sirguessalot

according to the book, they did followed them everywhere i'll say it this way: every moment is pregnant with amazing possibility this has been true from the beginning signs are everywhere evidence of amazing things in plain sight of course, harvesting that possibility is another thing touching it, tasting it, etc... making miracles happen... experiencing truly wonderous things of course, the patience of the saints had a lot to do with it the ability to truly stop first and live more non-reactively which gave them a better view i think that maybe the first century believers were finally able to open up their eyes as to what is already always there and then of course, everyone else saw signs when they came through town because the believers were able to "pick them up" and show them, in a sense or just point at them, and whatnot not to devalue the nature of supranormal phenom... (god knows i've seen my share)

imo..."signs, miracles, and wonders" are always already everywhere sometimes i wonder if a generation is not "foolish" for seeking miracles but "foolish" for seeking miracles (and by "foolish," i don't think "damn ignorant retch of a fool," but rather "silly" or "goofy" which is pretty immediately and easily forgiveable...lol) :P-->

i really appreciate the input from you guys who have benefitted from Momentus training. this has been a great thread. i can see some values in it i think that perhaps because some people have more intense kinds of darknesses to process than others but rather than process it in a way that the "stinky stuff" comes out the backside, or into a nice clean pan they kind of accidentally induce someone to vomit their unconsciousness shadows all over that person's "upper room," if you will (also producing the truly bad and bad bad stories, such as the suicides) which gets back to what i said, kinda the Momentus folks may have bit off more than they can chew and with more than an acceptable number of folks, to some as if they suffer from a mid-level of crudeness in those mixing those kinds of practices (if i may be so bold, "crude" is a neutral word) although, they seem so much farther ahead than the "good old days" anthropologically, evolutionarily, historically, whatever... the ideas of blending western christianity and western psychology like this is a useful one, imo in spite of both of their limits lets just hope the facilitators learn and grow from it rather than justify things

yes. i think of how simplicity can hold complexity quite well question is, perhaps how simple does it really get? first? makes me think of how "radical" is yet another damaged word oft-associated with insanity and sin but when we consider... radical simplicity radical complexity radical objectivity radical subjectivity radical inter-subjectivity... the same ole same ole might even suddenly seem radically new yet, without changing any damn thing at all

too cool, you guys permit another tad spaz, if you will... what you guys are writing of reminds me of how "it is written" that the object/s and subject/s do eventually collapse into each other ...which can be quite romantic resulting in a unity (like the unity of a 1 and 0) and a more useful view of the illusion of duality (duality being an illusion that a zero or a shadow or darkness equals a 1) but in the unity, nothing changes but the point-of-view which is a highly potent change, imo and that this illusionary pair becomes a true one and such a "marriage" then becomes a generative thing (as in "child-bearing" or "creative") ok, and so now we're talking about some sort of triunity to things, of course which then can eventually comes a fourth-like perspective (within the unity) and then a fifth perspective (still in unity) and on and on, all building upon the next kinda like DNA same 4 letters simply writing and re-writing sentences and paragraphs in this sense, i think the sacred "Word of God" is like an endless stream of objects with endless streams of subjects which altogether can also be viewed as the ultimate object of objects and the ultimate subject of subjects with some sort of relationship (healthy or otherwise) always developing and trying to happen between this real illusionary duo of 1 and 0 but the most direct and simplest ground it all rises from is always the generic “zero,” in a sense. (which I prefer to think of it as the ultimate clearing, or gracious spacious inviting…a truly nameless something) kinda like how "god speaks" out of a "whirlwind"

this has been an interesting thread to me helped fill in some gaps regarding folks' Momentus experience (in light of comments on a recent barely-similar workshop i posted about around here) so, ok...my 2 cents... i think the Momentus folks may have bitten off more than they can chew like they were not qualified enough to facilitate any sort of shadow-type work without screwing quite a few things up maybe some cross-over from controlling aspects of christian doctrine put an even lower limit on what they were prepared to deal with (not unlike all those wannabe exorcists getting their butts kicked by a "demon" in acts...to beat a dead legend one more time)

mwah, e! good to see you interesting find i only skimmed it, yawned and giggled once or twice i'll probably read thru it a bit once or twice more but overall, i think Mark's "keep in mind" is a spot on and to add, so i think it also helps anyone see what a student of the Evangelical churchamacallit thinks most specifically folks already fluent in twi mumbo jumbo and history as a way to better see inside this other church's doctrinal "head," if you will which, in a sense, makes it interesting, valuable, educational, all that jazz...

