I've been through it many times aside of fundamentalism, which is of course a major problem that I understand skews much of the intent. I would have to admit that the level on which one stands on a mountain drastically affects the view, the interpretation of the view remains subjective and relies much on existing beliefs. Though there have been many religious and non denominational experiences for me, and numerous explorations through scriptural paths I've managed to stay aloof. I don't know that open mind alone can effect influence on one's perceived notions. I think there were many viable cultures that existed well enough without the invasion of mind polluting missionaries who brought their notions of sin, salvation and saviors. I don't see it really necessary to proselytize to isolated cultures who survive just fine on their own. I'm glad I'm totally free of it, life is good. Spot on Molly with recognition that my dreams are the central focus for much of my understanding. They are not a production of or a presentation by any social or cultural group. Dreams are not without mention in ancient texts and have played important roles, again whether the stories are true or not is, for me, of no consequence, my dreams are relevant.
On Oct 3, 9:41 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > "offers important insights into strategies and interpretations, that > hold the > hope of solution, and the keys to understanding, (which in a strange > way turn out to be the same thing) and may in fact even be decisive." > > I think this point of yours, Justin, is important but, of course, the > material will only lead to understanding if read with an open mind and > desire to feel what is conveyed. It seems to me, Slip, the material > that speaks the loudest to you are your own dreams, and how wonderful > it seems to me that this calling comes from within and is not > dependent on anything external. I do believe that anything worth > discovering externally can also be discovered internally and then, it > is in our own language. Keep dreaming. Someday, I hope to meet you > there. > > On Oct 3, 3:01 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Actualy I wasnt trying to be condescending and didnt think I was until > > I saw your reply. I was trying to be funny actually. > > > The reality is that we are all dead soon; and there is evil. I do not > > think that even if our science and our ethics were perfected that > > would change much. Then there are the ravages of boredom and, of > > course, despair. > > > Non fundamentalist interpretations of the global religious, > > philosophical and aesthetic heritage offers a repository or a record > > of the historical, or more accurate historistical, attempts to solve > > this. It is the Budhist problem of suffering as well as the Cqtholic > > process of Salvation, it is Surrender and insight, a kind of knowing. > > The suggested methods are, well let me say that I have not been able > > to find a flaw in them but I still dont understand a lot of it and, as > > they document, there are the problems of pride, Mindfullessness, > > confusion, greed etc etc that bother us and keep us from the ecstsy of > > love and the presence that is the other side of the coin so to speak > > even as we await our slaughter. > > > God, if he is, is a monster you say? It is an old argument, and there > > are old rebuttals and rebuttals to them. The nature of the problem is > > not academic and must be solved within each person in the present(ce) > > of his own experience. I will only say it is not so simple as you say > > and this literature, when not interpreted fundamentally, offers > > important insights into strategies and interpretations, that hold the > > hope of solution, and the keys to understanding, (which in a strange > > way turn out to be the same thing) and may in fact even be decisive. > > The material is difficult but just dismissing it is unfortunate and > > inaccurate. > > > You might give it another °non fundamentalist° read. > > > On Oct 2, 1:15 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The condescending ending is out of character for you, but if it does > > > something for you, that's fine but I think it brash that you would > > > consider someone else as being predictable. I don't really have much > > > as far as feelings in any Internet environment, generally I'm cool > > > headed. We are just minds here without interpersonal relationships, > > > so you could say whatever you want without worrying about hurt > > > feelings, that is with me, I can't speak for others. Personally I > > > thought it was discussion as usual not argumentation. It seems as > > > obvious now as it has in all past threads on religion and politics > > > that opposition can remain staunch and un-yeilding. You see it as you > > > do from your window of belief and I from disbelief. Neither will sway > > > the other and I have no illusions of changing your world or that of > > > Pat or Molly or anyone else. This is really a way of understanding > > > how others come to believe what they do. It's come down to two > > > personal opposing views and one is slinging mud. For me the good book > > > is just that, a good book, nothing more. I admit I do push hard in > > > some areas as a way to get past the usual and most common responses > > > but little has shown to be anything new, just the usual. > > > Maybe if God saves the tsunami victims suffocating under the crushing > > > rubble there will be something to believe. Other than that it's just > > > delusional fantasy. > > > > On Oct 2, 4:52 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Ah 'natural' yes of course but what determines what is natural? > > > > > It is natural if it pertains to what it is. When you are describing > > > > what it then you are describing nature. It is distinct from describing > > > > the fact that what is is. Then you are not talking about nature. One > > > > way of saying the difference is essence and existence. Another is > > > > physics and metaphysics, another is natural and supernatural, another > > > > (similiar anyway) is sensory and extrasensory. > > > > > >What is fact? > > > > > A fact is basically a truth that is determined non-essentially. In > > > > other words a fact is a truth that requires some existential > > > > statement. For example, the question "Do mother's have babies?" can be > > > > interpreted two ways: Does the idea of "mother" mean something that > > > > has a baby? That is a question of essence. But it can be interpreted > > > > also as something like: Are there mother's and are they having baby's? > > > > The second question is one of fact. The first question does not > > > > require observation to assert its validity. It requires meaning and > > > > definition. The second does. It is possible that the following is > > > > true: Yes, mothers do have babies but no "in fact" they are not. > > > > > I certainly couldn't > > > > > > present anything as fact) that it is > > > > > Really? How do you eat? I am completely dependent on assessing and > > > > determining facts and without that ability could not function. > > > > wouldn't be able to find my car keys! > > > > > > > is supernatural. That means that the fact (fact?) that it is is not > > > > > > what it > > > > > > is. Do you see that? (no I'm blind) > > > > > Being blind is not a problem. Wanting to stay that way, that is the > > > > problem. I'm not asserting that you "in fact" are, although frankly it > > > > looks that way, as I get your sarcasm. Just making a point > > > > essentially. > > > > > > It is in the latter that that God lies. (God is a liar? "lol") > > > > > I think that that would be essentially impossible. Just a guess > > > > though. > > > > > > (I think I already have an understanding of the supernatural, you > > > > > speak as if you are addressing a novice, when in fact I've been > > > > > through all this biblical, supernatural and mystical stuff for over 40 > > > > > years, fact is I've heard the voice of God and the visual and voice of > > > > > Jesus, whether it was real or not is another story, Chris seems to > > > > > chalk it up to DMT while I was comatose, but since I have always been > > > > > a non believer of such things I found it rather strange that I should > > > > > come across such an experience, I might mention that a priest was > > > > > called upon to administer last rites, modern day sacraments of the > > > > > sick, then I somehow came back to this godforsaken place) > > > > > I am always amazed when people refer to comatose experience of the > > > > experience of miracles. In my opinion it is a dead give away for > > > > someone who has no clue. You needn't be close to death, or on > > > > mushrooms, or seeing something that violates the laws of physics. It > > > > is there always in every experience. It is just being conscious of it. > > > > We are talking about something that technically cannot be not present. > > > > So I don't think you do have a grasp of it. You don't evidence one. > > > > > > > Simplistic creation? Where did you get that from? Not me. > > > > > > NoJustin, not you, the bible, Genesis, Creation, like what, seven > > > > > days? funny how seven is such a wonderful number for the authors of > > > > > this perpetual hoax. > > > > > Here we go with the fundamentalist strawman again.... > > > > > > > IF scripture, as you point out, has other non > > > > > > > contextual meaning then for sure, as I pointed out, it therefore > > > > > > > is a > > > > > > > more complex collection of Aesop's fables than the word of God. > > > > > > > SD > > > > > > > In a sense you are right. (wow, I'm right, in a sense, oh lordy) > > > > > > You see fairy tales and other myths also > > > > > > hold truths about metaphysical reality. And they also are not > > > > > > literal. (naw, really?) > > > > > > But what gives them their power is that, in spite of the fact that > > > > > > they are not literally true, they still capture a form of truth. > > > > > > (form of truth? sounds like another thread) They are about > > > > > > something deep - wickedness and fear and all kinds of > > > > > > things. In the extreme, if they are truly inspired (poetry is > > > > > > inspired too), then they also are > > > > > > the word of god. (Word of God? why do they have to be the word of > > > > > > God? Why can't they just be some words out of my mind or the mind > > > > > > of a poet or philosopher?) > > > > > Either the Bible is a more complex collection of Aesop's fables or it > > > > is the word of God. That is a false dilemma. The Bible could be a more > > > > complex collection of Aesop's fables *and* the word of God. > > > > > > > Look at Noah and the great flood story, the building of the Ark > > > > > > for two of > > > > > > > each kind male and female etc. Why would a supernatural omni-all > > > > > > > being have to save anything when all of it could just be > > > > > > > re-created? SD > > > > > > Oops,Justin, you left off my last line, why did you do that, I > > > > > clearly stated that is was just another "story" and now you are saying > > > > > that I am taking it literally when it is clear that I am not. > > > > > Ok it is clear that you are not. Then why did you say that the bible > > > > claimed the world was made in 7 days?! You can't do both. If you > > > > interpret it literally you are interpreting the creation as something > > > > that happened a long time ago and took 7 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
