Monk--A Question

[DC]

Re: Monk--A Question

You beat me to it Empress . I wanted to also come on in and say:
thanks for sharing monk and for being a good sport [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif[/img]..next time though no cigars for me and do have something on hand for non-drinkers like myself.. [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]..Even though at that time of the night, I probably would have sipped what you offered until its done. [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] I have comments on your last posts, but will save for later....

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk--A Question

well I look forward to the engaging conversation to resume...

[Nylah]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No, I don't. We would need a set of criteria to define God, and a means of testing and falsifying.

Short of God actually beyond a shadow of a doubt appearing and saying what is up, I can't think of a way to scientifically prove that there is a God. Irreducible complexity was a good attempt, however it is falsified at every turn.

So far he seems very reluctant to show up. I mean, burning bushes aside.
</div></div>

why would we need a specific criteria to define God absolutely? Everyone's need for Him is different therefore His existence can be one thing but His nature another.

The sticking point for most ppl in their belief in God is because they do not like the nature that is attributed to Him therefore they refuse to believe in a God that is not how they want Him defined.

At the risk of sounding like a super flake [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif[/img] what I believe of God isnt because of what I have been told but what I have experienced.


So this isnt as easily quantifiable then u are saying His existence can never be proven. (?)

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Empress_Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No, I don't. We would need a set of criteria to define God, and a means of testing and falsifying.

Short of God actually beyond a shadow of a doubt appearing and saying what is up, I can't think of a way to scientifically prove that there is a God. Irreducible complexity was a good attempt, however it is falsified at every turn.

So far he seems very reluctant to show up. I mean, burning bushes aside.
</div></div>

why would we need a specific criteria to define God absolutely? Everyone's need for Him is different therefore His existence can be one thing but His nature another.

</div></div>

That relegates his role as not much more than whatever anyone needs God to be at any time and given moment.

How do you prove his existence then? Anyone can make any claim about God and due to God's shifty nature and because someone says so is a poor way to prove his existence.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The sticking point for most ppl in their belief in God is because they do not like the nature that is attributed to Him therefore they refuse to believe in a God that is not how they want Him defined.

At the risk of sounding like a super flake [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif[/img] what I believe of God isnt because of what I have been told but what I have experienced.</div></div>

Well of course I agree in general terms with what you just pointed out. I find no value in believing in the standardized fundamentally presented literal God of the Hebrew Bible. But we have to recognize that accepting or not accepting the various presentations depends on your initial starting point.

However, to deny that there is some inherent desire to grapple and understand the archetypal and ineffable questions which human intellect allows us to grapple with and probe, is to turn our backs on our very nature...the infamous question is now begged, Did we create God or did God create us.

Well, it's easy for most people to look at other, equally tenable faiths- when all things are considered- and declare "myth" vs "truth." But on the surface it is easy to see it is all "myth" or the very least "mythic." This due to the fact that our spiritual systems all deal with these ineffables.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So this isnt as easily quantifiable then u are saying His existence can never be proven. (?) </div></div>

Exactly.

So far, it's been impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. All we can do is prove or disprove people's perceptions and claims about God.

To return to my favorite example, unless God was pulling a really sick prank, which explanation I think we can toss aside although I've heard some Jehovahs claim that fossils are just a trick, God did not create the earth and universe as depicted in the Jewish/Mesopotamian creation myths, any more or less than Odin kicked apart a frost giant to make the earth we now tread underfoot, or that Atlas carries us through the universe on his shoulders.

This is a simple, substantiated fact. So why cling in the face of the same kind of evidence which we would all trust to prove our innocence say, in a court of law if we stood accused of murder, or to prove the guilt of another...

[Nylah]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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. </div></div>

I've re-read a couple of things and this phrase keeps jumping out at me.

u say that Christianity gets loaded up with nonsense about original sin, etc. I dont understand this statement when isnt those very concepts the basis of Christianity?

original sin
cruxification
scarifice of Jesus for sins

If those things are superfluous to what Christainity is then what do u believe it is

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk--A Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Empress_Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I've re-read a couple of things and this phrase keeps jumping out at me.

u say that Christianity gets loaded up with nonsense about original sin, etc. I dont understand this statement when isnt those very concepts the basis of Christianity?

original sin
cruxification
scarifice of Jesus for sins

If those things are superfluous to what Christainity is then what do u believe it is </div></div>

well I think the term Christianity is too all encompassing a word to define at this point but at one time it was not so difficult to define. But I think in this day and age especially we can discern what Yashua taught and some of the fluffery and nonsense are easy to expose simply from a quick comparitive perusal of other myths, then internal inconsistencies can be better seen for what they are and wisdom breeds discernment.

First and foremost we have to agree that what Yashua taught should mostly make sense. Usually those who are able to stop the world and transcend through the local dichotomous understanding of the universe come away with a purity and simplicity of teaching which shows an intuitive and expressable fluency with the metaphysical subject matter they have come to wrestle with. This understanding, for it to be possessed of any veracity and authenticity, must tap into a universally expressed stream of concepts and ideas that is our spiritual inheritance- for if there is a God and he made this creation and universe this must be so...he made people before he sent Yashua.

So we have a body of knowledge which is reflected throughout mythic systems against which to check any teaching, not to mention that we can either assume God to be some cheap unethical immoral sadistic bastard, or he is not, or a mixture.

And we have to recognize and come to grips with the simple fact that there was no Adam and Eve or creation event as it is told in the Bible. Genetics and science have clearly shown that to be the case besides the further proof any rational or logical look at the story and what is claimed about it reveals, and to deny that is to simply be ignorant, perhaps wistfully so, but ignorant all the same.

So Paul is wrong.

Augustine, working off a faulty translation by Jerome, is wrong.

Sin did not enter the world through a man who never existed in a garden that never was and who could then never have possibly got tricked by his wife who never existed and who was never herself raped by a non existent talking snake.

Besides that, Jesus himself never taught, in any gospel I have read, the doctrine of Original Sin. I can't even find where it is implied that he recognized sin entering the world through Adam and this would make sense since he was Jewish, possibly an Essene or Nazorite but whatever he was he understood asceticism as a vehicle to spiritual growth. Anyway according to the Gospel accounts he point blank dictates EXACTLY what is needed to regain the grace of God, The Kingdom of Heaven, how to be saved, how to forgive sins, in several examples and I do not recall him mentioning the Fall once as something that he had come to correct through his death on the cross.

Conquering death and sin is something all together different, attainable now, and many saviours have done exactly that.

Christianity insulated against the other mythic structures from which it draws and retraces or shares or holds the same information and spiritual process regarding the ineffable in common -which is only to be expected as all transcendental systems share core patterns- is a funny thing, if not sad.

Personally, I can't consider someone to be a christian who does not pursue the teachings of Yashua and seek in all ways to make those teachings manifest. Yashua was all about the doing. That is why I say I see many Buddhists who make better Christians than many Christians. This is of course a gross oversimplification and I recognize that.

If you want, I will lay out exactly what I think is the core teaching. It would be interesting to hear your opinion, but I don't think it will surprise you much.

[Nylah]

Monk - It's all your Fault


okay monk, I had to back out of the discussion cause you kinda messed me up with all of this and a few other posts, so let me try and ressurect [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] what you wrote. Still havent worked it all out in my head cause you are kinda alot smarter than me [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/704555_dwl.gif[/img]

-but answer my highlighted part at the bottom and then I will take a go at it.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> well I think the term Christianity is too all encompassing a word to define at this point but at one time it was not so difficult to define. But I think in this day and age especially we can discern what Yashua taught and some of the fluffery and nonsense are easy to expose simply from a quick comparitive perusal of other myths, then internal inconsistencies can be better seen for what they are and wisdom breeds discernment.

First and foremost we have to agree that what Yashua taught should mostly make sense. Usually those who are able to stop the world and transcend through the local dichotomous understanding of the universe come away with a purity and simplicity of teaching which shows an intuitive and expressable fluency with the metaphysical subject matter they have come to wrestle with. This understanding, for it to be possessed of any veracity and authenticity, must tap into a universally expressed stream of concepts and ideas that is our spiritual inheritance- for if there is a God and he made this creation and universe this must be so...he made people before he sent Yashua.

So we have a body of knowledge which is reflected throughout mythic systems against which to check any teaching, not to mention that we can either assume God to be some cheap unethical immoral sadistic bastard, or he is not, or a mixture.

And we have to recognize and come to grips with the simple fact that there was no Adam and Eve or creation event as it is told in the Bible. Genetics and science have clearly shown that to be the case besides the further proof any rational or logical look at the story and what is claimed about it reveals, and to deny that is to simply be ignorant, perhaps wistfully so, but ignorant all the same.

So Paul is wrong.

Augustine, working off a faulty translation by Jerome, is wrong.

Sin did not enter the world through a man who never existed in a garden that never was and who could then never have possibly got tricked by his wife who never existed and who was never herself raped by a non existent talking snake.

Besides that, Jesus himself never taught, in any gospel I have read, the doctrine of Original Sin. I can't even find where it is implied that he recognized sin entering the world through Adam and this would make sense since he was Jewish, possibly an Essene or Nazorite but whatever he was he understood asceticism as a vehicle to spiritual growth. Anyway according to the Gospel accounts he point blank dictates EXACTLY what is needed to regain the grace of God, The Kingdom of Heaven, how to be saved, how to forgive sins, in several examples and I do not recall him mentioning the Fall once as something that he had come to correct through his death on the cross.

Conquering death and sin is something all together different, attainable now, and many saviours have done exactly that.

Christianity insulated against the other mythic structures from which it draws and retraces or shares or holds the same information and spiritual process regarding the ineffable in common -which is only to be expected as all transcendental systems share core patterns- is a funny thing, if not sad.

Personally, I can't consider someone to be a christian who does not pursue the teachings of Yashua and seek in all ways to make those teachings manifest. Yashua was all about the doing. That is why I say I see many Buddhists who make better Christians than many Christians. This is of course a gross oversimplification and I recognize that.

If you want, I will lay out exactly what I think is the core teaching. It would be interesting to hear your opinion, but I don't think it will surprise you much. </div></div>

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk - It's all your Fault

well, there is a philosophical process which is often employed when dealing with such a subject matter- basically you can take a look at what is out there, find concordance, or convergence, and there you have your stamp of approval.

it's like in buddhism, the dharma can be defined by what it isn't almost better than if you try and set down a hard definition.

because true understanding must be intuitive for it to be practical and of value.

unfortunately this leaves masters who transmit a process vulnerable to corruption, because the very nature of the wisdom is obtuse and vague.

but from this perspective the heart of the teaching can be understood.

I will pick this up again later...

[foolya]

Re: Monk - It's all your Fault

[quote=Empress_Nylah]
Still havent worked it all out in my head cause you are kinda alot smarter than me [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/704555_dwl.gif[/img]


[quote]

That is the problem with Christianity - The intellectuals such as, Monk. Christianity doom started with the Romans intellectuals, nice council, and climax with modern seminary. The longest you should keep spiritual toughs in your head is until you discern where its coming from.

[Nylah]

Re: Monk - It's all your Fault

[quote=foolya][quote=Empress_Nylah]
Still havent worked it all out in my head cause you are kinda alot smarter than me [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/704555_dwl.gif[/img]


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

That is the problem with Christianity - The intellectuals such as, Monk. Christianity doom started with the Romans intellectuals, nice council, and climax with modern seminary. The longest you should keep spiritual toughs in your head is until you discern where its coming from. </div></div>


I'm gonna roll with your comment as tongue n cheek and leave it at that [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk - It's all your Fault

uh...somebody pass foolya a clue...

[rudemonk]

Re: Monk - It's all your Fault

anyway...

the first step is to foster introspection.

all myth and all religion seeks to place the self and describe the grander arc of existence and experience as it relates.

then it becomes possible to seek out, come to grips with, digest and comprehend the archetypes and their arising which locally express themselves as Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. An archetype is the first of something, from which all else descend. If one thing is certain from comparing and contrasting human spiritual and mythological systems, it is that we all deal with archetypal themes, many have been identified across diverging cultures and peoples...

here, for the seeker of this ultimate primal expression of existence, literalism and local flavor are the impediment to transcending to the core archetype. it also becomes very clear what is gobbledeegook and what is not.

many people have no problem understanding that "other" myths are simply expressions from this archetypal pool of spiritual knowledge. However they seem incapable of looking at their own in the same way. Nobody who is Christian takes the Elder Edda creation story as anything other than story. Just as Hindus view the bible as story. The fact is people arbitrarily invest the Bible to be what it is, there is no real proof, and in fact, our scientific knowledge now shows it certainly is not the direct word of God, because if there is a God, he can't be stupid or ignorant, and the people who wrote these texts often were. I say it is mostly arbitrary because any single one of us, if born half a world away, would probably be of some other faith than what we are today, by virtue of who you are born to and where and several other factors. So if this is true, and God only spoke literally through the Bible, how the hell is that ethical? It isn't. So even locally, so called salvation plans self destruct. And the gospel writings show this as well. Is it the same Yashua who says this day you will be with me in paradise who then comes to judge again in the future? Is it the same Yashua who says the kingdom of heaven is within you, suffer the little children, and only one thing dost thou lackest yet- and then again there seem to be christians who think they can not be saved except by hunting and pecking through the sayings attributed to Yashua and by virtue of his committing a self righteous suicide.

we just have to come to grips with these simple facts and go from there...Yashua's core teaching erases dichotomous understanding which then achieves unity with the ineffable, or God.

it's very simple.

[Nylah]

Re: Monk - It's all your Fault


someone else who has used this word in a sentence [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] My grade 12 teacher argued with me that dichotomous isnt a real word..... I digress

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we just have to come to grips with these simple facts and go from there...Yashua's core teaching erases dichotomous understanding which then achieves unity with the ineffable, or God. </div></div>



if u say so.... [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif[/img]
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

it's very simple. </div></div>

Okay, let me sort out my confusion with some things. If I dont make complete sense, I ask for forgiveness in adavance.

I understand what you are saying about archetypes and that religious systems being a manifestation of archetype(s). However, if this is true and all spiritual systems are the offspring of such, then what is the true and original archetype? How is that defined? How and by whom was that originally revealed?

To me to answer any of those questions begins the ardous process of deciding which spiritual system is the most "correct" or "original" as it were. I very well may be missing a point in what you are saying and thus my confusion.

It seems too simple to say that by the very process of us humans searching for the "truth" that it is not attainable because God can never be defined or quantified. (I'm kinda pulling in some things that you had said in the original thread).

[Mutty]

Re: Monk - It's all your Fault

hmm...

[Nylah]

Re: Monk - It's all your Fault


Mutty, what r u "hmmm" -ing about?