at all. In that sense I often think of the meaning of Israel- one who wrestles with God. Isn't that a curious turn of phrase. Confusion and questioning can create a fertile field. Some traditions even attempt to jump start this, and try and create the shortcircuit- like the aboriginals of australia say, to 'stop the world.'

And for this kind of understanding I think people have to tap into the toolchest of contemplative techniques the many transcendental systems have developed. Christianity is a transcendental system, until it gets loaded up with all the sadistic nonsense about original sin and the crucifixion being some kind of sacrifice to gain us heaven. When you begin to train and recognize, you can discern. But right off the bat we see some of what Yashua is recorded as teaching as non sadistic, and then every now and then something comes out of left field as it were. And maybe he did say some of that left field stuff- we don't really know, but in a way it's not relevant because it might still bear recognized fruits.

So taking the gospel accounts, first we have to recognize and understand the motivations behind their writing. I mean they all have different flavors and POVs.

If our initial premise is that God is a God of omniscience, and omnipotence, and omnibenevolence and omnilove which is a safe assumption if he is worth worshipping at all and is the creator, then it can be made clear right away what is what. And also look at that teaching of the sheep separated from the goats. Right there Yashua is basically saying, look...you did these deeds, you fed "me," clothed "me," sheltered "me," visited "me" in prison- all these things you did according to the understanding which you arrived at. None of the saved knew or thought that Yashua would be in these outcast and downtrodden. But when you are in this state, you can't help but recognize there is no 'other', there is only you. And why on earth, how on earth, when you have understood this and manifest this, can you not do these things.

These people internalized the teaching, intuitively came to this understanding, and made it manifest. So that is part of the secret of knowing where things get corrupted because the more you comprehend the pathways and the results, the fruit which is born to make it more gospelly, the more easy it is to see where human motivations over spiritual motivations get overlayed to the core message.

[Nylah]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When further pressed, Yashua again point blank tells the man, only one thing dost thou lackest- sell all that thou hast, give to the poor, TAKE UP THE CROSS and follow me.

I think here we see an obvious transcendental truth also at work. The work of salvation is not comfortable. To arrive at transcendental and intuitive understanding of truth and to be able to apply it practically is not easy- when looked at from a certain perspective.

That salvation can also be open to non christians I think is clearly implicated in the passage of the good samaritan, amongst others.

Again, works alone can save</div></div>

I have ten thousand questions but let me start with this one:

if works alone can save - as according to the OT then u are saying that the NT and the premise if John 3:16 is false in a sense becuase it would not be necessary.....

then Jesus is not the "cross" that we must take up - then what is it in your opinion?

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Empress_Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I have ten thousand questions but let me start with this one:

if works alone can save - as according to the OT then u are saying that the NT and the premise if John 3:16 is false in a sense becuase it would not be necessary.....
</div></div>

well here I would point out that it is also according to what Yashua taught. Don't forget, when dealing with the Bible we are now in a very good position to see how it came to us as it did- we're not dealing with a text that was created in any kind of continuum...and to Jesus there was no OT/NT, there was scripture...some of which we probably don't have any more, and he himself seemed pretty capable of discerning where things were tacked on since he did not literally follow the "Bible" either, and in fact often defied some of it literally.

Look at it this way- the core teaching is 2+2=4. But some people are not in a position to come to that understanding. These people need guidance. And when people set aside their own process and seek guidance, there are always those quick to offer guidance. Now it's like a game of telephone. So, clearly, we have gotten a different formula that has some of the flavor of the core, but it's been muddled. We have in our book 2+2+a/the cosign of 2+z to the x quotient = 4...maybe.

But when we approach the formula, transcend the numbers that gain us the result of 4, and the formula is made an intuitive part of our being and understanding and we just breathe 4s as our nature manifest, then we discern that we have to reverse engineer the formula... "a" and the cosign of 2 + z don't make a lot of sense...the 2 + 2 is still in there mind you.

John is an interesting gospel.

Just to mess around a little, and to approach it differently, if God so loved the world, I think a statement like that when plugged into the myth presented which many christian sects believe - and they believe this only on self proclaimed authority- well it begs quite a few questions- wouldn't he have stood up and stopped Satan from tricking Eve. I mean, like any parent, and especially as a loving creator he would know her shortcomings and failings and tendencies, and that she was ill prepared to adequately defend herself against his own agent, who he also knew was fully capable of ruining her and hell bent on succeeding at that. He would know that if he did not step in and defend, she would be lost, tricked. I mean right at the beginning we can see that if God so loved the world, he wouldn't need to send his only begotten son to sacrifice himself in a sadistic and horrific fashion just to gain us entry into heaven and re-establish a grace which...apparently according to yashua himself never really left us, and establishing this connection with the ineffable was not based so much on believing that as opposed to acting that...

And these creation myths in genesis kind of make God seem dumb. We are to agree that God didn't know the serpent was taken over? And God in this ignorance curses the serpent. The myth, it literally falls apart in many places and requires a lot of apologizing to make it come to some kind of weird sense.

I would not be able to stand by, and I am not God. I wouldn't want anyone to stand by and see me go down if they had the ability to prevent such horror. And I'm just a human. Eve was helpless and ill equipped. According to the story she couldn't even have understood the consequences God supposedly warned her about. So that is not free choice. That is a setup for failure. Now I think we can all agree that if there is such a being as God, then this premise of him setting us up and sitting back and watching what would happen is not possible to reconcile with what we conceive him to be...

Besides, we know for a fact that the two creation stories in Genesis are mythic.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
then Jesus is not the "cross" that we must take up - then what is it in your opinion? </div></div>

the cross is an interesting symbol. it stands for earth and heaven connected. it speaks to the path of transformative suffering- at the time of it's use I understand it was the custom to make the person to be executed carry the instrument of their death- so in a very real sense it is hardship and difficulty and this theme is echoed throughout jesus' teaching as well. jesus did not reach his ministry by taking his ease in Galillee and Nazareth. He entered the desert...his practice was ascetic.

I would say Yashua's cross is the core of his teaching that must be taken up and made manifest. If you can do that and have that kind of faith, then according to Yashua you are saved.

[Nylah]

Re: Monk--A Question


a nice Zinfindel, a blanket to wrap up in, a lovely outside fire and a chance to chat with you........


when I am less sleep-deprived, I'll have more questions if u dont mind.