just came across this seems more playful than doctrinal so i posted it here in the open forum here is the pasted text:

ok, sorry if too strange, or too boring, or too something else i thought it was relevent to the Floyd Lyrics :)--> anyway, the answer goes something like this: to our own natural waking perspective we are more-or-less headless and faceless like there is this torso dangling from a void can you see it? :P--> kinda funny too, and somewhat startling, once you sit with it a sec and not as some mere internal mind concept picture, either but the most natural way we look at the world in our waking lives not some thing we have to try hard to see, either its kind of unavoidable, really "stop trying" is more like it :)--> and...to make things "worse" let me ask...in the place of our head and our face is what, exactly? a big blue sky, perhaps? the sun, the moon, the stars? mountains, houses, traffic, people? every single bird and bee? all this...seems to happen in the vast space that is our own missing head all this...some sort of endless reflection of our original face kinda reminds me of those pictures of Jesus in the cloud with no head (if you've even seen em) and so ok, a few things i wonder: what might be so useful about this mode of perspective that evolution would keep it? or what might the benefits be that God would not let us naturally see our own face or head without some sort of mirror? god...gotta love that pinkness of Floyd lol

try this one, Bob (and whomever) if you like. its kinda fun. harmless (i hope). forgot where i learned it tho ok, right now, without looking in a mirror or crossing your eyes or anything like that just sitting naturally... what does your head look like? what does your face look like? look down if you want... and what does your body look like? before photography... and without a reflecting pool... what does our whole actual self look like to us in our own eyes? particularly our face and our head nothing special or tricky, either but what is the MOST obvious? what is the most mundane and universally true for most everyone about this picture? (and there is somewhat of an easy answer but i dont want to blow anyone's ability to take a stabbatit) (btw - I think Galen nailed a sense of it pretty good (in an accidental more literal sort of way...if one doesnt follow the pun all the way through to the bathroom) which also reminds me of that ole "in my father's house are many mansions") :)-->

well said, Danny. in so few words, too damn well said. and this: i, for one, can share that assumption...lolwhich means we have found another piece of common ground (btw...man o man are we gonna get sick of that A-word...lol)

thanks for being so specific, def lets see if i can play along and keep it going can we assume that God being a literal male father that lives in a place seperate from us is a figure of speech, and not literally true? The Bible refers to God as a father and mother. and as a son, right? and a king, a cloud, a fire, of course, etc... btw-can i assume then that you simply agree with the assumption as i stated it? no more, no less...for the moment? ... because if we cannot assume such a thing in conversation, how do we hope to fruitfully discuss the nature of God to our mutual enlightening? I want to hear your premise first. But what bearing does the premise have on the assumption, if we have agreed that at least this is a true common ground? (though it seems that you usefully added to the assumption something i can also agree to assume, and then in turn, i added to again. though we are still just setting the table. a question is, perhaps: would you back out of a shared assumption once a "challenging" premise is presented to it? ... or, can we assume that any one word we use may have different meanings or applications or connotations when used by another? and that to have clarity in this regard is paramount to a useful conversation? Let's not assume, let's define our terms according to our understanding. are you saying that you cannot just simply assume that we often each have different meanings for the same words? because this is all i was asking if you could also assume. and keep in mind, in this example, this assumption is NOT the actual conversation we are finding common ground for. the definitions can and will and do come later as part of the process ... or, even trickier perhaps: can we assume that faith and science both play different but vital roles in the overall development of human understanding? because if we cannot assume such a thing in conversation, how do we expect to find common ground? It would be absurd to think that science doesn't play a role. ok, that was easier. because in these examples, the purpose of the assumption is to find common ground BEFORE we go on any further with our tongues.

not to compare the Kid and Mozart across the board, Raf. Mozart may have been a rare egg, but was not the generic apex specimen of humanity in all ways, as Jesus has been described. but some of the most telling similarities i can see though, in the most human sense, if you will, are things like: that ability to entertain a crowd, and compose symphonies of truth. the gift to have changed the way the world thinks about something or other or two or three imagine, to actually feel a need to throw your self to the masses in the name of love and expressions of its divine manifestation. to care enough to impale yourself on history in the name of silly things like love, beauty, truth... that passionate living of life like a man on fire... both of them were Rock Stars plus, in a sense which, considering the cultures they lived in, was a one-in-a-million kind of affair and...i doubt Mozart carried around a copy of every song he heard just as i doubt Jesus memorized every line of scripture he read cuz its the spirit of the letter that counts, i recall its the spirit of the letter that lasts the spirit of the letter we are after

what if Mozart was also divine? and his music? i mean, just how exotic is this "divinity," anyway? what is its signature?

ok, i'll repeat some of them i already posted: can we each assume that I AM? or that WE simply ARE? and that we are IN THIS together? and all of this is somehow truer NOW than ever? can we assume that all these are somehow true as true can be, even if we still don't understand exactly why? (also, there are those 3 examples...lol) :P--> the reason i think these are useful, is because a lot of seperation and harm caused between people stems from not making this assumption first. "you are crazy" "your faith is not real" "your version of truth is a lie" "only my kind of view is one of reality" that sort of thing these kinds of implications are contrary to the most obvious assumptions i started with and often seem to serve to put us on the defensive and keep us there and so we can imprison each other in this way without knowing it we often simply want to know that we simply ARE NOW or that others know and verify that WE (and our faith) IS can we assume that the Kid was right when he said that "I AM?" and that this is not some magic mythical special nametag but the most obvious place to start? ("holy ground," right here and now, if you will)

yeah, IE, and if was recorded that he wandered off to hang out with priests in the temple, might he have also wandered off to talk to others? would such a Kid let cultural taboos stop him from asking anyone genuine and honest questions? and again, at this time, Judean thought was already old old old, and quite a wildly diverse tapestry of thought. And not all of it was so cleanly recorded in canonical form. Spoken word was common method of transfer. Even visual art forms were efficient ways of preserving a wisdom tradition. John the Baptist was not a regular temple kind of guy. Though he probably had a lot of non-canonical scrolls too (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) Neither were the relatives and friends who naturally resonated with the Kid and become his students. Nor were all those mysterious folks in white clothes who seemed to show up time and time again. Not all Jewish spiritual thought and study happened in the temples (like TWI doctrines seemed to imply). From before even Abraham, most of the richest spiritual meetings with God happened in caves, under a tree, on the road, or on mountain tops. The spoken word and living/lived word was more of a sacred art than the written word. Being more alive and spiritually present. The Kid seemed more interested in demonstrating the Word as a living quickening reality, than studying it in a book like frightened priests. And he seemed determined to break the priests and the jewish mainstream of their mostly ignorant fixation with the books. (because of the way they used the books to cause suffering and put dogmatic burdens on their flocks) although, this is not to devalue what is actually recorded. i love the scriptures and for what they preserve. But rather, i think that demonstration and living spiritual experience verifies and opens up to us what is written... ...NOT the other way around. so no, Ham, i dont think Jesus owned his own copy of the OT scrolls he was more or less homeless and possession-less but he knew the scrolls, and was familiar with the wide variety of jewish interpretations of them, as well as those jewish and non-jewish writings NOT allowed in the temples

some examples come to mind... can we assume that God being a literal male father that lives in a place seperate from us is a figure of speech, and not literally true? because if we cannot assume such a thing in conversation, how do we hope to fruitfully discuss the nature of God to our mutual enlightening? or, can we assume that any one word we use may have different meanings or applications or connotations when used by another? and that to have clarity in this regard is paramount to a useful conversation? or, even trickier perhaps: can we assume that faith and science both play different but vital roles in the overall development of human understanding? because if we cannot assume such a thing in conversation, how do we expect to find common ground? (not saying that we must assume these things, but simply asking if we hypothetically can, and if such assumpations might be useful as primers beforehand)

dont forget, he was also a very curious kid...being raised a more or less a travelling hillbilly ...a natural seeker...caring and understanding...and quite fearless (socially and otherwise) and he spent some of his most formative years exposed to other cultures (such as Egypt) and was most likely exposed to many other traditions in the relatively cosmopolitan and peaceful era of his time (not to mention the many less-than-mainstream sects of his own people) most of what he taught was not directly from the scrolls, anyway, but from somewhere else, and served to challenge the then-conventional and rigid interpretations of them especially as to pertained to how, after 2000k years or so, the richness of the lineage of Abraham was pretty much lost to the priests and mainstream, anyway can we at least assume these kinds of things?

what can we assume? what do we already assume? what can we find to assume? what are we willing to assume? what does it hurt to momentarily and perhaps playfully assume a thing, in a dialogue on a forum? can we assume that this might be a highly valuable place to start in order for our doctrinal dialogues are to be more fruitful? (rather than often starting and often sticking with what divides?) i mean, if no one can (or will) presume the same thing/s which I might hold as the deepest, highest, most fundamental truth, how can i expect to relate, unless i make it my business to find a more common ground? for the sake of discussion, might it help if I was to (without compromising my deepest truth) momentarily seek the most common assumptions from which to grow the relationship from there? rather than simply put the burden of my assumptions on others? is my own faith already so pure and holy that i cannot break off a piece of myself and offer it in the temple of God? is my own reality already so solid and unbreakable that i wouldn't dare take a swing at it and put it to yet another test? ? what can we assume? can we each assume that I AM? or that WE simply ARE? and that we are IN THIS together? and all of this is somehow truer NOW than ever? can we assume that all these are somehow true as true can be even if we still don't understand exactly why? (all this seems kinda obvious, i know but the Kid and his teachers and his students seemed to think these are important places to start just as the skeptics seem to go straight for the simplest answers first) and so, what other assumptions can we find that might help the various topics of conversation going on around here? especially those that always seem stuck are we willing to find our most common assumptions? btw-does anyone think all this is a bad idea? if so, i am curious as to why?

just want to say a quick thanks to you all for chiming in and playing along a while good stuff, really. all of it. sorry i couldn't keep up, this time. someday maybe... :)-->

I am...lol and so are we including you obviously :P-->

funny poll, Bob i couldn't vote (though i enjoy PF) but am intrigued by the ideas of the thread permit a tad rant... it seems as if that "someone is in my head and its not me" is pretty much literally true for each and every one of us each of us has a "me" in our head...which is more or less a construct of our own thoughts and experiences. But never the "truest self" itself, but instead, some sort of limited expression or representation of self. we each hold an amazingly capable "thinker," like this. like some sort of a master of light and sound. capable of making vast vast worlds, and quite easily and it seems, that when it comes to finding some sense of our truest self beyond the thinker (the elusive "me" you refer to in the title of this thread), i have found that a useful kind of thing to ask might be: "who, then, is watching the thinker?" and when you find a someone, perhaps ask again: "who then is watching that?" in the end, we might find that there is always someone in our head, and it is never "me," and this is might even be considered some sort of good news (especially once we find a place to sit and relax)

:P--> :P--> :P--> too funny, Danny and talk about another overlooked source for "it is written" wisdom...lol

and to highlight and follow a vine outta that ramble... are there good and useful trick questions? ones that we can consciously ask ourself? via our own God-given freewill choice? and are designed to open "doors?" many inherent, some quite new? ones we might not naturally know to ask? or bother to ask? or think to ask? or care to ask? or dare to ask?

IE, for the sake of meaningful discussion, if nothing else, i'm kinda hoping you can explain what you mean by that. one can only guess, ya know? (except for the lalalalala part, that's easy..;)-->) btw - i like how you brought up "tricks" started a chain of wonderings... ok, and seeing as how we say that sin and evil, like suffering and delusion, are pretty much mostly everywhere in some exotic form or another maybe someone here can help me find out if these wonderings are good or evil or interesting or boring or annoying or smart or stupid or useful whatever (btw - IE, though it might seem like i am talking directly to you please know that i am not. these questions are for anyone so please dont take it as some sort of barrage we are all in this together, right?) :)--> ok? ok, if there are trick questions are there trick sayings? trick statements? suggestions? answers? and what makes something a "trick," anyway? and...would it be useful to say that there are also "good" tricks and "bad" tricks? like forging a check versus... pretending the spoon is an airplane so some innocent cherub will giggle and open their mouth for some yum yums :D--> ok, bear with me y'all.... (and feel free to jump in and chop this ole dragon into as many pieces as you like) would it be valuable to assume that the values of the "trick" can be measured by aspects in both cause and effect? (chop!) and are there good and useful trick questions than you can consciously ask yourself, or statements that you consciously tell yourself, via your own God-given freewill choice? (chop chop chop chop) are there any limits to the variety of tricks? (choppity chop chop chop chop) :P--> the reason i ask this kinda stuff, is cuz i not only think these kinds of questions are important, but can also be very rewarding (seeing as how we are all climbing out from under some sort of delusions and deception or other, no?) i also ask because of how so many in the world say (and so much louder) that they somehow possess or hold or otherwise basically have the actual best and most purest expression of the True Living Word of God, and that this might somehow make them most able to make the most moral and ethical decisions, or some such thing...yada yada yada yet questions are often the first thing to go (except for the chosen questions, of course) like how we were more or less taught to fear questions in PFAL (except Vic's own cocktail of trick questions) but what is the first manifestatation of holy spirit? (not according to Vic, but Paul?) word of wisdom, right? and that make me wonder, if the spirit is wording out wisdom...and then knowledge, might punctuation play a role in the distinction? like the proverbial question being wiser than an answer? is it possible that the serpent was supposed to question things? but to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves" was a big part of the new kid's trick? not only lovingly lifts up the serpent, but by doing so, lovingly trumps it as well? would this not be wiser than even the serpent? and maybe even more valuable than simply questioning the "reality" of any given thing is asking "what questions don't we know yet" :)--> nice steaming batch o cookies there, cm lol