BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

On Faith

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Quantum
15:03 / 10.02.06
Seconded!

Qwik- I just wrote a twenty minute post about compatibility theorems then lost it due to a PC crash grrr.

Here's the nutshell version-
You may want to try the Headshop about this.
Here's some answers that might satisfy you;
-Stuuupid Hu-Mans our conceptions of freedom and omniscience are incompatible because they are flawed because we are stupid, in ObjectivelyTrueWorld there is no conflict.
-No Fate (the Terminator response) the future is not fixed, so not knowing it is no limitation on God's power. The world is playing out according to our choices, and God is eating popcorn watching us like a huge sitcom, occasionally intervening, like a Big Brother Planet (day 6,294,049,673,231 in God's House, and the humans have realised Nature is angry).
-No Knowledge it's impossible to know anything for certain in principle not just cos we're stupid, so God Knows as much as it's possible to know. He knows all about quantum physics for example, which says the universe is fundamentally uncertain.
-Braveheart's mistake there is no freedom, we just feel free. It's an illusion God has given us for our own good.

I favour the Stupid Human answer. But then, I never believed in Omniscience or God so...
 
 
Claris Dancers
17:10 / 10.02.06
As a flawed illustration here, an intention is what is expressed by a mule in the wild foraging for food when hungry. A goal is the carrot hung in front of a donkey on a pleasure beach, utilising its desire to take advantage of it. Intention flows from within, is present, and expressed as and in the behaviours of the individual. They require no movement for expression. They simply are. Goals are without, and are moved towards by the individual, dictating behaviours. They are timebound and require volitional action for satisfaction or resolution of their self created tensions. An intention does not need to resolve. It is self-perpetuating.


your definitions seem abit arbitrary and based on personal connotation, but i understand your issue with combining them as i had.



We probably understand very different things by the term 'god' here. And 'omniscient'.

Admittedly (and ashamedly) when i think of the christian god, my first thought is of the old white man in the beard and robes - probably from many years of reading Gray Larson among other things. Also the original post from iconoplast put me in that frame of mind. It's difficult for me to think of typical christians of today imagining anything else as well. And not being religious myself, i think i took the stance of a religion i am most familiar with and posed a question i had heard christians stumble with. So yes, the terms in which i framed my question were limiting the possibilities of that which is limitless. But as it seems to be turning out, there's no real good answer in the unlimited scope either.

From my perspective, it seems to be one of Quantum's answers (I love Quantum's posts, btw). I had assumed it was either "Braveheart's mistake" or a situation where god doesn't know everything and is therefore not omniscient (which ever choice that falls into, im not really sure, probably "No Fate"). But you guys all seem to be pointing to "Stuuupid Hu-Mans" which (apologies) is a non-answer.

When asked this I have seen people become angry, stop talking to me, or just shut down mentally with a "you just gotta have faith" or "god is multifaceted like a diamond" or the classic, "god works in mysterious ways." And they all seem similar to "Stuuupid Hu-Mans" to me.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
17:26 / 10.02.06
If the Stupid Hu-Man answer is a copout (and I agree, btw) then we are left with either the other options, or something not mentioned yet.

I think of it in terms of the novel (novella maybe...) Flatland, but even then there are two possibilities.
1.
We exist in the space we do, IF there is anything with the ability to create all of this space, then it would need to exist outside it. This just stands to reason, you can’t be inside a house, and then decide to build the house you already exist inside. So God in this example is of a higher order, and is able to look at us from that. s/he would be able to look at all of creation. If you think of your life as a culmination of choices you make, you can compare God to the author of a choose your own adventure novel. While you have the free will to read the book how you like, the author knows all the possible outcomes. This foreknowledge doesn’t take away from your free will, and that is the important part of this ramble.

2.
The second option is a bit muddier. In this we assume that God WAS able to build the house they already lived in. This theory I am not comfortable with, but it fits with the idea that everything contains the divine. If every molecule contains the essence and will of God, then God is aware of everything and is, for all purposes, omniscient. This theory has the potential to make free will impossible, and I don't have a counter to that claim handy at the moment. The only thing I could suggest is that our consciousness, built out of experience, not molecules and atoms, could give us free will to move our walking God repositories in ways we choose.


Sorry if my ramblings are muddying up the Temple, I don't post here often.
 
 
Seth
05:32 / 11.02.06
There's also the school of thought that might speculate that God does not just see the entirity of all possible worlds and choices but is the manifestation of all of space time, and the minutia of our day-to-day lives and the choices we make are the mechanism by which God contemplates and seeks to understand itself. As are the daily activities of a fly, walrus, bank manager, lion or daffodil.

That's a pretty concise version of what I was aiming for with my commentary on Jesus above, although I cannot conceive of god except that he transcends space-time at the same time as being space-time.
 
 
MrCoffeeBean
20:45 / 12.02.06
I do consider religion/faith/spirituality the opposite of magic. Religion and shit like that are all about setting up rules and letting all decisions be made by some "god". Its about giving up youre own power, youre own responsibility and youre own respect for youreself and others. Its all about giving up for some "bigger power". Fuck that shit.

Magic are all about taking responsibility standing up for youreself and others around you. Its about gaining control.
For me my approch to magic are strongly assosiated with my anarchist and atheist beliefs. Yes, you can be a athesit and magician. All "magicpowers" comes from inside us humans.

And all that "moral" bullshit religions tend tohave, how come most of them are so much about obeying powers from above? and alot of that obeyng are about accepting rules of kings and shit. Its all because of thet hsit are invented by those powers who want control... Religion were invented to keep people in line a nd make them shut up.

All my magic works towards a total destruction of the capitalist system and a destruction of all oranized religion.
 
 
Seth
01:14 / 13.02.06
MrCoffeeBean, have you read this thread?
 
 
iconoplast
05:42 / 13.02.06
I wonder if they have these problems in the Head Shop?
 
 
illmatic
07:04 / 13.02.06
Mr Coffee Bean, if you continue to make posts like the one above, where no attempt is made to engage with the issues of the thread, I will move them for deletion. You may not be appreciate them, dude, but the discussions of faith up thread are very thoughtful and considered. If you wish to actually read them, try and understand them, and contribute an equally thoughtful critque, based on your position, you are welcome to do so.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
07:17 / 13.02.06
There's also the school of thought that might speculate that God does not just see the entirity of all possible worlds and choices but is the manifestation of all of space time, and the minutia of our day-to-day lives and the choices we make are the mechanism by which God contemplates and seeks to understand itself. As are the daily activities of a fly, walrus, bank manager, lion or daffodil.

When I was younger and attempting to reconcile free will and predestination, this is essentially what I came up with.

That's a pretty concise version of what I was aiming for with my commentary on Jesus above, although I cannot conceive of god except that he transcends space-time at the same time as being space-time.

To me that's the easiest way to make it all add up.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
07:57 / 13.02.06
Way to go, Mr. CoffeeBean! You may glean more from other posts than this one, if that is your (obviously carefully) considered opinion.

Back on thread, I think part of the problem with this kind of search for satisfying logical explanations of conundrums we have created regarding this, that or the other, is that they are, by their own terms of reference, extremely limited. Whereas that whcih they are seeking to explain is limitless.

It's like : if I can just find a satisfying logical reduction of the Mysteries, then I'll be able to 'make up my mind' as to the veracity or reality of the whole God issue. If someone can just explain, to my rational self, these wee sticking points, once that's cleared up I'll know which way to, so to speak, dress.

The obvious problem with this is, of course, that it perfectly represents a case of 'reaching for your own hands'. Logic is limited precisely because of this. It cannot contain itself. The Reality of the Mystery is that it is far too large to be contained by logic, which is nothing but a small, rather handy part of it.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
07:59 / 13.02.06
Oh, and sorry, but one last time: MrCoffeeBean, you are a humuorless parody. Grow up.
 
 
Unconditional Love
10:38 / 13.02.06
Does faith have to be in something external, that appears seperate, or since it could be argued that we are made in gods image, could faith be applied just in ones self with full knowledge that ones self and every character of ones self is the embodyment of god.

ie faith in the microcosm reflects faith in the greater glory of creation.
 
 
Seth
11:11 / 13.02.06
My interest would lie less in whether faith had to be projected onto something external, and more on what is beneficial or useful about choosing to project one's faith onto someone or something that may or may not exist that we choose to perceive as external in some contexts.
 
 
Unconditional Love
12:44 / 13.02.06
What i see as being useful and of benefit is that it would allow us to see god in everything around us and not only in ourselves, encouraging a more open understanding and compassionate nature towards all the expressions of god we encounter.

Its keeping the faith in the face of suffering that is hardest in my experience, until a recognition is made that god is not just the nice things in life. God is in everything, including every single aspect of the nasty shit. god is love, but god is also hate, god is life, but god is also death. every colour, every emotion, every action, and combination of.

God is as much in the anti christian as the christian, the athiest etc.

To try and seperate god, by applying the devil as his opposite is where in my opinion a falsehood is created, and also an excuse for intolerence towards parts of gods creation.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
13:21 / 13.02.06
Stupid Hu-Man answer is a copout

is quantum physics a "copout" because light may be both a wave and a particle? As I understand it, the Stupid Hoomans argument is not that the question is hard so we shouldn't try to answer it, but that the question is (potentially) invalid. The problem is not that we are too Stupid to answer important questions but that our limited viewpoint is the only thing making those questions appear to exist. We have evolved in a specialized environment in which sets of rules like Newtonian Mechanics or Euclidian Geometry appear real, because we didn't grow up traveling near the speed of light or near a black hole. However Relativity suggests that the universe is not built as we perceive it to be. Similarly, we (potentially) perceive things like Causality and Mutual Exclusion to be obvious truths, when in fact they may not be. It may be entirely possible for free will and an all-knowing God to coexist whether or not it sounds like nonsense.

Your True Will is God's Will (or maybe your True Will is God). He knows what choices you're going to make because you're going to get exactly what you want. You created God so that he could create the Universe, because the Universe had to be here for you to exist. Or something.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
13:52 / 13.02.06
I like that last bit pants, and thanks for a meatier explanation of the Stupid Human idea. I was, in fact, reading it as a "The question is too hard for our primitive caveman brains..." explanation, not one that is unanswerable because of the 3D space we are stuck in.
 
 
Seth
14:50 / 13.02.06
Your True Will is God's Will (or maybe your True Will is God). He knows what choices you're going to make because you're going to get exactly what you want. You created God so that he could create the Universe, because the Universe had to be here for you to exist. Or something.

Perhaps the creationist god is another aspect of ourselves as seen through the divine mirror, as we create our conceptions the universe every second as we interact with it. Again, I'm not interested here in the veracity of god, just the usefulness of such a belief... and I'm thinking on my feet, not presenting my own stance.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
16:22 / 13.02.06
thanks for a meatier explanation of the Stupid Human idea.

well, I hope that's what Quantum was talking about and that I didn't mess it up - what I said was how I see the problem, anyway.

I'm finding difficulty talking here about my own opinions/experiences due partly to language issues...what is it exactly that I...communicate with? entity, force, being, other...god, goddess, demon, spirit, extraterrestrial, the universe, or some previously hidden aspect of my own pysche...the words don't seem right. trying to limit it to something you can describe doesn't seem right. The Tao that can be talked about is not the eternal Tao. As Seth says, the usefulness of the belief is (potentially) more important than its truthfulness...almost always, it doesn't even matter if I'm communing with something internal or external...and certainly not how I label it. I don't know if anyone anywhere else does what I do and I don't really care. I didn't learn it from any book or teacher. I just do what feels right, and the results are fantastic.

And yet...sometimes the labels are useful. Sometimes it seems very helpful to think of what I'm doing as Praying to a Goddess. Adding that in somehow makes it work better. Grab a little bit of that sense of awe people talk about. Am I just deluding myself to make it seem more important than Self Help done the old fasioned way? Analyzing it right now, it seems possible; but when you're caught up in the moment, there's no doubt in your mind what's real...

While MrCoffeeBean's post is a bit scary, I think it does start to touch on something in the thread and abstract, which is the value of the individual vs their god...what is the difference between Worship and Grovelling? Is God more "important" than me? Is relinquishing control the same as denying your own responsibility for your actions (good or bad)? How do you stand up straight and look God in the eyes while you're on your knees? I know I've struggled with this kind of thing and I can see why the idea of worship would turn some people off. Again, it may be a matter of perspective rather than an either/or choice...

It's about feeling Love instead of Fear...like Patrick Swayze in Donnie Darko.
 
 
Seth
16:44 / 13.02.06
Please don't mistake my stance for thinking that *truth* is less important that *utility.* What I'm saying is that's what I'm interested in discussing here, not the most important thing period in my viewpoint.
 
 
MrCoffeeBean
22:59 / 13.02.06
Already in the beggining of this thread theres so much taking for granted. Why have faith in something outside of youreself? Whats the point of that? And why god/s? Why do you need them?
To me it all sound like new age/psedo-religiuos bullshit. And the whole discussion are entierly bassed upon a christian nad/or a western look upon the world, and not to mention all moral and ethic you also tak for granted in this thread.

it all comes down to one question, do you want someone/something else come and save you or ar eyou gonna do it youreself?

why do everyone want answears from someone else? do you realy need someone else to set up a moralsystem for you?

why do you need something from "above", aint th people around you enough?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
23:41 / 13.02.06
Why have faith in something outside of youreself? Whats the point of that?

Indeed. If you need to put a new plug on an appliance and aren't quite sure how to do so, why look in a book or ask another person? Are you going to defer to the so-called 'wisdom' of another? No! Just jab the wires in anywhere you want, it'll work. Blown fuse? Just wrap it in tinfoil and stick it back in, nooo problem.

And why god/s? Why do you need them?

As to God: Why do I need to examine the Universe in which I live from a variety of perspectives, including the idea that spacetime itself is a vast consciousness of a nature I can scarecely imagine? Well, I suppose I don't need to, but it's sort of interesting to do it.

As to Gods plural, as I experience Them: Why do I need to talk to someone older, wiser, and more powerful than me, someone who I can barely begin to understand, about things that most people don't even dream exist; things for which there isn't even a routemap let alone an instruction manual?

Gee, let me think.



To me it all sound like new age/psedo-religiuos bullshit. And the whole discussion are entierly bassed upon a christian nad/or a western look upon the world

What forum have you been reading?

and not to mention all moral and ethic you also tak for granted in this thread.

Perhaps you could help us poor fools by sketching out the moral and ethic that we're taking for granted here, and where the flaws lie. I see a lot of different people with different ways of looking at the world attempting to engage in some sort of discourse, but maybe I'm missing something.

it all comes down to one question, do you want someone/something else come and save you or ar eyou gonna do it youreself?

The fuck does that even mean? 'Save'? Save from what? Do you honestly and truly believe that anyone who uses the term God or Gods has abandoned any and all ambition or self-determination and is slouching around on a sofa waiting for God/s to fix them, fix the world? Why do you think that--is it based on an exploration of the posts in this thread? Have you spent a little time reading previous contributions by the people here? Or are you just making a bunch of assumptions based on your own preconceived ideas?

why do everyone want answears from someone else? do you realy need someone else to set up a moralsystem for you?

why do you need something from "above", aint th people around you enough?

I want answers from 'someone else' because I don't know everything. I don't need anyone else to set up a moral system for me, but being able to thrash out the fine points with other people (human or non) is very helpful. The people around me are more than enough to be going on with, they just aren't always what you might recognise as 'people'.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
01:27 / 14.02.06
While MrCoffeeBean's post is a bit scary, I think it does start to touch on something in the thread and abstract,...

As much as it chafes me to do so, I must agree.

which is the value of the individual vs their god...what is the difference between Worship and Grovelling? Is God more "important" than me? Is relinquishing control the same as denying your own responsibility for your actions (good or bad)?

Re: Worship and Grovelling, you had it with the Fear and Love bit. Although "respect" probably needs to go in somewhere.

If there is a choice (be it moral or spiritual or whatever) that only you can make, it is impossible to "relinquish control". You will be making a choice, even if you choose to delegate the hard part to a pair of dice. "Going with the flow" or "Leaving it up to fate" are also choices, not plans that take responsibility from you.

Is God "more important" than you? To some people, in some circumstances, yes. Just like people you love or even like just a little bit. The wheres and whens are dictated by your own personal relationship with God, the mailman, cousin bobby or whoever.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
01:52 / 14.02.06
why do you need something from "above", aint th people around you enough?

Fuck no. First of all, they're often unavailable. Second, their information is often limited. I could go on if you like.

why do everyone want answears from someone else? do you realy need someone else to set up a moralsystem for you?

I want answers from someone else for the same reason I want anything from someone else: because I don't have it yet.

To the second question: no, I don't. But often I find people or gods going by the same system, which makes it easier for us to work together. But even if someone else does need someone or something else to set up a system for them, why is this bad?

it all comes down to one question, do you want someone/something else come and save you or are you gonna do it youreself?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you are speaking of "salvation" in the mainstream Christian sense. Christ saving our souls from the taint of original sin and whatnot. I don't think anyone here really suscribes to that idea, but I might be wrong.

MrCoffeeBean, I understand that English is not your first language, but please re-read this thread and listen to what people are saying. You are making people upset with your constant refusal to understand even the basic premise of posters' comments and ideas.
 
 
iconoplast
02:49 / 14.02.06
I believe that to accuse this thread of taking things for granted would be... underthinking the issues at hand.

We're trying to look at faith, and to discuss how it functions in our lives. And, as much as it's possible, I think we're all trying to talk about faith without necessarily dwelling on the objects of that faith. It's a bit like talking about what sight looks like, but we're still trying.

what is the difference between Worship and Grovelling? Is God more "important" than me? Is relinquishing control the same as denying your own responsibility for your actions (good or bad)?

Ooo, see... this is the kind of stuff that really hung me up for the longest time. But... I guess I think the difference between Worship and Grovelling is like the difference between being humble and being humiliated. A lot of the way I feel about my relationship with god involves a sense of right-sizedness. Prayer helps me, I feel, to fit rightly in my skin, to have a self-image of correct proportion, and to understand my life scaled to the context of the larger scheme. (i.E., very, very small)

But the relinquishing control question is a huge one in my life. How do I turn my will over and ask to do god's will, accepting that I am not responsible for the results of my actions but merely for my efforts, while at the same time owning up to my consequences and retaining accountability? I don't know - I know that I try to be accountable at the same time as I'm trying to do god's will. I feel like most of the things I'm trying to hold myself accountable for are things I've done while I didn't think I was really doing god's will all that well. (Did god REALLY want me to shoplift these boots?)

(Answer: to the best of my knowledge, no.)

Now what's weird is that, once I started to believe that there was a god, and worked on some kind of acceptance of that belief, I was hit with a whammy of a question, which I'm still working out. If there is an ommniscient omnibenevolent omnipotent deity who loves me and accepts me and wants the best for me, what the hell am I doing fucking around playing video games and smoking a pack a day? Shouldn't I be giving all my worldly posessions away and working in a soup kitchen in Uganda?

I'm really at a loss as to how to bring my faith into the world with me - such an idealist faith, and such an imperfect understanding of the universe just don't seem to fit with how the world is, or with the plans I have for my life, or the things I'm trying to do. Wouldn't volunteering with terminally ill children be better than going for my PhD? If I'm full, and I have one more cookie - shouldn't I have spent that money feeding someone hungry?

There's this moral-ethical mandate that's rooted in my faith that I just don't know what to do with. I'm not ready to wear a paper dress and hand out flowers at the airport, but I do want to take my faith seriously and engage with it and live some kind of spiritual life.

So how do you go about bringing spirituality or faith with you when you're in the world?
 
 
illmatic
07:25 / 14.02.06
MrCoffeeBean: If you go back and look at read the first post in this thread, you will read an account of a major life change, the defeat of a dehabilitating addiction, through the "engine" of faith. In the post above this one, the same poster has been brought to contemplate major ethical issues and choices about life direction through his faith. Arguments about the existence of God aside, solely in practical terms, this is pretty powerful magic, and therefore behooves our attention. Faith can move mountatins, indeed.

For the record, I think you're conflating all religion and religious experience as the same phenomena, which I don't think stands up to examination.

Anyway, onward: I'm really at a loss as to how to bring my faith into the world with me - such an idealist faith, and such an imperfect understanding of the universe just don't seem to fit with how the world is, or with the plans I have for my life, or the things I'm trying to do. Wouldn't volunteering with terminally ill children be better than going for my PhD?

I wish I could answer that one for you, Iconoplast. I think it might have to do with acknowledging that you can only affect a limited bit of the picture, and you might be best serving by matching your inate talents/calling with your life situation. Perhaps part of any "plan" for you involves self-discovery through self-expression as well as relentless service?

(As an aside: What about pleasure? Where does this come into it? Perhaps it is here to "balance out" this kind of service? That might be the "fucking around playing video games").

Perhaps a key part of faith isn't so muh devoting yourself to a worthy cause for the rest of your life, as it's giving you the strength to step outside the selfishness and cynicism we all fall into, if just for a moment and devote some time and energy to the "good works".

(Aside: This discussion is starting to remind me of some Thelemic and Tantric ideas.)
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
11:26 / 14.02.06
OK, first MrCoffeBean:

Why have faith in something outside of youreself? Whats the point of that?

Indeed. Because, after all, what could possibly be more important or worthy of devotion than yourself and all of your notions about life? How ridiculous! What fools! In fact, why have anything to do with anything which isn't directly experienced as you?

And why god/s? Why do you need them?

I think your notion of god/s and mine are probably quite different. Read. This. Thread. Before. Posting. To. It. If at all possible, try to understand that there are *other points of view*, which to grasp, you will have to make some effort to understand rather than just reading your own mind in the words of another.

From a favourite writing on this subject :

The always already underlying condition of Being offers a meeting ground for all possible interpretations and definitions of what is. Something is ... Is-ness ... isn’t it? The entire house falls apart the instant it is otherwise --and even then there is no other place. If existence does not be, then all that appears is unreal having no basis of support.

Exactly what is Being-ness? Being is the universal and purely abstract aspect of existence itself. Being is everywhere. If there is a nowhere, it must also exist! In this very moment, right now, everything that is ... actually is! In every moment there is this simultaneous universal arising of time, space, matter, energy and experience .…... snap! This is it!

All objects and all subjects share this same underlying condition or state of Being. Being can never be separated from Itself. It is non-dual. There can be only one Being-ness. Being is absolutely inclusive of all possible expressions and conditions. Everything that is must be. There can never be a time when Being isn’t. Being Itself transcends time. It is every-when. In fact, Being never started! It has always been. Being is prior to the arising of any and all possible constructs of universal objective reality and/or local subjective experience.

Visualizing a model of Being is difficult. It has neither beginning, boundary nor structure. The existence of objective structure requires form and form has a boundary. Being is beyond form. Being is transcendent and is the underlying condition of all objects, others, states and things. It is the firm support for all that exists. Being may be considered objectively only from a "conceptual" orientation. Subjectively, we are It. Being defies wearing clothing of any kind. It can not be objectively conceptualized or modeled because there is no condition with which it can be related. It literally is all conditions. In order to point toward that Supreme Being, we must use a conceptual symbolic representation while never losing sight of the fact that Being is beyond dualistic considerations. Being may be represented, but never captured.

Supreme. Being. Geddit?

Now ask the question again : Why do I need that?

Because I AM. See?

To me it all sound like new age/psedo-religiuos bullshit. And the whole discussion are entierly bassed upon a christian nad/or a western look upon the world, and not to mention all moral and ethic you also tak for granted in this thread.

New age? What bit? The Aramaic translations of the prayers of Ishoa or the Middle Eastern Advaita Vedanta which predates it by a few millenia? To me, your claim that your magic is all about smashing the capitalist state and anarchy sounds like the masturbatory fantasies of a teenage boy who spends too much time in front of his computer, reading comics and watching Fight Club. And another thing : It clearly doesn't work, then, does it?

Christian? Could you direct me to the passages in the NT of the Bible dealing with Orixa worship, please? Or the OT?

it all comes down to one question, do you want someone/something else come and save you or ar eyou gonna do it youreself?

Save me from what? Ill thought through immature arguments with trolls on message boards? Asthma? Avian Bird Flu? What are you on about?

The alarm bells always hit pain threshold when an argument begins with the proposition : It all comes down to one question.

No, it doesn't.

why do you need something from "above", aint th people around you enough?

For what? Simplistic, possibly reflecting a major trait of your online persona.

Need? It's not about that. We are discussing aligning of the attitudes and behaviours with the Way, also called, in this thread God's Will or True Will...to me, there appears little difference between these concepts. Free of attachment or judgment, and aligned with the Process of Nature and Creation, expressing clearly through and of the individual (who is not really a seperate individual in the Original Base of the Ultimate, but suffers under the illusion of being so).

The nobility of this goal, to me, is that it aspires to zero resistance within a closed system and freedom from the egoic deceptions or the lies perpetuated by immersion in the illusory, impermanent, sensual world, and liberation from the separation drama being played out before our very eyes towards a Reunion (Religion, yes?) with the Divine.

This makes my goal to be one of humility, truth and compassion because everything is me and I am everything...so suffering, anywhere within this system, is my suffering. There is no way in or out, because in and out are dualities existing only under the auspices of the Original Base, the Supreme Being, God. Oneness. Advaita. Tao. The Nameless. YHVH...warrah warrah fishpaste. So the system is closed and the transformation of what is within it seems to be possible by locii of consciousness like us.

Have you ever given thanks for anything in your life? Ever felt humble gratitude for everything that IS, or indeed, anything that IS? To whom or what do you owe your existence? Trace that gratitude back as far as your mind is able to conceive, how far do you get? Are you grateful at all?

Now I've no time to respond to iconoplast, so I'll be back later. MrCoffeBean, please please please take a little time to engage with these ideas and construct a proper argument, rather than just trampling your way through the thread talking about anarchy and so on. You probably have much to contribute, but quick posts rubbishing everyone don't help much, even if that's what you think. You have to explain a bit...
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
11:35 / 14.02.06
Being may be represented, but never captured.

Unless you are Muslim, of course, in which case even representations are, strictly speaking, pretty much off limits.
 
 
Seth
11:39 / 14.02.06
MrCoffeeBean, I'm afraid you are rather making a spectacle of yourself. It would probably be best to read the thread before posting again because at the moment your posts are demonstrating that you don't know what's been said already.

it all comes down to one question, do you want someone/something else come and save you or ar eyou gonna do it youreself?

why do everyone want answears from someone else? do you realy need someone else to set up a moralsystem for you?

why do you need something from "above", aint th people around you enough?

Several posters here have already dealt with these points before you even made them, myself being one of them. Catch up with the rest of us and we'll be happy discuss them in more detail.

And the whole discussion are entierly bassed upon a christian nad

I must respectfully disagree. Although there has been much discussion here from a monotheistic and broadly Judeo-Christian angle I cannot find a single reference to your *christian nad,* although I think it would form the basis of a fascinating and informative discussion. My first specific interest is whether said *nad* converted of its own accord, or is indeed one of a pair belonging to a christian, and therefore christian by default. For another thread?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:07 / 14.02.06
Fnar!
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
12:15 / 14.02.06
Love the fact that Mr Coffeebean's "Teh Xtian Sheeple!!" position is the minority view in this forum.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:41 / 14.02.06
Yes, it is rather refreshing, isn't it?
 
 
Seth
14:00 / 14.02.06
I think it’s a really good sign. So many occultists have such a reactionary stance towards Christianity that they are incapable of critiquing it with a clear head, let alone developing a relationship with it to see whether it has anything of worth for them and their practise and ideas. In many ways I consider that to be really understandable as it’s based on past experience of Christians or the church, and I know more than most how troubling it can be. Some elements of the church have done and continue to do some fucked up things.

I know a lot of occultists who got into what they do as a rebellion against a lot of their experience of Christianity, and I wonder sometimes at the way in which their practise seems to have remained characterised by this teenage element, the fear of any and all kinds of authority, the fierce and almost too desperate individualism, the distrust of organisations. In many ways I guess they’re still in relationship with Christianity, somehow always living out that original point of conflict and rebellion until it becomes second nature and therefore buried, out of awareness.

So yeah, it’s awesome that we’re able to have these kinds of discussions. There’s a lot of magic in Christianity, a lot of very useful stuff, a lot of wise people saying a lot of good things. And like anything else you want to take what’s good and leave the stuff that isn’t. We tend to treat it like any other religion these days, realising that it’s an inconceivably broad and contradictory beast, gets very weird around the edges, and has a massive variety of ideas and influence from a lot of different areas. Nice one all.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
15:42 / 14.02.06
Indeed, Seth.

I've even noticed the reaction in myself to giving these writings both time and credence. Compared to holding a copy of 'The Book of Lies' or 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' or some such 'acceptable' esoterica, a copy of the Bible will provoke very different reactions from others and myself...As will speaking/thinking about such things. Discuss the rituals of Thelema or so on, one reaction, start talking about Jesus, very different indeed.

The 'anti' stance is quite a deep programming by adulthood, and for that I think churches and educators are doing a quite stunningly poor job of making the subject un-goofy, less irritating, more interesting or more broadly appealing to sceptics and materialists (both of which represent far more weighty aspects of me than any 'religious' identification, which I still don't really have, in spite of what I'm saying in this thread...which is interesting in itself. To me, I mean.)
 
 
Unconditional Love
17:13 / 14.02.06
To be reactionary to something as has already been noted is to place faith in the exsistence of a thing, to deny a thing or precept is the same position. Those who are opposed to faith acknowledge the exsistence and power of faith by opposing it so vehemently, in fact you could argue they add to the veracity of faiths power.

Not that that is nessecary as faith is powerful in its own right without the approval or disapproval of others.

The negative characteristics that some have mentioned selfishness, cynicism are also in a sense part of being faithful. Each clinging moment to those concepts has something to teach, the faith put into being a personal conceptual creation centred on certain characteristics becomes part of the resisting expression of faith, an internally and externally experienced self conflict, the combatants beings the set up conditioned awareness of faith based and reason based view points that permeate western cultural conditioning.

In that sense the atheist or faith based persona is part of the overall programming, thats not to dismiss the scenario out of hand, but to provide greater freedom of choice within decision making processes, the percieved combat is not actually taking place at all. A mutually supportive relationship can actually take place within an individual, so personality isnt defined on the basis of that which i fight against, but perhaps on that which i can integrate.
 
 
Unconditional Love
17:32 / 14.02.06
open enquiry rather than closed belief. faith and thought processes that are including, even of those processes that seek to attack its essence and weaken it or exclude, if the opposition isnt included and something is taken to be an attack, duality comes into being.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply