Yes, the current in the live wire, I am aware. It's unfortunate that one has to sacrifice one's identity--even humanity--in order to get to this state, or am I misunderstanding you?
Yes, the current in the live wire, I am aware. It's unfortunate that one has to sacrifice one's identity--even humanity--in order to get to this state, or am I misunderstanding you?
I can understand when you say that you have to "sacrifice" your identity (which was not yours in the first place), it is a false identity anyway. But how come you say that you have to sacrifice humanity?
Whose seed? Didn't Mary get knocked up and then covered her illicit fornication by hoodwinking Joseph with a story about an archangel. That god-dude was a strange dude raping a virgin. 9 months after the seed was planted, out popped Jesus.....literally the little bastard.
What does Jesus´ physical birth has to do with anything?
Jesus was God himself in human form this is true...and Jesus wasn't God himself in human form this is also true...
Jesus attained a nature like God, became a Buddha, a Siddha, a perfected one, a Lord of all, an Ishvara, so he was God, but the Father, God himself is greater than Jesus because the Father never had to achieve perfection, the father is self-born, self-originating, the origin of all things
Jesus attained a nature like God, became a Buddha, a Siddha, a perfected one, a Lord of all, an Ishvara, so he was God, but the Father, God himself is greater than Jesus because the Father never had to achieve perfection, the father is self-born, self-originating, the origin of all things
Saying things like Jesus "couldn't control what he was saying" because he was so possessed with God's spirit. He no longer had any ego, and was not even a human by the terms we differentiate ourselves from other animals; more like a automaton. What a wonderful culmination of purpose for our existences. But apparently they aren't ours to begin with...?
Who´s "they"?
Our existences/identities. You said they weren't ours in the first place.
They aren´t, they are just garments of a beautiful luminous sphere that we may never know. If we die in this condition, the ego dies, the lumious body that we really are persists; but we will never know, because we will die with the body. We are identified with the garments, and if we die identifying with the garments, then we will die as garments.
"Yeshua says: Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings shall not taste death" (Gospel of Thomas, Vs. 1)
Only the garments will die, the real self persists.
But if the luminous sphere really is the true essence, then no matter what the focus on garments, it would ultimately be realized, especially after the garments fade away. It's almost like you are insinuating a transient capability that can either reside in the garments or the real self; in that case, the real self is missing something, namely this capability to choose. In this sense, this sphere is not the true self at all, just a different--albeit better--garment.
:shrug:
The sphere is your true self, as well as the garment, but the garment will die because it was born. The sphere always remain, but it will take another physical garment in this dimension according to your choosing, and mostly your karma of what you did with the garment.
I mean, we have the capability to get in touch with this "luminous sphere", it is our birth right, because it is part of ourselves. Some call it "guardian angel", some call it "Buddha nature", some call it "inner Master", and some call it "Christ nature"; but it is all the same, I call it your "true-self" or "inner-self".
The concept of "being born again", like Christians, or Hindus, or all oriental religions call it "the second birth" (The birth of the spirit), is to become an empty vessel for your inner-self, your true-self. If that happens, you are a Buddha, a Siddha, a Christ.
If you don´t let go of your ego sometime in the future, your true-self will never be able to become what you really are in your physical body; as Orientals call it: you will remain asleep your whole life.
WildBlueYonder,
A better final statement and conclusion would be not that we should listen but that we should think – He who has a brain and can think, let him think. The implication is that one should not listen to religious conditioning but examine and consider the evidence instead. Jesus is often referred to as a shepherd protecting his flock, this of course also implies that people are sheeplike and must follow blindly. It is far better to think for oneself and not be misguided by irrational faith.
Fantastic claims require exceptional support. As with any scientific approach any outrageous claims that lack any basis or support are quite rightly ridiculed. You are mistakenly confusing our expectations for high standards of evidence as hostility.
This piece of propaganda implies that only the religious can be wise.
A better final statement and conclusion would be not that we should listen but that we should think – He who has a brain and can think, let him think. The implication is that one should not listen to religious conditioning but examine and consider the evidence instead. Jesus is often referred to as a shepherd protecting his flock, this of course also implies that people are sheeplike and must follow blindly. It is far better to think for oneself and not be misguided by irrational faith.
exceptional support also requires exceptional qualifications
BG4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
and if a claim has a basis that is not approachable by classical empiricism, what then?
if something is theoretically advocated as being beyond the purview of the mundane senses, why do you insist that it be validated by such things? ... unless of course, as it is clearly visible to any theistically , or even agnostically, inclined person ......
you have an agendaactually if I think without first hearing, I am a conceited fool
an example of which would be to approach things from how they are theoretically advocated (which requires listening) before launching into attempts of practice, what to speak of deriving conclusions/values (which requires thinking)
for instance if god is theoretically advocated as not coming within the purview of conditioned senses (and provided of course that you hear that statement), its not clear how you rejecting god because he doesn't come into such a purview is a brilliant example of using your brain
it also implies that we have no recourse for protecting ourself from the onslaughts of our environment - sufferings caused by our body, namely death, old age, disease, sufferings sufferings caused by our own mind, sufferings caused by the bodies of other living entities, from mosquitoes to elephants, and sufferings caused by natural phenomena, eg earthquakes, drought, flood, etc
actually the faith that we can surmount the sufferings of material nature by our own devices is an example of irrationality
Last edited:
Jesus also says of these same 'sheep': the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name...and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice...a stranger will they not follow...
They are not following blindly, they have made a deliberate/definite choice to be lead by that particular Shepherd--Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created...all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist--instead of another, and that would include themselves.
Being "before all things", of all would be shepherds, He alone knows the Way...
In light of the preceding information concerning Christ, irrational faith constitutes faith in oneself and one's limited capacities--of which your thinking would be included: ...if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch...Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Which shepherd?
given that most atheists use themselves as a yardstick for determining the nature of god, a shepherd like ylooshi no doubt ....
its a common argument of atheists - God is made in the image of man
Last edited:
LG,
Quite the opposite. If the support is indeed exceptional and hence very clear then no qualification is needed.
And this is more than fantasy because?
Use anything that can show that something is true. Otherwise you will have difficulty showing your claims are anything other than baseless fantasy.
How else would one know the claims are true or just fantasy then?
And yet none have shown these personal claims are any different to delusion. And since the claims are so fantastic and delusion is common place then you have a significant credibility issue.
To not believe to be true what cannot be shown to be true.
Listening was not excluded, but only hearing and acting without thought.
Which is quite different to asserting the claims are true regardless, i.e. religion.
The god theory is not rejected only the claims that it is true without showing how it could be true.
These are all truths. Why would believing religious fantasy change any of that?
No that has nothing to do with faith but the multitude of evidence from many millennia that human endeavors can and do consistently overcome often overwhelming odds. And in recent centuries primarily due to science.
Photizo,
Why be a sheep when you can think for yourself?
The shepherd in question is a myth. People are following religious indoctrination as if it were true without using their brains to verify its validity. They are indeed following blindly.
And the proof for all that preaching is???
So using your brain to show how this might be true is excluded because?
That wasn’t information but simple baseless preaching. Irrationality comes from asserting something true but cannot show it true – i.e. religion. And why not have some confidence in our own abilities when we have nothing else for reference?
More very irritating preaching. Please don’t do that since it adds nothing to the discussion.
:yawn::sleep: