sirguessalot

i honestly dont think we have come to understand that kind of statement very well, drtyd and i think it has a lot to do with our sense of identity, and how we project that onto the character of jesus it may be that he meant "no man comes to the father but by me" ...as in "no man comes to father (ultimate cause) unless he comes the way I am coming to (and from) father right now as i speak to you, and as i have shown you," etc.... which, has a lot to do with the radical kind of contemplative life Jesus led in all the traditions it is mentioned in, practicing "I AMness" is often about resting in "the witness" of a much greater subjective awareness where what was once subject becomes object, and then again, and again, and again, etc... more and more...i seriously doubt Jesus was promoting himself as The unique personality that leads to a God who is seperate from ourselves as the story is commonly told in mainstream christianity (as well as in other traditions with saviors) but rather, it may be that he knew that his perspective was the only way to comprehend and experience the causal end of things and strange as it may seem, i think Jesus and Buddha were in complete agreement on this sort of thing (and other things) not to mention in agreement with about a thousand other masters and rabbis and teachers and gurus in history cuz the name "Jesus" is not enough, nor is the name "Christ" and both are modern versions of names from other languages, anyway not to mention how many times the story has changed since the telling it he had to be talking about something else that is beyond language and beyond individual personalities and names cuz not only is he said to have a name beyond all names but it is written that we are given such a name as well there comes a point when the language always fails, and names always fail but the fruit of it is evident in spite of the names and bloodlines

i wonder if it might be helpful to attempt to differentiate between universal suffering and human injustice because grass also suffers when the sun is too hot and the antelope suffers when a croc grabs it and drags it under just as a mother suffers giving birth to a child who also suffers from the misconception that it is dying which, i think, points to my point about how we commonly define suffering by drawing various lines ...when ultimately, suffering is a constant everywhere kinda thing, in all its spectrums and degrees this, i believe, is often the level of suffering being addressed in spiritual texts such as the Bible's new testament especially considering how most of the saints and writers of old were monks and contemplatives who were deeply interested in the broader questions of existence and the common conclusion was that the nature of the universe is basically a great glorious woundedness where our "evolution" is also our moving through various stages of responding to this constant state of suffering that is going on everywhere and in everything

thanks Belle and JJ and to clarify, i suppose it would help to say that a large part of what prompted me to start this thread are not just the views of those who passionately promote their doctrines ...but those who passionately promote them as superior in quality to all others, and so devaluing and otherwise attempting to marginalize and demonize the doctrines and schools of thought they have never really honestly looked into and by demonize, i mean promoting the idea that the belief are somehow influenced by evil and deceptive forces, or otherwise going to hurt you for even looking into them and considering them...whether now or in the afterlife so, in a sense, judging from the answers given thus far, it would seem that neither JJ nor Belle really qualify, in this regard (though i still appreciate the responses for the way they contribute to the convo) though JJs response does bring up a valid point, i think about not having enough time to look into all of them enough to compare or otherwise give an honest evaluation ...which again, is not the observation that prompted this thread though i have also noticed how, due to this vast vast exotic array of seemingly conflicting information, (mostly talking about the thousands of years of writings of world's spiritual traditions that is now more available to the world than ever before) a common way to justify our inability to process it all is to simply reject most of it ...which is understandable, though perhaps not the most honest way to respond to the situation i'm not talking about admitting how we are not likely to ever look into it all (like JJ said) and/or being happy with not knowing something about it all ...but the other type of hostile rejection i mentioned before i recall how in PFAL, we were all groomed to respond to inquiry and skepticism as a trick and trap to be avoided which then seems to support an unwillingness to shine light into our own ignorances let alone find value in discovering what it is we specifically avoid looking at (i.e. taboos) and why it might be

The reason i ask, i because it seems apparent that many of us (and not just here at the GSC) reject the value of a wide variety of spiritual doctrines, spiritual books, spiritual teachers, and other spiritual subjects prior to any open honest investigation of them...meanwhile, often passionately promoting the small bandwidth of doctrines we have come to learn about and accept. This seems a most natural "dishonesty," of course...but a dishonesty worth noting, nonetheless...especially for any who wish to find deeper positions from which to view the world outside of our selves. I have come to find that paying close attention to what i cannot bring my self to investigate can be as valuable as actually investigating it, because my shadow has a unique capacity to show me things that no outside book can show me...which is a clearer mirror for my own soul, and particularly those areas where it prefers darkness and blindness to open illumination. And i suppose it could be said (and has been) that the textures and contours of my own soul is perhaps the most important living epistle i should ever try to read and interpret (as opposed to preferring those dead wooden epistles written on paper)...for if Christ is within, surely there is a distinct chair in here somewhere for him to sit upon and witness the universe. And surely, i am free and able to find such a chair, if it exists at all. And so...i am wondering...how does this notion sound to you? For example, for those who reject the value of Buddhism as a spiritual doctrine, and have never bothered to honestly investigate and compare to the same depth or degree as the doctrines you currently hold...do you think there is even value in inquiring as to why you prefer not to inquire?

very cool additions, Danny i think there are/were a lot of things that are considered new to the world in Christianity that were perhaps simply new to the world and times of Jesus and something ive noticed, is how doctrinal arguments like this are often reduced to either/or types of positions such as "is Jesus God...or not?" "is the trinity true...or not?" and such when perhaps the inquiry can be expanded with things like "is it possible that Jesus was trying to express ALL of our divinity?" in a world that was largely unaware of such a reality (the wisdom having been lost from the mainstream cultural storylines) our seperation from God is not as much from actual seperation, but a natural perceived seperation (which perceptions are as true as anything else, i suppose) and the kid was trying passionately to help his mainstream jewish culture REclaim this old old idea while living in a new very cosmopolitan middle eastern world i dont find it hard to believe that a simple shift in perception can "save our souls from hell" in a sense ...that "hell-state" being one where we think God is strictly other or somehow elsewhere and distant or that we could somehow find or bring ourselves to be outside of God (which is simply not true, and perhaps never was, and never will be) yeah, Oaks...the Bible seems clear as mud i think when Paul writes of the "mystery of Christ" he was basically expressing a healthy agnosticism and his faith in the value of that as spiritual doctrine and approach to life and how it opens us up to greater awe and the joy of new discovery ...which, of course, was quite new to old world mythic literalisms and such

very well said, Danny, as usual and to add...i would also encourage us to go further back into all the wonderully messy strands of jewish thought its said that "one cant be a good christian without first becomng a good jew" which, of course, is not the same as getting familiar with a few mannerisms and idioms but delving into the deeply mystic raw material of the aboriginal philosophies, stories and traditions that jesus himself came out of so often, in TWI and other modern Christian dialogue it seems the understanding of pre-christian jewish thought is flattened and reduced to a few cleanly-explained monolithic legalistic styles of groups ...which then, of course, tends to reflect in our understanding and unpackaging of christianity

thanks, Shell...for filling in a few blanks on your end, too, with brief story of your intro to the subject, and i'd really love to hear more about your daughter's book...either here or elsewhere. cuz strange enough...i now also manage a thriving bookstore that provides resources around the art of dying and end-of-life history and spirituallity. also, a dear friend and teacher of mine who has been living with cancer for a number of years now has also run a grief camp for kids. another strange also...is how the groundbreaking hospice education series i am involved with is primarily based in Oregon and Ohio sheesh...too many synchros happening here, it seems :blink: anyway, from a general cultural anthropological standpoint, it seems ever clearer that our civilization has never been so allergic to the topic of dying as has been for the past century or so ...and oddly enough, its something both the modern sciences and modern religions seem to have in common, in spite of the war-of-the-worldviews being waged this is a hard thing to say, imo though i think it needs to be said which is why i think this documentary is so timely another little known historical note around our flight from death that ive mentioned around here before ...for about 500 years across Europe...jews, muslims and christians worked together to create a network of hospices and places of healing and renewal mostly centered around southern Spain and the Iberian peninsula and 1492 was the year it all came to a bloody end (truly another holocaust event, which has mostly been forgotten to the western mind) and not only have we never regained such a degree of interfaith cooperation and collaboration among the Abrahamic religions but our hospitals have never regained the quality of attention to the end of life issue as they had established in those days and what is really telling, is how the end-of-life issues so deeply united them for a time, and gave them an important reason to put down silly dogmatic differences (which reminds me of the work of a certain jewish kid and his friends, and those who were said to have carried on his kind of work) so...at least we know it has worked before (yes, jews, muslims and christians talking the same "language") and thankfully, it seems it is actually trying to happen again in a post-post modern context

Hi Shell. Thanks for jumping in. As with most film trailers, I think it really only scratches the surface of a film that only scratches the surface of a very broad topic (very well, i would add). But it does present more detailed connections between individual and societal views on death, and how they manifest in both individual and societal behaviour. The filmmakers explain how the greater human capacity to conceptualize detailed narratives for life after death has a lot do to with why most of this mass violence is done in the name of religions (most of which, ironically, were founded on principles of peace, non-violence, friendship, service, and divine surrender). In a sense...our greater capacity for abstract thinking is a mixed blessing, and the more it develops...the more problems it can create. Our capacity to delude ourselves and mistake our beliefs for reality evolves. Which then gets worse when we act on them (such as flying planes into buildings for revenge and heavely virgins...for example). And so when our worldviews are threatened, we often react as if we are being bodily threatened, mistaking our views for who we really are. We "flinch" at challenges to our beliefs the same way we flinch at being poked with a stick. Visions of what hell might be like drive us to do the craziest things in the name of what we perceive heaven wants us to do. And given that the last century of violence has produced a body count that far outnumbers any other century in human history, i think the intentional killing of each other is perhaps the most glaring example of the mass existential crisis we are in. And too, now i am feeling like i should have reviewed the film one more time before posting this...its been a few months. But from what I recall, the film does not get into hospice and such. Or the specific tools and methods for caregiving on that level. Though i have come to understand how mass violence and individual dying are related in all stages of life's transitions (given that civilizations are made up of individuals who die) For example: in general, we've stopped teaching our young boys how to fail with grace, and so we've got a world of greedy vengeful men who are largely unable to process grief. And the same processes, tools and principles used in assisting the dying are highly useful in any kind of radical transition...such as when our worldviews are shattered, or grief and loss...even sudden success. In a sense, learning how to die helps us with "change management" on all other levels. We are able to change our views of what is good, true and beautiful as we get new information, because we are comfortable with "dying" from one worldview to another. But when we attempt to flee from death or otherwise hide it and deny it...we cut ourselves off from the greatest teacher of all life's transformations. well...i hope that at least comes close to answering your questions. I'm open to further inquiry, of course.

Greetings, Greasers In my ongoing studies and work with helping nurses, chaplains and hospice volunteers recover from "caregiver burnout," I've recently been introduced to this amazing eye-opening film i wish to share with all yalls. I feel it sheds a lot of valuable historic, anthropological and psychological light on the state of human inhumanity in the world today, as well as a large part of what is behind our attraction to cultic dogma and such. Here is a link to the trailer and website synopsis: And so i welcome discussion, questions and/or comments on the documentary, or the topic in general...whether you have seen the film or not. There seems a lot of other interesting and suprising history around this subject worth looking into, should anyone be interested. I'll try not to spiral into my usual poetic nonsense. Also, here is a link to the Ernest Becker Foundation space and grace... +ODD btw...and in case yer wondering...yeah, humor is welcome, and can help a lot at times in this context

well said Lindy i think such notions are what gives us access to goodness and truth as they exist beyond the language we use to describe them which then, allows us to see the one and selfsame "fruit of the spirit" that the Bible is describing, whether it is in a Buddhist's life, a Sufi's life, a Hopi's life, a Jesuit's life, etc... and Christ is then seen (whose name is beyond names) regardless of the racial background of the writings that are used to give names to the fruit.

some hints at room for expansion of the honest discussion.... what about aboriginal views on the trinity? (pick a bloodline, any bloodline) or hindu? or taoist? or kabbalist? or agnostic? or the trinities of economy, of ecology, of social dynamics, of sexuality, of physics? ..."the thesis, the anti-thesis and the holy synthesis" of whatever it is we are measuring/experiencing/observing? cuz the Bible (and it histories) is a HUGE HUGE topic AND a narrow narrow narrow slice of known wisdom on trinity and divinity and holy spirit and such which is why i think that perhaps an honest discussion can only start if all involved can START from a position of being mostly mostly mostly ignorant of most all things ...then go from there cuz it seems there is an enchanted agnosticism that trumps both nihilism and dogma in terms of how it responds to darkness once we are thoroughly spent which then cultivates genuine awe and other such holy nonsense

no, not really like i have been saying...suffering is the underlying texture/nature/essence of ALL matter/life/reality/experience...yada yada yada i believe we are typically radically selective in how we define suffering (and pain and sin and other such things) and this tendency for incredible degrees of exclusiveness is a form of illusion where our capacity to feel and experience depths and degrees of suffering is pretty much handicapped again, to rephrase the question bit... ...does suffering cause God?

i think that perhaps it helps to consider whether future and past exists at all if not, then God's all knowing then becomes a matter of knowing all what is..now past and future both exist in the present....and thats it and our addictions to the illusion of past and future is a major part of our brokenness ...just sayin...

sorry for being unclear i think the discussion is right on the point...just the the point (of the trinity and divinity and jesus and salvation and such) is perhaps a lot lot bigger (wider, higher, whatnot) than the discussion often allows for which is fine, imo just being honest to add...i really appreciate your explicit open invitation to do so

welcome to the gsc, son of arthur ok honestly...THREEness and THREEnesses are EVERYWHERE, and in everything and how we often get all fussy about how the story of it should be told...is a natural naive stage of growth, but way way too limited to really due the topic justice in any sort of effective way such exclusive storytelling and clinging to mythic narratives seems antithesis to the life and messages and wisdom of Jesus and quite impractical, as well as behind too many violent and crazy acts of inhumanity and too...TWOness and TWOnesses are everywhere, as is ONEness and ONEnesses, and FOURness and Fournesses...on and on the way we play favorites about such thing is troublemaking, yet quite natural though i find it useful to observe the textures of our natural troubles i also think we mostly miss the point in fundamental christianity at the expense of more things than i can count honestly the arguments for and against Jesus' divinity the arguments for and against the nature and reality of trinity and triunity and such ...my prayer is that we get on with it, so we can get beyond it though if we schools of thought must tit for tat over such things i guess there must be a true reason why they are not done yet and any appeal by me to "get on with it" is perhaps just playful impishness and too...i think that perhaps the sexuality of the trinity (as well as lack of sexuality in the trinity discussions, very narrow historical perspectives, and xenophobic and bibliophobic issues) are a few more way too often overlooked elements of honest discussion and exploration ...end of rambling...

it may be said that "suffering causes the universe" or even that "suffering causes God" and to the depths and degrees we flee or avoid or otherwise reject this primal kind of truth (the everpresent and constant nature of suffering) ...we will look at the "flames of God" and call them the "flames of hell"...as if it was full of demons and devils we will constantly flee transformation and change (though these things are quite inescapable) and the universe will seem full of injustice and evil when in the end, the path is the same for all of us...blood red...perhaps even as beautifully brown holy crap both Jesus and Buddha seem to agree ...to name a few which is why the world's deeply spiritual paths were not about success, accomplishment, victory, or winning but about humility, failure, surrender and realization of such things as the actual magnitude of our foolishness and how lucky we are to be alive and wondering about such things at all (compared to moss or finches, for example) like the kid and his buddies seem to say...we are not done til we are dead...so why wait for the body to die to get it over with? if God is invisible, formless and everywhere (as opposed to a human persona) then this God is the clear wide open "nothing" which allows everything...which is quite perfect and existed prior to the big bang (as scriptures say) which is terrible and awesome...as scripture also seems to say..and a bitter-sweet pill to swallow (let alone seek any sort of radical unity with such a notion of an almighty everpresent God) i dunno tho i'm just an imp, mostly and nothing i say is the same as the truth of the matter though i worry whether i should say such things at all thank God for endless mystery, i guess...or we would actually have to "know that we know that we know"...which would probably suck

"We shall not cease from exploration. And the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." T. S. Eliot

well, why is geo going crazy, then? or perhaps better...why is he going "huh?" and/or what do you think his rational answer is? what is yours?

geo...and whomever wondering...do you think/believe there is a rational reason for these views and behaviors? does it make you kinda crazy because you dont have a rational enough answer?

"And just why is it you assume that seeking God would be a "good" thing? How about just taking what ones got and trying to make sense of it, without any preconceived notions?" i dunno that kind of question seems to carry the common monolithic assumptions about the word "God"...which seems to lead to other misconceptions and other preconceived notions not much rational about that, imo seem like just a newer kind of flatline myth alongside the old ones most often mistaking POST___ for PRE___ and then rejecting them both together simply for being NON___ when rejecting PRE was never a good idea in the first place, either ...nor is POST___ anything like NON___ ...if that makes sense or not "How about just taking what ones got and trying to make sense of it, without any preconceived notions?" cuz yep...for thousands of years, all over the world, many have called just that very same sort of question "seeking God" and many of them have picked up your kind of suggestive question (which they called things like "seeking God") and took it far and wide and even developed forms of art and science around such things tho...too bad more crusading christians and muslims (and crusading atheists) didnt know this, ya know? :blink: ...just sayin

"From what I can tell, cman and possibly a couple others here believe in a non-dualistic, Christian, immanence." i could be wrong, but from what i can tell, cman is not limited to the christian context for interepeting his experiences of life though does not reject it, either to what depth or degree one can understand him or not is another matter entirely it seems from my perspective... there are not only layers and fields and streams and waves of subjectivity but layers and fields and streams and waves of objectivity and layers and fields and streams and waves of INTER-objectivity as well as layers and fields and streams and waves INTER-subjectivity to reject or otherwise avoid the nature of layers, fields, streams and waves and such in any one of these perspectives is to close ones self off from the dialogical capacity required to communicate jack sh!t about them or to either prefer or avoid any one or more of these perspectives to whatever depth or degree is simply that, to whatever depth or degree which can be quite painful in ways, or even blissful either personally or culturally but imo, the bandwidth of depth and degrees is likely to be more radical and exotic and quite energetically changing than we are comfortable with there are vast fields and fields of experience and information and study and knowing that are outside of our bounds subtlest flickers of attention and intention are often the leaps of faith that reshape our lives though there are naturally flickers of attention and intention that are simply never made in life as we often go monolithic and flatline at some narrow perspective for awhile sometimes even terminally but from before the time we were born we have been moving from one false sense of self to another and for good reasons and not necessarily false for being untrue but for being extremely partial in capacity to take more perspectives ...among other things unable to look = blindness never having seen something there = darkness the darkness is not "evil" as the myths tend to say and mere not looking is surely not-rational either where pre and post are often both mistaken for the same thing and rejected for both being non fields and streams of subjective darknesses and lights fields and streams of objective darknesses and lights fields and streams of inter subjective darknesses and lights fields and streams of interobjective darknesses and lights all native normal extra ordinary stuff that abounds and abounds and terrifies the crap out of us in which some drown and some learn to swim perhaps even well some drown in some small fields of objectivity while some drown in large lakes of subjectivity and so forth meanwhile...the silly war of the world views rages on and wastes and wastes and wastes when the simplest flickers of attention is what often disarms them i dunno my 2 cents interesting thread

hm interesting i think that the video is pointing at important truths about such things and has value as such but i feel it is pretty much too sloppy and clumsy to stimulate much more than more overblown fears and the way it reduces the arguments is almost cultish in its anti-cultishness a lot of very good and useful notions and things getting slammed alongside the slender truths of what they are saying overall...on scale of 1 to 4...i give it an "eery factor" of 3

oh dang...i have been posting on the wrong thread sorry

oh dang...i have been posting on the wrong thread sorry

to add... i love the old saying how "one cant be a "good christian" unless they are "good jew," first" because not only is the "twi program's" grasp of christian history/doctrine/practice/lifestyle quite thickly foggy but the grasp of jewish history/doctrine/practice/lifestyle is equally thickly foggy in spite of the claims and bravado and toying with idioms and lexicons and such ... btw, did you know there was a period of about 500 years where jews, christians, muslims and others wide-open-heartedly shared and compared spiritual traditions all across europe in the name of medicine and healing? and yet this extraordinary period is mostly strangely absent from our awareness and history and we band into disfunctional clans who make a 2000 year claim did you know that in THIS century, the most deeply devoted christians and buddhists and hindus others of the world have been deeply and successfully engaged in spiritual dialogues for generations now...right under our noses? and yet this extraordinary period is mostly strangely absent from our awareness and history and we band into disfunctional clans who make a 2000 year claim :blink: