subject:"\[FairfieldLife\] Re\: Pope Francis technique"

 Share wrote:
 
  Seraphita, I could see that the serpent could also be a symbol of kundalini, 
  an
  essential concept from another religion. It's not that God wants to enslave 
  us.
  It's that people with certain ideas about God want to enslave us. They want 
  us
  to believe their ideas rather than the ideas of other religions. To give them
  their due, they probably think their ideas are right and that they're doing
  unbelievers a favor.
 

 That's so naive, Share. You are not seeing clearly. Obviously God does want to 
enslave us. As Seraphita pointed out, he lied to Adam and Eve. I mean, we have 
his words right there in English, so we know there can be no other 
interpretation of what he said.
 

 Anybody who supports a God who lied to his very first human creations cannot 
possibly have the interests of human beings at heart. They know the ideas they 
promote are wrong and evil. Let's not mislead folks by pretending such people 
have good intentions.
 

 

 Seraphita wrote:
 
 
   Re And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden 
thou mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou 
shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely 
die (Genesis 2:16-17). :
 

 Precisely! Man didn't die so God was telling porkies! (Spare me the bollocks 
of saying man dying spiritually.)
 

 The early Gnostics were right in seeing the Serpent as the true friend of 
mankind. The Serpent wanted us to see that we are immortal (we're *really* the 
One Self  - Christ Consciousness) but God wants us to remain slaves. Of 
course, we're using mythological language here, but the God of present-day 
Christians still doesn't want people to become seers - ie, those who see 
clearly.

Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-20 Thread Share Long

Judy, I'm not 100% convinced that the Bible is God's word completely devoid of 
human interpretation.

OTOH maybe God does want to enslave us, but only out of pure Love.




On Sunday, October 20, 2013 10:13 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com 
authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
  
 Share wrote:


 Seraphita, I could see that the serpent could also be a symbol of kundalini, 
 an
 essential concept from another religion. It's not that God wants to enslave 
 us.
 It's that people with certain ideas about God want to enslave us. They want us
 to believe their ideas rather than the ideas of other religions. To give them
 their due, they probably think their ideas are right and that they're doing
 unbelievers a favor.


That's so naive, Share. You are not seeing clearly. Obviously God does want to 
enslave us. As Seraphita pointed out, he lied to Adam and Eve. I mean, we have 
his words right there in English, so we know there can be no other 
interpretation of what he said.

Anybody who supports a God who lied to his very first human creations cannot 
possibly have the interests of human beings at heart. They know the ideas they 
promote are wrong and evil. Let's not mislead folks by pretending such people 
have good intentions.


Seraphita wrote:


 
  
Re And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden 
thou mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou 
shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely 
die (Genesis 2:16-17). :

Precisely! Man didn't die so God was telling porkies! (Spare me the bollocks of 
saying man dying spiritually.)

The early Gnostics were right in seeing the Serpent as the true friend of 
mankind. The Serpent wanted us to see that we are immortal (we're *really* the 
One Self  - Christ Consciousness) but God wants us to remain slaves. Of 
course, we're using mythological language here, but the God of present-day 
Christians still doesn't want people to become seers - ie, those who see 
clearly.

RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

Share wrote:
 
 Judy, I'm not 100% convinced that the Bible is God's word completely devoid
  of human interpretation.
 

 You aren't!? That's just appalling.
 

  OTOH maybe God does want to enslave us, but only out of pure Love.

 

 No, no. God obviously hated Adam and Eve because they disobeyed him. He gave 
them free will, and they threw it back in his face. He wasn't about to forgive 
their descendants, so he destroyed all of them except Noah and his family, then 
lied again by sending the dove and the rainbow, and then later by sending Jesus 
and pretending Jesus was going to save them. Well, we know what happened to 
Jesus, don't we?
 
 
 Share wrote:

 
  Seraphita, I could see that the serpent could also be a symbol of kundalini, 
  an
  essential concept from another religion. It's not that God wants to enslave 
  us.
  It's that people with certain ideas about God want to enslave us. They want 
  us
  to believe their ideas rather than the ideas of other religions. To give them
  their due, they probably think their ideas are right and that they're doing
  unbelievers a favor.
 

 That's so naive, Share. You are not seeing clearly. Obviously God does want to 
enslave us. As Seraphita pointed out, he lied to Adam and Eve. I mean, we have 
his words right there in English, so we know there can be no other 
interpretation of what he said.
 

 Anybody who supports a God who lied to his very first human creations cannot 
possibly have the interests of human beings at heart. They know the ideas they 
promote are wrong and evil. Let's not mislead folks by pretending such people 
have good intentions.
 

 

 Seraphita wrote:
 
 
   Re And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden 
thou mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou 
shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely 
die (Genesis 2:16-17). :
 

 Precisely! Man didn't die so God was telling porkies! (Spare me the bollocks 
of saying man dying spiritually.)
 

 The early Gnostics were right in seeing the Serpent as the true friend of 
mankind. The Serpent wanted us to see that we are immortal (we're *really* the 
One Self  - Christ Consciousness) but God wants us to remain slaves. Of 
course, we're using mythological language here, but the God of present-day 
Christians still doesn't want people to become seers - ie, those who see 
clearly.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-20 Thread TurquoiseB

As I've said before, IMO 'irony' is a tactic used
primarily by people without balls who want to be
able to tell the truth, but then deny that they
said it later, claiming that they were 'only
being ironic.'
- Apr 3, 2013, some FFLer or another

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Share wrote:

  Judy, I'm not 100% convinced that the Bible is God's word completely
devoid of human interpretation.

  You aren't!? That's just appalling.

   OTOH maybe God does want to enslave us, but only out of pure Love.

  No, no. God obviously hated Adam and Eve because they disobeyed him.
He gave them free will, and they threw it back in his face. He wasn't
about to forgive their descendants, so he destroyed all of them except
Noah and his family, then lied again by sending the dove and the
rainbow, and then later by sending Jesus and pretending Jesus was going
to save them. Well, we know what happened to Jesus, don't we?

  Share wrote:

   Seraphita, I could see that the serpent could also be a symbol of
kundalini, an
   essential concept from another religion. It's not that God wants to
enslave us.
   It's that people with certain ideas about God want to enslave us.
They want us
   to believe their ideas rather than the ideas of other religions. To
give them
   their due, they probably think their ideas are right and that
they're doing
   unbelievers a favor.

  That's so naive, Share. You are not seeing clearly. Obviously God
does want to enslave us. As Seraphita pointed out, he lied to Adam and
Eve. I mean, we have his words right there in English, so we know there
can be no other interpretation of what he said.

  Anybody who supports a God who lied to his very first human creations
cannot possibly have the interests of human beings at heart. They know
the ideas they promote are wrong and evil. Let's not mislead folks by
pretending such people have good intentions.

  Seraphita wrote:

Re And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of
the garden thou mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die (Genesis 2:16-17). :

  Precisely! Man didn't die so God was telling porkies! (Spare me the
bollocks of saying man dying spiritually.)

  The early Gnostics were right in seeing the Serpent as the true
friend of mankind. The Serpent wanted us to see that we are immortal
(we're *really* the One Self  - Christ Consciousness) but God wants
us to remain slaves. Of course, we're using mythological language here,
but the God of present-day Christians still doesn't want people to
become seers - ie, those who see clearly.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Pope Francis technique

ROTFL.

Saying something false more than once doesn't somehow
make it more true, Barry.

We know from long experience why you would try to diss
irony and the folks you don't like who use it: It's
because you have a lot of trouble recognizing irony and
have many times been embarrassed by having missed it and
taken an ironic post seriously.

If what I wrote to Share were in fact telling the truth,
as you suggest, one would have to conclude that I believe
the Bible is God's word completely devoid of human
interpretation.

Unfortunately for you, nobody on FFL is likely to fall
for that (well, Share might). And it sure would make *you*
look like an idiot if anybody did, given how many times
you've insisted that I'm a TM TB.

The *fact* is, you're pissed off because you were caught
once again making stuff up, in this case by claiming
*Buck* was making stuff up about Centering Prayer.

And as is usually the case when you're pissed off, you
write what you intend to be retaliatory posts in a blind
rage and find yourself even more in the hole by making a
worse mess than you were caught out on to begin with.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote:

 As I've said before, IMO 'irony' is a tactic used
 primarily by people without balls who want to be
 able to tell the truth, but then deny that they
 said it later, claiming that they were 'only
 being ironic.'
 - Apr 3, 2013, some FFLer or another
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
 
  Share wrote:
 
   Judy, I'm not 100% convinced that the Bible is God's word completely
 devoid of human interpretation.
 
   You aren't!? That's just appalling.
 
OTOH maybe God does want to enslave us, but only out of pure Love.
 
   No, no. God obviously hated Adam and Eve because they disobeyed him.
 He gave them free will, and they threw it back in his face. He wasn't
 about to forgive their descendants, so he destroyed all of them except
 Noah and his family, then lied again by sending the dove and the
 rainbow, and then later by sending Jesus and pretending Jesus was going
 to save them. Well, we know what happened to Jesus, don't we?
 
   Share wrote:
 
Seraphita, I could see that the serpent could also be a symbol of
 kundalini, an
essential concept from another religion. It's not that God wants to
 enslave us.
It's that people with certain ideas about God want to enslave us.
 They want us
to believe their ideas rather than the ideas of other religions. To
 give them
their due, they probably think their ideas are right and that
 they're doing
unbelievers a favor.
 
   That's so naive, Share. You are not seeing clearly. Obviously God
 does want to enslave us. As Seraphita pointed out, he lied to Adam and
 Eve. I mean, we have his words right there in English, so we know there
 can be no other interpretation of what he said.
 
   Anybody who supports a God who lied to his very first human creations
 cannot possibly have the interests of human beings at heart. They know
 the ideas they promote are wrong and evil. Let's not mislead folks by
 pretending such people have good intentions.
 
   Seraphita wrote:
 
 Re And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of
 the garden thou mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of
 good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
 thereof thou shalt surely die (Genesis 2:16-17). :
 
   Precisely! Man didn't die so God was telling porkies! (Spare me the
 bollocks of saying man dying spiritually.)
 
   The early Gnostics were right in seeing the Serpent as the true
 friend of mankind. The Serpent wanted us to see that we are immortal
 (we're *really* the One Self  - Christ Consciousness) but God wants
 us to remain slaves. Of course, we're using mythological language here,
 but the God of present-day Christians still doesn't want people to
 become seers - ie, those who see clearly.

RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-20 Thread anartaxius

Share wrote:
 'OTOH maybe God does want to enslave us, but only out of pure Love.'

 

 Were I this god, I would love this; you have succumbed to the propaganda of a 
tyrant.
 

 Thomas Jefferson, an admirer of Jesus but not of much else in the Christian 
Bible wrote of this god of the Torah (as the Christians inherited the 
scriptures of the Jews) in rather disparaging terms:
 'There are, I acknowledge, passages not free from objection, which we may, 
with probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; but claiming indulgence from the 
circumstances under which he acted. His object was the reformation of some 
articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by Moses. That sect had 
presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific* character, 
cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust. Jesus, taking for his type the best 
qualities of the human head and heart, wisdom, justice, goodness, and adding to 
them power, ascribed all of these, but in infinite perfection, to the Supreme 
Being, and formed him really worthy of their adoration. Moses had either not 
believed in a future state of existence, or had not thought it essential to be 
explicitly taught to his people. Jesus inculcated that doctrine with emphasis 
and precision. Moses had bound the Jews to many idle ceremonies, mummeries and 
observances, of no effect towards producing the social utilities which 
constitute the essence of virtue; Jesus exposed their futility and 
insignificance.'
 *meaning terror-ific - 'terrifying' in more modern language
 

 This passage (from which the part I bolded is often quoted out of context or 
modified) is from a letter Jefferson wrote to one William Short in 1820.
 

 ( http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_jesus.html 
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_jesus.html )

 

 One might accuse Jefferson of racism on the basis of the content of this 
letter.
 

 Jefferson was referring to the character of god in the 'Old Testament', the 
Torah etc. which are a part of the Christian scriptures. Jefferson himself made 
a version of the Bible where he cut out all the tyrannical passages and 
mythology including the entire Old Testament, and most of the New. He admired 
Jesus to the extent the character of Jesus can be extracted from these 
writings, but he admired not much else in the Bible.
 

 
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/62/The_Jefferson_Bible_The_Life__Morals_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth_1.html
 
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/62/The_Jefferson_Bible_The_Life__Morals_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth_1.html

 

 Can you imagine an American President speaking like this today?

Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-20 Thread TurquoiseB

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Share wrote:
  'OTOH maybe God does want to enslave us, but only out of pure Love.'

  Were I this god, I would love this; you have succumbed to the
propaganda of a tyrant.

  Thomas Jefferson, an admirer of Jesus but not of much else in the
Christian Bible wrote of this god of the Torah (as the Christians
inherited the scriptures of the Jews) in rather disparaging terms:
  'There are, I acknowledge, passages not free from objection, which we
may, with probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; but claiming indulgence
from the circumstances under which he acted. His object was the
reformation of some articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by
Moses. That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being
of terrific* character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust. Jesus,
taking for his type the best qualities of the human head and heart,
wisdom, justice, goodness, and adding to them power, ascribed all of
these, but in infinite perfection, to the Supreme Being, and formed him
really worthy of their adoration. Moses had either not believed in a
future state of existence, or had not thought it essential to be
explicitly taught to his people. Jesus inculcated that doctrine with
emphasis and precision. Moses had bound the Jews to many idle
ceremonies, mummeries and observances, of no effect towards producing
the social utilities which constitute the essence of virtue; Jesus
exposed their futility and insignificance.'
  *meaning terror-ific - 'terrifying' in more modern language

  This passage (from which the part I bolded is often quoted out of
context or modified) is from a letter Jefferson wrote to one William
Short in 1820.

  ( http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_jesus.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_jesus.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_jesus.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_jesus.html   )

  One might accuse Jefferson of racism on the basis of the content of
this letter.

  Jefferson was referring to the character of god in the 'Old
Testament', the Torah etc. which are a part of the Christian scriptures.
Jefferson himself made a version of the Bible where he cut out all the
tyrannical passages and mythology including the entire Old Testament,
and most of the New. He admired Jesus to the extent the character of
Jesus can be extracted from these writings, but he admired not much else
in the Bible.

 
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/62/The_Jefferson_Bible_The_Lif\
e__Morals_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth_1.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/62/The_Jefferson_Bible_The_Lif\
e__Morals_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth_1.html 
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/62/The_Jefferson_Bible_The_Li\
fe__Morals_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth_1.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/62/The_Jefferson_Bible_The_Lif\
e__Morals_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth_1.html 

  Can you imagine an American President speaking like this today?

Can you imagine an American President even having the balls to try?

No one else can, either.

That's why America is considered a joke in most thinking parts of the
world.

Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-20 Thread Share Long

Xeno, is it even possible to enslave out of pure Love? I believe that it is and
that it is one of the great paradoxes of life. Like the way a parent will set
strong boundaries to protect their child. Like that, God, or we can call it
Life, wants to give us all of itself. It will put us through hell in order to
do this. But that is an expression of its great love for us. When we see this
and stop fighting the river, then the journey of non ending coupling of us and
Life is smoother if not ecstatic.

On Sunday, October 20, 2013 11:37 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com
anartax...@yahoo.com wrote:

Share wrote:
'OTOH maybe God does want to enslave us, but only out of pure Love.'

Were I this god, I would love this; you have succumbed to the propaganda of a
tyrant.

Thomas Jefferson, an admirer of Jesus but not of much else in the Christian
Bible wrote of this god of the Torah (as the Christians inherited the
scriptures of the Jews) in rather disparaging terms:
'There are, I acknowledge, passages not free from objection, which we may, with
probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; but claiming indulgence from the
circumstances under which he acted. His object was the reformation of some
articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by Moses. That sect had
presented forthe object of their worship, a being of terrific* character,
cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust. Jesus, taking for his type the best
qualities of the human head and heart, wisdom, justice, goodness, and adding to
them power, ascribed all of these, but in infinite perfection, to the Supreme
Being, and formed him really worthy of their adoration. Moses had either not
believed in a future state of existence, or had not thought it essential to be
explicitly taught to his people. Jesus inculcated that doctrine with emphasis
and precision. Moses had bound the Jews to many idle ceremonies, mummeries and
observances, of no effect towards producing
the social utilities which constitute the essence of virtue; Jesus exposed
their futility and insignificance.'
*meaning terror-ific - 'terrifying' in more modern language

This passage (from which the part I bolded is often quoted out of context or
modified) is from a letter Jefferson wrote to one William Short in 1820.

( http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_jesus.html )

One might accuse Jefferson of racism on the basis of the content of this letter.

Jefferson was referring to the character of god in the 'Old Testament', the
Torah etc. which are a part of the Christian scriptures. Jefferson himself made
a version of the Bible where he cut out all the tyrannical passages and
mythology including the entire Old Testament, and most of the New. He admired
Jesus to the extent the character of Jesus can be extracted from these
writings, but he admired not much else in the Bible.

http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/62/The_Jefferson_Bible_The_Life__Morals_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth_1.html

Can you imagine an American President speaking like this today?

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
(snip)
   Can you imagine an American President speaking like this today?
 
 Can you imagine an American President even having
 the balls to try?
 
 No one else can, either.
 
 That's why America is considered a joke in most
 thinking parts of the world.

Actually, most thinking parts of the world would consider
America even more of a joke, and a particularly offensive
one at that, if a president were known to have had the
balls to make such anti-Semitic remarks, even a decade out
of office.

However, Jefferson never published any of this, and hardly
anybody knew about it. Probably be a good idea to inform
oneself about the history of his projects before attempting
to make invidious comparisons with the situation today.

(Although the anti-Semitism Xeno quotes should be enough by
itself to keep one from expressing unqualified approval.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

[FairfieldLife] Re: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-20 Thread TurquoiseB

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend  wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
 (snip)
Can you imagine an American President speaking like this today?
 
  Can you imagine an American President even having
  the balls to try?
 
  No one else can, either.
 
  That's why America is considered a joke in most
  thinking parts of the world.

 Actually, most thinking parts of the world would consider
 America even more of a joke, and a particularly offensive
 one at that, if a president were known to have had the
 balls to make such anti-Semitic remarks, even a decade out
 of office.

Anyone daring to use the term anti-Semitic has already
withdrawn from the company of thinking individuals on
planet Earth.

You're implying that one group of people's fantasies about
how the universe works are more important than, more true
than, and and more inviolable than, anyone else's.

Me, I class ALL religious beliefs as fantasies. I think that
qualifies me as an egalitarian, unlike some who get their
panties in a twist when their particular fantasies are
challenged.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-20 Thread s3raphita

For those interested in the Christian faith can I recommend two books by Alan 
Watts. He made a name for himself with his books on Zen and eastern religions. 
Those books are all readable and rewarding - if approached with caution - but 
I've found his earlier works on Christianity both better written and more 
suggestive. 
 

 Myth and Ritual In Christianity (only available second-hand) approached 
Christianity by ignoring completely its truth or falsity and treating the 
sacraments purely as myth. Behold the Spirit is one of the best books that 
Watts wrote (it's my personal favourite), a wonderfully perceptive account of 
the mystical strain in Christianity.
 

 Pity he was a (genuine) sex addict and a serious alcoholic. The two vices are 
linked as he said he only felt sexy when he was drunk. And he knew even less 
about meditation than I do! Still, his faults were his problem; we can enjoy 
his insights. 
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:

 Barry's already made two WHOPPING bloopers today, but I guess he figures he 
needs to round things off with a third. And what a third...
 

 When Barry's panties get in a twist, it has the effect of shutting down what 
little is left of his brains.
 

 Of all the mind-numbingly stupid posts he's made--and I have 18 years' worth 
from which to choose--this one tops them all.
 

 (snip)
 Barry wrote:
 
 
  Anyone daring to use the term anti-Semitic has already

  withdrawn from the company of thinking individuals on
 planet Earth.
 
  You're implying that one group of people's fantasies about
 how the universe works are more important than, more true
 than, and and more inviolable than, anyone else's.

 Me, I class ALL religious beliefs as fantasies. I think that
 qualifies me as an egalitarian, unlike some who get their
 panties in a twist when their particular fantasies are
 challenged. :-)

[FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-20 Thread emptybill

A much more interesting read is Watts' The Supreme Identity (1950) which is 
largely based upon the insights of Rene Guenon.

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote:

 For those interested in the Christian faith can I recommend two books by Alan 
Watts. He made a name for himself with his books on Zen and eastern religions. 
Those books are all readable and rewarding - if approached with caution - but 
I've found his earlier works on Christianity both better written and more 
suggestive. 
 

 Myth and Ritual In Christianity (only available second-hand) approached 
Christianity by ignoring completely its truth or falsity and treating the 
sacraments purely as myth. Behold the Spirit is one of the best books that 
Watts wrote (it's my personal favourite), a wonderfully perceptive account of 
the mystical strain in Christianity.
 

 Pity he was a (genuine) sex addict and a serious alcoholic. The two vices are 
linked as he said he only felt sexy when he was drunk. And he knew even less 
about meditation than I do! Still, his faults were his problem; we can enjoy 
his insights. 
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:

 Barry's already made two WHOPPING bloopers today, but I guess he figures he 
needs to round things off with a third. And what a third...
 

 When Barry's panties get in a twist, it has the effect of shutting down what 
little is left of his brains.
 

 Of all the mind-numbingly stupid posts he's made--and I have 18 years' worth 
from which to choose--this one tops them all.
 

 (snip)
 Barry wrote:
 
 
  Anyone daring to use the term anti-Semitic has already

  withdrawn from the company of thinking individuals on
 planet Earth.
 
  You're implying that one group of people's fantasies about
 how the universe works are more important than, more true
 than, and and more inviolable than, anyone else's.

 Me, I class ALL religious beliefs as fantasies. I think that
 qualifies me as an egalitarian, unlike some who get their
 panties in a twist when their particular fantasies are
 challenged. :-)

RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-20 Thread anartaxius

 I don't know. What is the difference between 'love' and 'pure love'? When 
people fall in love, they tend to be, for a while, enslaved by that feeling 
because ego becomes subdued. When one loves, though, there is a flow from 
subject to the perceived object, but I am not clear on what 'purity' means 
here. I do not see how loving can enslave anything. Obsession can enslave its 
object. But loving enslaves the subject that perceives the object. Can one love 
something completely abstract, like pure consciousness? There does not seem to 
be anything there for flow to occur.

God so loved the world he killed his kid. Now on a human level that is just 
murder. People are always killing the object of their love, if that focus on 
the object is not returned by the object. One could take this metaphorically 
and say something like the universe itself is so in love with itself that it 
has provided a trap door into which an individual falls and dies becoming in 
their own awareness the universe itself. That trap door is whatever spiritual 
path one has chosen, provided it accomplishes that end. Can pure being, which 
has no definition be considered love? For love to occur some emptiness must 
exist to be filled, so it seems to me love is not a thing or a state but a 
process of becoming and is not therefore 'pure' in any sense.

But as I do not know the answer to this I can take suggestions. I have never 
been into bhakti , it is totally unnatural for me, so love of guru or some 
supposed sacred something would never appeal and never has appealed to me. 
However one always experiences a flow in the direction of what one likes, so 
devotion is really a part of anything that appeals to one, in greater or lesser 
degree, so devotion is not really a path, it is what allows one to stay on 
whatever path is their path. To my mind, teachers that hawk devotion as a path 
are trying to package obedience to their wishes thwarting the natural process 
of flow. Students do admire and sometimes love their teachers, and as long as 
the teacher does not artificially try to foster that and just gives the 
students what they need to succeed, I think that is fine. The goal is not to 
venerate the teacher but to live, understand, and even improve upon what the 
teacher knows. This tends not to happen in religion, where the situation 
devolves into focusing on the character of the teacher rather than on what 
teacher wanted them to know.

Does god love? If god is defined as wholeness, then god is complete and has no 
need of anything, being everything, and why would that be love? There is YHWH 
in the Torah, who in human terms could hardly be called loving. We throw people 
in prison today, for doing what YHWH does in the Bible. YHWH in the Bible is 
not an abstract being, but rather just a magnification of very human 
characteristics, rather unsavoury ones at that. But as mankind evolves there 
seems to be a tendency to more abstract conceptions of what people use the word 
'god' for, though it does not seem to have progressed all that much. You find 
very abstract conceptions of Zeus in some of the pre-Socratic philosophers, 
based on what survives of their work, and those that followed them in later 
centuries. While you have that almost daemon-like entity in the Torah, you also 
have more abstract versions of god in Cabbalah, Jewish esoteric interpretations 
of scripture, which are much more in line with what people who seek 
enlightenment are engaged in.

You said, Like that, God, or we can call it Life, wants to give us all of 
itself, but in the end, we are all of it, and have always been, so is that 
love? Maybe it just depends on how you parse the situation. If you love 
yourself, there being no other, is that love or vanity?
==
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote:

 Xeno, is it even possible to enslave out of pure Love? I believe that it is 
and that it is one of the great paradoxes of life. Like the way a parent will 
set strong boundaries to protect their child. Like that, God, or we can call it 
Life, wants to give us all of itself. It will put us through hell in order to 
do this. But that is an expression of its great love for us. When we see this 
and stop fighting the river, then the journey of non ending coupling of us and 
Life is smoother if not ecstatic.
 

 
 
 On Sunday, October 20, 2013 11:37 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote:
 
   Share wrote:
 'OTOH maybe God does want to enslave us, but only out of pure Love.'

 

 Were I this god, I would love this; you have succumbed to the propaganda of a 
tyrant.
 

 Thomas Jefferson, an admirer of Jesus but not of much else in the Christian 
Bible wrote of this god of the Torah (as the Christians inherited the 
scriptures of the Jews) in rather disparaging terms:
 'There are, I acknowledge, passages not free from objection, which we may, 
with probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; but claiming indulgence

[FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-19 Thread emptybill

According to the Orthodox, Ancestral Sin caused the reversal of paradisaical 
deathlessness by creating the consequential mortality that we all inherited. 
Obviously a mythologized explanation but this is how they explain why humans 
are prone to concupiscence and deviance of will. 

 

 Better yet is this explanation of the Orthodox view of original sin.
 

 
 http://oca.org/questions/teaching/st.-augustine-original-sin 
http://oca.org/questions/teaching/st.-augustine-original-sin
 

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:

 Thanks, this is great. For the moment, one question: The expulsion from the 
Garden and from the Tree of Life was an act of love and not vengeance so that 
humanity would not 'become immortal in sin.' What does immortal in sin mean, 
and how would that happen?
 

 emptybill wrote:
 Read this and then see if you have questions.
 

 
http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-19 Thread Richard J. Williams

It seems obvious that the stories and myths gathered in the Bible were 
assembled from immortality and fertility myths which were in common 
circulation at that time, that is, about 3000 years ago. Stephen 
Oppenheimer, writing in Eden in the East notes that many of these same 
mythic elements are still to be found in lands stretching from Egypt to 
India, Southwest Asia, Melanesia, and America.


This Levantine creation myth is closely allied to other older myths 
concerning creation, and as Harris points out, every known culture 
expresses social values and religious views through myth (Harris 101). A 
clear reference to human creation is in the Austronesian cultures of 
Southeast Asia where the idea of creation from clay or red earth is also 
used as totemic prop for mythic drama (Oppenheimer 356).


Work Cited:

Oppenhiemer, Stephen, M.D., Eden in the East. London: Phoenix, 1998

On 10/19/2013 11:56 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:


According to the Orthodox, Ancestral Sin caused the reversal of 
paradisaical deathlessness by creating the consequential mortality 
that we all inherited. Obviously a mythologized explanation but this 
is how they explain why humans are prone to concupiscence and deviance 
of will.



Better yet is this explanation of the Orthodox view of original sin.


http://oca.org/questions/teaching/st.-augustine-original-sin




---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:

*Thanks, this is great. For the moment, one question: The expulsion 
from the Garden and from the Tree of Life was an act of love and not 
vengeance so that humanity would not 'become immortal in sin.' What 
does immortal in sin mean, and how would that happen?*



*emptybill wrote:*

Read this and then see if you have questions.


http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-19 Thread Share Long

Richard, do other cultures have a myth about the fall of humanity that centers 
around acquiring some forbidden knowledge? And in other cultures is the fall 
blamed on the women?





On Saturday, October 19, 2013 2:04 PM, Richard J. Williams 
pundits...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  
It seems obvious that the stories and myths gathered in the Bible were 
assembled from immortality and fertility myths which were in common circulation 
at that time, that is, about 3000 years ago. Stephen Oppenheimer, writing in 
Eden in the East notes that many of these same mythic elements are still to 
be found in lands stretching from Egypt to India, Southwest Asia, Melanesia, 
and America.

This Levantine creation myth is closely allied to other older
  myths concerning creation, and as Harris points out, every known
  culture expresses social values and religious views through myth
  (Harris 101). A clear reference to human creation is in the
  Austronesian cultures of Southeast Asia where the idea of creation
  from clay or red earth is also used as totemic prop for mythic
  drama (Oppenheimer 356).

Work Cited:

Oppenhiemer, Stephen, M.D., Eden in the East. London: Phoenix,
  1998

On 10/19/2013 11:56 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:

  
According to the Orthodox, Ancestral Sin caused the reversal of paradisaical 
deathlessness by creating the consequential mortality that we all inherited. 
Obviously a mythologized explanation but this is how they explain why humans 
are prone to concupiscence and deviance of will. 



Better yet is this explanation of the Orthodox view of original sin.


http://oca.org/questions/teaching/st.-augustine-original-sin 





---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:


Thanks, this is great. For the moment, one question: The expulsion from the 
Garden and from the Tree of Life was an act of love and not vengeance so that 
humanity would not 'become immortal in sin.' What does immortal in sin 
mean, and how would that happen?


emptybill wrote:

Read this and then see if you have questions.


http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin

[FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-19 Thread s3raphita

Re the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is a whole lot older than modern 
Christianity.:

 

 Indeed, the doctrine was dismissed by Parmenides in the 5th centruy BC with 
his remark Nothing comes from nothing. Can't fault that logic!
 

 There is a whole shed load of doctrines a whole lot older than modern 
Christianity; the problem is modern Christians are still stuck with them.

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:

 One can see how others might see this or that without necessarily going 
along with it oneself, especially when it comes to what Christ realized and 
taught, given that we have no historical record of same. Plus which, any 
exposition of nondualism in plain speech is automatically highly suspect, 
words being, you know, dualistic. And when you find yourself talking about 
Advaita positions, things get really dicey.
 

 Oh, and the doctrine of ex nihilo is a whole lot older than modern 
Christianity.
 
Seraphita wrote:

 Re The writer is making a distinction between (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity 
and Western Christianity and how and why they diverged after the first roughly 
four centuries following Christ's death (and presumably his Resurrection).:
 

 Yep - and I'm making a distinction between what Christ himself realised and 
taught and what the Church (east and west) later came to teach. 
 

 Jesus *obviously* saw the truth of the Advaita position - I and My Father Are 
One -   and once you see that you also see that Original Sin and the 
Forgiveness of Sins are two sides of the same coin - that there is One Self 
(Christ Consciousness) which each of us is at root. 
 

 The reason modern Christians can't acknowledge that blindingly obvious fact is 
that they have to maintain the fiction that each soul was created ex nihilo. 
Only what isn't created is eternal. And what is eternal is the One Self. Read 
the Gospel accounts and you have to really work overtime not to see what Jesus 
was pointing to! The theological argy-bargy in the linked article isn't a 
problem IF you see that it is expressing in mythological terms what the 
non-dualists set out in plain speech.
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:

 Seraphita wrote:

 
  Who is on those pictures, Daddy? 
  He replied, The Virgin Mary and Jesus. 
  She picked up the icon, kissed it and hugged it to her chest exclaiming, 
  Oh, daddy, they love you so much!
 Then, he told me, We understood. It's all about affection. 
 
  If it's really all about affection who needed Christianity? People have 
  been affectionate to their friends and family since time immemorial. And
  one can't be *affectionate* to one's enemies!
 
 

 Odd that you didn't quote the very next sentence:
 

 Love, in fact, is the heart and soul of the theology of the early Church 
Fathers and of the Orthodox Church (emphasis added).

 

 That would be God's infinite love and compassion, not ordinary human affection.
 

 The writer is making a distinction between (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity and 
Western Christianity and how and why they diverged after the first roughly four 
centuries following Christ's death (and presumably his resurrection). You'll 
need to read the rest of the essay to understand what that distinction is all 
about.
 

 Your other points are something of a straw man where Eastern Christianity is 
concerned, as you'll find if you read the rest of the essay. No version of 
Christianity can be really consonant with TM metaphysics, but it appears to me 
that there are some elements of Eastern Christian theology that are more 
resonant with TM than those of Western theology. (emptybill, 
corrections/reflections solicited.)
 

  Here's the simple alternative. If you look at the basic Advaita-Vedanta
  outlook isn't it saying that there is in reality only One Self. It is only 
  in
  appearance that there are many of us. If therefore any one individual
  sins we've all sinned as there is no difference between us *in reality*.
  One man slips up - Adam - and we all take a pratfall. No man is an
  island. 
 
  But if you recognise that there is just the Self as the one actor how can
  any one man be guilty? - that is precisely to imagine oneself apart from
  the whole. The forgiveness of sins balances Original Sin.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-19 Thread Richard J. Williams

The Fall of Man myth is a universal story that teaches  by means of a 
confidence trick.


And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know 
good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the 
Tree of Life, and eat, and live for ever... therefore the Lord God sent 
him forth from the garden of Eden ... (Genesis 3:22-3).


And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden 
thou mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and 
evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof 
thou shalt surely die (Genesis 2:16-17).


Clearly, humankind did not die on that day of the Fall, but instead 
became mortal.


We can see how the creation of man from clay, as related in the 
Jehovistic account of Genesis, belonged to one branch of the world's 
universal clay-man myths springing from Southeast Asia. According to 
Oppenhiemer: In these stories a malign creature, originally either a 
devil or snake, interfered with the attempted animation of the clay 
models by the creator. A a clear reference to human creation is in the 
Austronesian cultures of Southeast Asia as totemic props for mythic 
drama (Oppenheimer 356).


Work Cited:

Eden in the East
The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia.
By Stephen Oppenheimer, M.D.
Phoenix 1998
p. 355-382

On 10/19/2013 2:14 PM, Share Long wrote:
Richard, do other cultures have a myth about the fall of humanity that 
centers around acquiring some forbidden knowledge? And in other 
cultures is the fall blamed on the women?




On Saturday, October 19, 2013 2:04 PM, Richard J. Williams 
pundits...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems obvious that the stories and myths gathered in the Bible were 
assembled from immortality and fertility myths which were in common 
circulation at that time, that is, about 3000 years ago. Stephen 
Oppenheimer, writing in Eden in the East notes that many of these 
same mythic elements are still to be found in lands stretching from 
Egypt to India, Southwest Asia, Melanesia, and America.


This Levantine creation myth is closely allied to other older myths 
concerning creation, and as Harris points out, every known culture 
expresses social values and religious views through myth (Harris 101). 
A clear reference to human creation is in the Austronesian cultures of 
Southeast Asia where the idea of creation from clay or red earth is 
also used as totemic prop for mythic drama (Oppenheimer 356).


Work Cited:

Oppenhiemer, Stephen, M.D., Eden in the East. London: Phoenix, 1998

On 10/19/2013 11:56 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com 
mailto:emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:
According to the Orthodox, Ancestral Sin caused the reversal of 
paradisaical deathlessness by creating the consequential mortality 
that we all inherited. Obviously a mythologized explanation but this 
is how they explain why humans are prone to concupiscence and 
deviance of will.


Better yet is this explanation of the Orthodox view of original sin.

http://oca.org/questions/teaching/st.-augustine-original-sin



---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com 
mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... 
mailto:authfriend@... wrote:


*Thanks, this is great. For the moment, one question: The expulsion 
from the Garden and from the Tree of Life was an act of love and not 
vengeance so that humanity would not 'become immortal in sin.' What 
does immortal in sin mean, and how would that happen?*


*emptybill wrote:*
Read this and then see if you have questions.

http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin

[FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-19 Thread s3raphita

 Re And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden 
thou mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou 
shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely 
die (Genesis 2:16-17). :
 

 Precisely! Man didn't die so God was telling porkies! (Spare me the bollocks 
of saying man dying spiritually.)
 

 The early Gnostics were right in seeing the Serpent as the true friend of 
mankind. The Serpent wanted us to see that we are immortal (we're *really* the 
One Self  - Christ Consciousness) but God wants us to remain slaves. Of 
course, we're using mythological language here, but the God of present-day 
Christians still doesn't want people to become seers - ie, those who see 
clearly.
 

  
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote:

 The Fall of Man myth is a universal story that teaches  by means of a 
confidence trick.
 
 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good 
and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree of 
Life, and eat, and live for ever... therefore the Lord God sent him forth from 
the garden of Eden ... (Genesis 3:22-3).
 
 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou 
mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou 
shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely 
die (Genesis 2:16-17). 
 
 Clearly, humankind did not die on that day of the Fall, but instead became 
mortal. 
 
 We can see how the creation of man from clay, as related in the Jehovistic 
account of Genesis, belonged to one branch of the world's universal clay-man 
myths springing from Southeast Asia. According to Oppenhiemer: In these 
stories a malign creature, originally either a devil or snake, interfered with 
the attempted animation of the clay models by the creator. A a clear reference 
to human creation is in the Austronesian cultures of Southeast Asia as totemic 
props for mythic drama (Oppenheimer 356).
 
 Work Cited:
 
 Eden in the East
 The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia.
 By Stephen Oppenheimer, M.D.
 Phoenix 1998
 p. 355-382
 
 On 10/19/2013 2:14 PM, Share Long wrote:
 
   Richard, do other cultures have a myth about the fall of humanity that 
centers around acquiring some forbidden knowledge? And in other cultures is the 
fall blamed on the women?
 
 
 
 
 On Saturday, October 19, 2013 2:04 PM, Richard J. Williams punditster@... 
mailto:punditster@... wrote:
 
   
 It seems obvious that the stories and myths gathered in the Bible were 
assembled from immortality and fertility myths which were in common circulation 
at that time, that is, about 3000 years ago. Stephen Oppenheimer, writing in 
Eden in the East notes that many of these same mythic elements are still to 
be found in lands stretching from Egypt to India, Southwest Asia, Melanesia, 
and America.
 
 This Levantine creation myth is closely allied to other older myths concerning 
creation, and as Harris points out, every known culture expresses social values 
and religious views through myth (Harris 101). A clear reference to human 
creation is in the Austronesian cultures of Southeast Asia where the idea of 
creation from clay or red earth is also used as totemic prop for mythic drama 
(Oppenheimer 356).
 
 Work Cited:
 
 Oppenhiemer, Stephen, M.D., Eden in the East. London: Phoenix, 1998
 
 On 10/19/2013 11:56 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote:
 
   According to the Orthodox, Ancestral Sin caused the reversal of 
paradisaical deathlessness by creating the consequential mortality that we all 
inherited. Obviously a mythologized explanation but this is how they explain 
why humans are prone to concupiscence and deviance of will. 
 
 
 
 Better yet is this explanation of the Orthodox view of original sin.
 
 
 
 http://oca.org/questions/teaching/st.-augustine-original-sin 
 
 
 
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 Thanks, this is great. For the moment, one question: The expulsion from the 
Garden and from the Tree of Life was an act of love and not vengeance so that 
humanity would not 'become immortal in sin.' What does immortal in sin mean, 
and how would that happen?
 
 
 emptybill wrote:
 Read this and then see if you have questions.
 
 
 
http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin
 
http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin

[FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-18 Thread s3raphita

Who is on those pictures, Daddy? 
 He replied, The Virgin Mary and Jesus. 
 She picked up the icon, kissed it and hugged it to her chest exclaiming, Oh, 
daddy, they love you so much!
 Then, he told me, We understood. It's all about affection. 
 

 If it's really all about affection who needed Christianity? People have been 
affectionate to their friends and family since time immemorial. And one can't 
be *affectionate* to one's enemies!
 

 Here's the simple alternative. If you look at the basic Advaita-Vedanta 
outlook isn't it saying that there is in reality only One Self. It is only in 
appearance that there are many of us. If therefore any one individual sins 
we've all sinned as there is no difference between us *in reality*. One man 
slips up - Adam - and we all take a pratfall. No man is an island. 
 

 But if you recognise that there is just the Self as the one actor how can any 
one man be guilty? - that is precisely to imagine oneself apart from the whole. 
The forgiveness of sins balances Original Sin.
 

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote:

  Read this and then see if you have questions.
 

 
http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin

 

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:

 Well, at least he uses Christian sacred words rather than the Sanskrit 
mantras the devil prefers...
 

 On a different topic, I'd be interested to know more about what you said 
regarding Augustine and real Christianity, if you have the time and 
inclination. Where did Augustine go wrong?
 

 emptybill wrote:

Judy, 
 
I remember asking the same question to my friend as he repeated the 
conversation. He said I guess he was a TM teacher because you had to be one to 
be there on course. 

Mm ... a TM teacher.
If Basil is worse than a fallen Catholic then he must be a devil worshiper!

[FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-18 Thread s3raphita

Re The writer is making a distinction between (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity 
and Western Christianity and how and why they diverged after the first roughly 
four centuries following Christ's death (and presumably his Resurrection).:
 

 Yep - and I'm making a distinction between what Christ himself realised and 
taught and what the Church (east and west) later came to teach. 
 

 Jesus *obviously* saw the truth of the Advaita position - I and My Father Are 
One -   and once you see that you also see that Original Sin and the 
Forgiveness of Sins are two sides of the same coin - that there is One Self 
(Christ Consciousness) which each of us is at root. 
 

 The reason modern Christians can't acknowledge that blindingly obvious fact is 
that they have to maintain the fiction that each soul was created ex nihilo. 
Only what isn't created is eternal. And what is eternal is the One Self. Read 
the Gospel accounts and you have to really work overtime not to see what Jesus 
was pointing to! The theological argy-bargy in the linked article isn't a 
problem IF you see that it is expressing in mythological terms what the 
non-dualists set out in plain speech.
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:

 Seraphita wrote:

 
  Who is on those pictures, Daddy? 
  He replied, The Virgin Mary and Jesus. 
  She picked up the icon, kissed it and hugged it to her chest exclaiming, 
  Oh, daddy, they love you so much!
 Then, he told me, We understood. It's all about affection. 
 
  If it's really all about affection who needed Christianity? People have 
  been affectionate to their friends and family since time immemorial. And
  one can't be *affectionate* to one's enemies!
 
 

 Odd that you didn't quote the very next sentence:
 

 Love, in fact, is the heart and soul of the theology of the early Church 
Fathers and of the Orthodox Church (emphasis added).

 

 That would be God's infinite love and compassion, not ordinary human affection.
 

 The writer is making a distinction between (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity and 
Western Christianity and how and why they diverged after the first roughly four 
centuries following Christ's death (and presumably his resurrection). You'll 
need to read the rest of the essay to understand what that distinction is all 
about.
 

 Your other points are something of a straw man where Eastern Christianity is 
concerned, as you'll find if you read the rest of the essay. No version of 
Christianity can be really consonant with TM metaphysics, but it appears to me 
that there are some elements of Eastern Christian theology that are more 
resonant with TM than those of Western theology. (emptybill, 
corrections/reflections solicited.)
 

  Here's the simple alternative. If you look at the basic Advaita-Vedanta
  outlook isn't it saying that there is in reality only One Self. It is only 
  in
  appearance that there are many of us. If therefore any one individual
  sins we've all sinned as there is no difference between us *in reality*.
  One man slips up - Adam - and we all take a pratfall. No man is an
  island. 
 
  But if you recognise that there is just the Self as the one actor how can
  any one man be guilty? - that is precisely to imagine oneself apart from
  the whole. The forgiveness of sins balances Original Sin.

[FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

2013-10-17 Thread emptybill

I had a long time friend who was a TM teacher in Thailand, Malaysia and 
Singapore in the mid-70's who talked with Basil Pennington on ATR.
 

 Basil's concern was how to port over the TM technique to revive the Catholic 
contemplative tradition. He believed this could be done and was working with a 
few others who had learned the technique to make it happen. We now know who 
those others were. 

 

 This Rock Catholic Evangelical magazine (now called Catholic Answers) has 
repeatedly condemned the entry of Hindu TM along with Buddhist Vipassana into 
Catholic practice. They consider it all to be the devious subterfuge of the 
Evil One working to overthrow the pure teachings of Roman Catholicism.


I agree with their premise. TM and its Vedic roots are in contradiction to the 
Sin-Guilt-Redemption miasma of Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity. 
These Western Christian lineages are an Augustinian deviation from original 
Christianity - which only still exists (to some extent) in the Eastern Orthodox 
church. 

However, the Eastern Orthodox teachings and contemplative practices are solely 
Christo-centric and have no place (nor need any) for TM practice or theories. 

 

 

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:

 Buck wrote:
 
  Dear Turq; to give credit where credit is due, actually Centering Prayer
  was drawn from the range of Christian and Eastern mystics but to be
  more honest and accurate was distilled from Transcendental Meditation
  in the 1970's by the three monks and their brethren at St. Joseph's
  Abbey in Spencer Massachusetts.
  
  I know, I was there and watched them rip Transcendental Meditation [TM]
  off for their own purposes.
 
  -Buck in the Dome 
 
 I'll confirm that the assumption among TMers that these three clerics' version
 of Centering Prayer was based on TM was current back in the late 1970s. It
 isn't something Buck made up. Photocopies of the chapter entitled TM and
 Centering Prayer from Pennington's 1977 book Daily We Touch Him were
 routinely passed around among TMers.
 
 Moreover, if Barry had any curiosity at all, or any desire to get his facts 
straight,
 he would have checked out the PDF that Xeno uploaded. It would be extremely
 difficult for anyone familiar with TM instruction to read those two pages on 
how 
 to do Centering Prayer and claim that it had nothing to do with TM. It's
 obvious that the clerics did indeed rip off the instructions for TM, just as 
Buck
 says above.
 
 The mechanics of the techniques are virtually identical. The only two 
significant
 differences are (1) that TM uses a teacher-assigned Sanskrit mantra, whereas
 Centering Prayer uses a self-chosen sacred word from the Christian tradition;
 and (2) that the explicit context of Centering Prayer is Christian, whereas 
TM's is
 either secular, religious/nondenominational, or Hindu, depending on one's
 approach.
 
 --The Corrector
 
 
 
 Barry wrote:
 (snip) 
   I think we all know that The Corrector will probably rip Buck a new 
   asshole for
   running this tired and intentionally misleading routine again, but just on 
   the off
   chance that she doesn't, I will. The bolded section in brackets above comes
   only from Buck's fevered imagination. Anyone who reads the rest of the
   descriptions on that page knows that it has nothing to do with TM. 
   
   Buck's as bad as Willytex at making shit up and presenting it as fact.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

emptybill, it's not only the Roman Catholic Church that thinks this of TM. Back 
in the 80s some Jehovah Witnesses told me that TM is the work of the devil, 
that it says so in the Bible. I asked if the Bible actually used the phrase 
Transcendental Meditation. They admitted that it didn't but added, but you 
know that's what it means. They finally left when I told them that, based on 
my own experience I did not think TM to be the work of the devil and thus would 
continue it.

I was once told by a conservative spiritual teacher of great learning that 
there is a Council on the non physical plane that meets regularly and that 
determines which spiritual system has ascendency at which time in history. This 
resonates as true to me and is how I understand the seeming ignorance of some 
systems. I guess wisdom too unfolds over time even though on the deepest level, 
it is always alive.





On Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:15 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com 
emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
  
I had a long time friend who was a TM teacher in Thailand, Malaysia and 
Singapore in the mid-70's who talked with Basil Pennington on ATR.

Basil's concern was how to port over the TM technique to revive the Catholic 
contemplative tradition. He believed this could be done and was working with a 
few others who had learned the technique to make it happen. We now know who 
those others were. 


This Rock Catholic Evangelical magazine (now called Catholic Answers) has 
repeatedly condemned the entry of Hindu TM along with Buddhist Vipassana into 
Catholic practice. They consider it all to be the devious subterfuge of the 
Evil One working to overthrow the pure teachings of Roman Catholicism.

I agree with their premise. TM and its Vedic roots are in contradiction to the 
Sin-Guilt-Redemption miasma of Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity. 
These Western Christian lineages are an Augustinian deviation from original 
Christianity - which only still exists (to some extent) in the Eastern Orthodox 
church. 

However, the Eastern Orthodox teachings and contemplative practices are solely 
Christo-centric and have no place (nor need any) for TM practice or theories. 






---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:


Buck wrote:


 Dear Turq;  to give credit where credit is due, actually Centering Prayer
 was drawn from the range of Christian and Eastern mystics but to be
 more honest and accurate was distilled from Transcendental Meditation
 in the 1970's by the three monks and their brethren at St. Joseph's
 Abbey in Spencer Massachusetts.
 
 I know, I was there and watched them rip Transcendental Meditation [TM]
 off for their own purposes.

 -Buck in the Dome 

I'll confirm that the assumption among TMers that these three clerics' version
of Centering Prayer was based on TM was current back in the late 1970s. It
isn't something Buck made up. Photocopies of the chapter entitled TM and
Centering Prayer from Pennington's 1977 book Daily We Touch Him were
routinely passed around among TMers.

Moreover, if Barry had any curiosity at all, or any desire to get his facts 
straight,
he would have checked out the PDF that Xeno uploaded. It would be extremely
difficult for anyone familiar with TM instruction to read those two pages on 
how 
to do Centering Prayer and claim that it had nothing to do with TM. It's
obvious that the clerics did indeed rip off the instructions for TM, just as 
Buck
says above.

The mechanics of the techniques are virtually identical. The only two 
significant
differences are (1) that TM uses a teacher-assigned Sanskrit mantra, whereas
Centering Prayer uses a self-chosen sacred word from the Christian tradition;
and (2) that the explicit context of Centering Prayer is Christian, whereas 
TM's is
either secular, religious/nondenominational, or Hindu, depending on one's
approach.

--The Corrector



Barry wrote:
(snip) 

  I think we all know that The Corrector will probably rip Buck a new asshole 
  for
  running this tired and intentionally misleading routine again, but just on 
  the off
  chance that she doesn't, I will. The bolded section in brackets above comes
  only from Buck's fevered imagination. Anyone who reads the rest of the
  descriptions on that page knows that it has nothing to do with TM. 
  
  Buck's as bad as Willytex at making shit up and presenting it as fact.

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

Share wrote:
 

  emptybill, it's not only the Roman Catholic Church that thinks this of TM.
 

 No kidding!! Boy, I bet emptybill will be surprised to learn this.
 

 Actually Protestant fundamentalist Christians generally, not just Jehovah's 
Witnesses, think TM is the work of the devil.
 

 

  Back in the 80s some Jehovah Witnesses told me that TM is the work of the 
devil, that it says so in the Bible. I asked if the Bible actually used the 
phrase Transcendental Meditation. They admitted that it didn't but added, but 
you know that's what it means. They finally left when I told them that, based 
on my own experience I did not think TM to be the work of the devil and thus 
would continue it.

Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

Judy, indeed emptybill is very knowledgeable. I was launching into my 
experience with that sentence.





On Thursday, October 17, 2013 10:10 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com 
authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
  
Share wrote:

 emptybill, it's not only the Roman Catholic Church that thinks this of TM.

No kidding!! Boy, I bet emptybill will be surprised to learn this.

Actually Protestant fundamentalist Christians generally, not just Jehovah's 
Witnesses, think TM is the work of the devil.


 Back in the 80s some Jehovah Witnesses told me that TM is the work of the 
devil, that it says so in the Bible. I asked if the Bible actually used the 
phrase Transcendental Meditation. They admitted that it didn't but added, but 
you know that's what it means. They finally left when I told them that, based 
on my own experience I did not think TM to be the work of the devil and thus 
would continue it.

RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

Because you thought he thought it was just Catholics and wanted him to know it 
was also Jehovah's Witnesses. But you weren't aware that fundamentalist 
Christians (Protestants) generally, not just Jehovah's Witnesses, think TM is 
of the devil.
 
Share wrote:
 
  Judy, indeed emptybill is very knowledgeable. I was launching into my 
  experience with that
  sentence.
 

 Share wrote:

 

  emptybill, it's not only the Roman Catholic Church that thinks this of TM.
 

 No kidding!! Boy, I bet emptybill will be surprised to learn this.
 

 Actually Protestant fundamentalist Christians generally, not just Jehovah's 
Witnesses, think TM is the work of the devil.
 

 

  Back in the 80s some Jehovah Witnesses told me that TM is the work of the 
devil, that it says so in the Bible. I asked if the Bible actually used the 
phrase Transcendental Meditation. They admitted that it didn't but added, but 
you know that's what it means. They finally left when I told them that, based 
on my own experience I did not think TM to be the work of the devil and thus 
would continue it.

Re: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

I didn't think that about empty. It was simply my intro into my story.





On Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:01 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com 
authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
  
Because you thought he thought it was just Catholics and wanted him to know it 
was also Jehovah's Witnesses. But you weren't aware that fundamentalist 
Christians (Protestants) generally, not just Jehovah's Witnesses, think TM is 
of the devil.

Share wrote:


 Judy, indeed emptybill is very knowledgeable. I was launching into my 
 experience with that
 sentence.


Share wrote:



 emptybill, it's not only the Roman Catholic Church that thinks this of TM.

No kidding!! Boy, I bet emptybill will be surprised to learn this.

Actually Protestant fundamentalist Christians generally, not just Jehovah's 
Witnesses, think TM is the work of the devil.


 Back in the 80s some Jehovah Witnesses told me that TM is the work of the 
devil, that it says so in the Bible. I asked if the Bible actually used the 
phrase Transcendental Meditation. They admitted that it didn't but added, but 
you know that's what it means. They finally left when I told them that, based 
on my own experience I did not think TM to be the work of the devil and thus 
would continue it.

RE: Re: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

Don't believe you, sorry. 
 
Share wrote:

 I didn't think that about empty. It was simply my intro into my story.
 

 
 
 On Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:01 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... 
wrote:
 
   Because you thought he thought it was just Catholics and wanted him to know 
it was also Jehovah's Witnesses. But you weren't aware that fundamentalist 
Christians (Protestants) generally, not just Jehovah's Witnesses, think TM is 
of the devil.
 
Share wrote:
 
  Judy, indeed emptybill is very knowledgeable. I was launching into my 
  experience with that
  sentence.
 

 Share wrote:

 

  emptybill, it's not only the Roman Catholic Church that thinks this of TM.
 

 No kidding!! Boy, I bet emptybill will be surprised to learn this.
 

 Actually Protestant fundamentalist Christians generally, not just Jehovah's 
Witnesses, think TM is the work of the devil.
 

 

  Back in the 80s some Jehovah Witnesses told me that TM is the work of the 
devil, that it says so in the Bible. I asked if the Bible actually used the 
phrase Transcendental Meditation. They admitted that it didn't but added, but 
you know that's what it means. They finally left when I told them that, based 
on my own experience I did not think TM to be the work of the devil and thus 
would continue it.

Re: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique

No need to be sorry, it's just your opinion to which you are entitled.





On Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:21 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com 
wrote:
 
  
I didn't think that about empty. It was simply my intro into my story.





On Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:01 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com 
authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
  
Because you thought he thought it was just Catholics and wanted him to know it 
was also Jehovah's Witnesses. But you weren't aware that fundamentalist 
Christians (Protestants) generally, not just Jehovah's Witnesses, think TM is 
of the devil.

Share wrote:


 Judy, indeed emptybill is very knowledgeable. I was launching into my 
 experience with that
 sentence.


Share wrote:



 emptybill, it's not only the Roman Catholic Church that thinks this of TM.

No kidding!! Boy, I bet emptybill will be surprised to learn this.

Actually Protestant fundamentalist Christians generally, not just Jehovah's 
Witnesses, think TM is the work of the devil.


 Back in the 80s some Jehovah Witnesses told me that TM is the work of the 
devil, that it says so in the Bible. I asked if the Bible actually used the 
phrase Transcendental Meditation. They admitted that it didn't but added, but 
you know that's what it means. They finally left when I told them that, based 
on my own experience I did not think TM to be the work of the devil and thus 
would continue it.

RE: Re: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Pope Francis technique