RE: NO...not the spiritual trip...

RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

SusanofO -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 5:57:22 AM)
I was raised a Catholic, and while I am disenchanted with that religion's tenet of the Pope being considered "infallible" and still being anti-birthcontrol (as well as anti-abortion, but don't want to debate those particular questions (believe me), I still occasionally attend a Catholic church (but not because it's a Catholic church -maybe it's out of habit, plus it's only 4 blocks from my house). For two summers right after high school, I regularly attended a Baptist church, a Jewish synagogue, and a Greek Orthodox church out of curiosity. I suppose I am "spiritually oriented" but - possibly agnostic when it comes down to brass tacks; I know nobody can actually prove God exists (maybe that's why religions are sometimes also referred to as a person's faith - if God's existence could be proven, it wouldn't require any faith to believe in). I really don't care if others believe in God or a god or Gods or what they believe about a the possible existence of a Supreme being - if they want to believe in a gigantic flying pizza and worship that, that's fine with me (I've been around that conversational "block" before; gosh it can get riotously funny. I really don't think anybody knows for sure how the universe was created or why it is here- but I do wonder where my "consciousness" came from -I like to think i'm here for some reason. Just because I am "not smart enough" to figure it out for certain doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one, does there? I know some people might consider her a crackpot or charlatan - but I find some of the ideas in psychic Slyvia Browne's books intriguing - they sound as plausible as anything else I've read about the "why we're here and how we got here" question. She says she "knows" that each person plans their life (which she refers to as their "incarnation") - before they are born, on the "other side" (just another time-space dimension) with the help of spirtual "guides." Supposedly, people plan their own detailed existences before they incarnate - including the towns they're born in, which people they'll encounter that will play major parts in their lives (their families of origin, their partners, their close friends - maybe even their pets and mere acquaintances. Also their physical appearance. She says people also plan the "hurdles" as well as great "challenges" they'll encounter, and whether they involve themes having to do with love, finances, spirituality, family (and three or four others, I forget just now what they are). She says that once a person has been born, they cannot remember just what their "life plan" is (which they planned before birth) - for if they could remember, their life would be in fact, less challenging (and they wouldn't then expand their spirit and their soul's "growth" which is the entire reason they may be here). She doesn't consider this pre-planning incompatible with the idea of "free will" - because everyone's life has a loose "blueprint" geared toward the "lessons" they feel their soul needs to learn in a particular incarnation, they can and do still make all of their own choices, and their lives can in fact "veer' from their "blue-prints" - but every person does have a spiritual guide trying to help them "stay on track" (whether they know it or not). She says there exist dark souls (completely evil, cannot completely ever be completely "good" these are out-of-control sociopaths with no ethics) and white souls (completely good, cannot, under any circumstances, be totally "corrupted", although they may be heavily "challenged") do exist, but they are the minority. She also makes it really clear that many who might look like dark souls (on the surface) are actually not at all, but just have a specific set of challenges they've chosen to try to deal with (for their own very personal reasons) and that some many may consider a white soul is actually not one (but may be wolf in sheep's clothing). She says most people are in fact "gray souls" (combos of "good and "bad" inclinations). She says that - eventually- even dark souls do get to the "other side" because the Supreme being's love for all souls is completely merciful and will not let any soul "wander forever with no rescue. Until that time, they may flail about in seemingly endless re-incarnations without ever getting to go "home" and be one with the Supreme being - until they learn to not get so "off track"). And - I don't think I am "off-track" by being here (I think I am supposed to be here on this site; it's part of "the plan"). She also claims that only the very bravest souls from the "other side" ever even incarnate and come to Earth - and that, while every soul (and there are billions) really is encouraged to try it at least once, on the "other side" none particulary wants to - and many spend much "time" preparing for it because it can just be such a challenge - but it's also sometimes a lot of fun - but apparently the "other side" is a lot more fulfilling. She also says that everyone's life has a main "theme" and a secondary "theme" (and it lists over 40 "themes" people's lives can take and they have terms like: Rescuer, persecutor,victim, activist, catalyst,entertainer, rejection, fallibity, infallibility, survival, etc. She also says that during any really rough experience in life she remembers: "I asked for this before I came down here" - which doesn't mean it still might not hurt (or be joyful). Her books are quick reads, and I think can be kind of interesting. - Susan

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 5:58:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cmatrix4761 Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov may not have believed in an elohim, but they sought to enlighten men through physics. That pursuit is the pursuit with a higher purpose and that makes them spiritual men. Just because their higher purpose happened to be science instead of God is a matter of reason not a disqualifier. Finding the process of something does not in any way mean they were trying to find a PURPOSE for something.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 6:00:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheGentleDomme The infinite cannot become finite and vice versa. It is a logical impossibility. In other words, it is impossible for an infinite god to become a finite son. Can't happen. They do not believe Jesus BECAME god, they believe that Jesus IS god- an incarnation of god, an extension of god. One does not have to relinquish one's infinity to create something non-infinite as a representation of yourself. Your question is a good one- can "god" be "not god" and if he can't then he is limited and thus not omnipotent? But your specific example doesn't work out.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 6:21:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheGentleDomme quote: As for god existing, one can't prove a negative so I can't prove a god or greater power doesn't exist but those that believe one does, have had very little success in proving a positive which is why faith and belief remain that and nothing more. But I can prove that Jesus can't be the son of any god.... The infinite cannot become finite and vice versa. It is a logical impossibility. In other words, it is impossible for an infinite god to become a finite son. Can't happen. And poof all the christians disappear......... Why are you all still here? Um, did ya hear? Oh right, logic isn't necessary for faith. Damn. God didn't become Jesus, they were seperate entities. Jesus talked to God implying that weren't the same thing. God said Jesus was his son not that Jesus was God himself.

TheGentleDomme -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 6:38:00 AM)
quote: cmatrix seemed to be willing to lump both men into the spritual camp because they were moral and as you said, "supported the universe" with their life work... to me, that's no different (or correct) than taking someone who supports gay people/rights and automatically naming them "gay". I think that is a severe analogy and it really depends on how you define spirituality. As Meatcleaver rightly said, spirituality is a soggy term with very little clarity. If you were to define it as a "sense of awe" in the world... then I would definitely agree with CM. If you were to define it as a dogmatic belief system, then I would agree with you Level. Pretty much to even have this discussion we as a group have to actually agree on a definition and then a logical argument can commence. I would venture to guess that once we did that there would be very little to argue. Toodles.

TheGentleDomme -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 6:42:47 AM)
quote: God didn't become Jesus, they were seperate entities. Jesus talked to God implying that weren't the same thing. God said Jesus was his son not that Jesus was God himself. If you don't believe in the trinity then the next question is how is Jesus divine? Jesus can't be a separate entity or else after he resurrects he is a second god. But yahweh can't have a rival for the throne. Jesus can't be wholly mortal or he can't resurrect.

Enlightendgurl -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 7:43:46 AM)
Just out of curiosity how is it that you can seperate entities when realistically we all have source energy in us , we are one , although physically "seperate" we have the SAME energy and life force in us all , the basis of who we are is one, so why make everyone and everything seperate , do unto others has, a whole new meaning when you think of it that way now doesn't it ? And by the way , we all resurect...

mysecret40 -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 7:54:38 AM)
Yes Enlighten....collective consciousness isn't something everyone is aware of...in fact most walk around unconscious, they have forgotten, caught up in the day to day grind, like on automatic pilot. It is a choice really.secret

meatcleaver -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 8:08:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: TheGentleDomme The infinite cannot become finite and vice versa. It is a logical impossibility. In other words, it is impossible for an infinite god to become a finite son. Can't happen. They do not believe Jesus BECAME god, they believe that Jesus IS god- an incarnation of god, an extension of god. One does not have to relinquish one's infinity to create something non-infinite as a representation of yourself. Your question is a good one- can "god" be "not god" and if he can't then he is limited and thus not omnipotent? But your specific example doesn't work out. The trinity was a theological fix for a logical impossibility. While Jesus said he was the son of god I think it was others who said he was literally the son of god and god the father and god the holy spirit because it suited their goals. So in the end it is man that invented these notions and not god. But you are right about the specific example not working.

cmatrix4761 -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 8:30:41 AM)
I'm not sure whether I should kindle this fire, but what you're stating follows no actual line of reasoning; it's just a spew of broken logic meant to be sold as snake oil. Firstly, we cannot define a God as infinite, even in the very classic Christian sense (I'm actually Taoist, but I've done an extensive amount of research in Christian theology). He claims to be the Alpha and the Omega, but never claims to be the Infinity. Roughly parallel to that would be to say that the Infinity is close to the Tao, but not even that is completely accurate. And there is no logic in saying that the infinite cannot become the finite. To say so is the mark of a man uneducated in higher physics (in particular, General Relativity and Quantum Theory; even superstring theory and ZPE theory make similar claims). I strongly urge you to do more than just speed read a few tattered books of the Bible before claiming to have some fundamental grasp of theological paradoxes. Jesus, as one would understand if one were better versed in actual Christian theology, is not Elohim, but Jesus Elohim, a facet of the one elohim. That alone makes it possible. And, from the nothing became the infinity. That is the Big Bang Theory. It requires a better grasp of temporal and quantum mathematics to understand the mechanics behind it, but it's a well established scientific theory that the cosmos came into everything from nothing. True faith does require logic; we in the scholarly fields call it 'philosophy'. The well rounded man has faith while the fool has blind faith. And only the idiot spouts utterances without understandings. quote: ORIGINAL: TheGentleDomme quote: As for god existing, one can't prove a negative so I can't prove a god or greater power doesn't exist but those that believe one does, have had very little success in proving a positive which is why faith and belief remain that and nothing more. But I can prove that Jesus can't be the son of any god.... The infinite cannot become finite and vice versa. It is a logical impossibility. In other words, it is impossible for an infinite god to become a finite son. Can't happen. And poof all the christians disappear......... Why are you all still here? Um, did ya hear? Oh right, logic isn't necessary for faith. Damn.

cmatrix4761 -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 8:38:19 AM)
YHWH can and does have a rival for the throne. Quit talking jibberish. Elohim (specifically, the 'elohim' which is capitalised) is the God of gods, the King of kings. Yaweh (as distinc from yaweh-Elohim) is 'he who is' and refers to the personality of the Almighty who is without beginning and without end. And Jesus-Elohim doesn't resurrect himself. His body is resurrected. There is a distinct difference in the grammar. And noone ever claimed Jesus was wholly mortal. He simply had a mortal body. quote: ORIGINAL: TheGentleDomme quote: God didn't become Jesus, they were seperate entities. Jesus talked to God implying that weren't the same thing. God said Jesus was his son not that Jesus was God himself. If you don't believe in the trinity then the next question is how is Jesus divine? Jesus can't be a separate entity or else after he resurrects he is a second god. But yahweh can't have a rival for the throne. Jesus can't be wholly mortal or he can't resurrect.

meatcleaver -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 8:59:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cmatrix4761 True faith does require logic; we in the scholarly fields call it 'philosophy'. The well rounded man has faith while the fool has blind faith. And only the idiot spouts utterances without understandings. Philosophical logic could be used to argue against your statement about faith. All philosophical discourse eventually collapses under the weight of its own logic or maybe that should be because of the weakness of logical structure when taken to extremes.

cmatrix4761 -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 9:29:42 AM)
That's highly selective inductive logic. I think Pythagoras, Aristotle and the Quakers would strongly disagree, except that they're dead now. Those are only 3 of the many philosophers who I can name whose philosophical logic is still actively used now, from hundreds to thousands of years after their deaths. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: cmatrix4761 True faith does require logic; we in the scholarly fields call it 'philosophy'. The well rounded man has faith while the fool has blind faith. And only the idiot spouts utterances without understandings. Philosophical logic could be used to argue against your statement about faith. All philosophical discourse eventually collapses under the weight of its own logic or maybe that should be because of the weakness of logical structure when taken to extremes.

meatcleaver -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 9:36:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cmatrix4761 That's highly selective inductive logic. I think Pythagoras, Aristotle and the Quakers would strongly disagree, except that they're dead now. Those are only 3 of the many philosophers who I can name whose philosophical logic is still actively used now, from hundreds to thousands of years after their deaths. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: cmatrix4761 True faith does require logic; we in the scholarly fields call it 'philosophy'. The well rounded man has faith while the fool has blind faith. And only the idiot spouts utterances without understandings. Philosophical logic could be used to argue against your statement about faith. All philosophical discourse eventually collapses under the weight of its own logic or maybe that should be because of the weakness of logical structure when taken to extremes. Not all of their logic is still active today, in that you are being selective yourself. Some of their logic is patently absurd, though no doubt not in the time they formed it.

acctonthelook -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 9:36:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level my beliefs now consist of a fair amount of Buddhism, and I don't know what you'd call it, a belief that we all have god in us, we're all a piece of god... that god is love, and compassion, and truth, and courage. Any time you see those things, you're witnessing god. Any time you bring them into the world, you are literally manifesting god. How does this jibe with my kink? As others have said, my spirituality permeates all that I am and do. The Buddhist teachings help with inner peace and clarity, which in turn assists in self-mastery. And manifesting god, in a relationship, aids in developing a bond between owner and owned. Level The way you have worded these two statements compliments my sentiments well. I grew up in organized religion and was given a choice at 18 to continue. At 23, my grand mother was dying. I for some reason was drawn to visit her. We talked about many things that day. I walked away with a true sense of God in my heart. That day I learned more about loving God and trusting in him than any church service ever provided me. She passed shortly after. God gave her a message and I heard it. Simply for me, I ask God for guidance and protection, not demands or wishes. Through total trust and submission in Him, I am empowered in my same submission within the D/s dynamic.

Level -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 3:37:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheGentleDomme quote: cmatrix seemed to be willing to lump both men into the spritual camp because they were moral and as you said, "supported the universe" with their life work... to me, that's no different (or correct) than taking someone who supports gay people/rights and automatically naming them "gay". I think that is a severe analogy and it really depends on how you define spirituality. As Meatcleaver rightly said, spirituality is a soggy term with very little clarity. If you were to define it as a "sense of awe" in the world... then I would definitely agree with CM. If you were to define it as a dogmatic belief system, then I would agree with you Level. Pretty much to even have this discussion we as a group have to actually agree on a definition and then a logical argument can commence. I would venture to guess that once we did that there would be very little to argue. Toodles. Hopefully "severe" enough to push my point through lol. The one thing I would leave to this discussion is again, how adamant both Asimov and Sagan were throughout their lives that they were men of science and reason; they both knew awe, and wonder, but very likely would have recoiled at having those feelings labeled "spiritual".

NeedToUseYou -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 5:25:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheGentleDomme quote: God didn't become Jesus, they were seperate entities. Jesus talked to God implying that weren't the same thing. God said Jesus was his son not that Jesus was God himself. If you don't believe in the trinity then the next question is how is Jesus divine? Jesus can't be a separate entity or else after he resurrects he is a second god. But yahweh can't have a rival for the throne. Jesus can't be wholly mortal or he can't resurrect. Well, I don't believe in it at all. But why is it not possible for God to have isolated part of himself inside the mortal body. I'd think a God would be able to do that. Both would still be different entities, Jesus being a mix of mortal and divine while God remaining solely divine. If you look at from the perspective that Jesus was God, then it would imply that God was flawed via Jesus. But if God merely placed some of his divinity into Jesus it would imply neither that Jesus was God, or that God was flawed. If that's the case then God is different than Jesus, and Jesus is different than God. Jesus would contain some of Gods divinity but also be mortal while God remained wholly Divine. In other words why is it not possible for the infinite (if you are looking at that way), to segment itself into finite parts, one of which being contained within the mortal body of Jesus(partitioned from the larger God). That would mean they are different things. Anyway, that's how I see it, from that perspective it is possible for Jesus and God to be different, both divine, and for God to remain infinite. This is probably why Jesus is referred to as the Son of God as he is a piece of God but not God entirely.

CERCKL -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 8:02:27 PM)
quote: Just out of curiosity how is it that you can seperate entities when realistically we all have source energy in us , we are one , although physically "seperate" we have the SAME energy and life force in us all , the basis of who we are is one, so why make everyone and everything seperate , do unto others has, a whole new meaning when you think of it that way now doesn't it ? Looking at the simple definition of spirituality...it is focusing on spirit; simple definition of spirit is the "animating or vital force" (both definitions taken from Merriam-Webster)...so this could be seen as "source enerergy", self, life, etc...a lot of questioning when I was younger looking at the ontological, individual, the definition of self as well as how the individual fit into the construct of reality...led me through a lot of thought, traditions, settled on philosophy for quite awhile. Now a lot of that existential/phenomonological foundation was the basis for interpreting quite a bit of reading in 'Eastern' traditions over the last six-seven years... We are responsible for our decisions, morals, relations etc...still, there is some energy which is the basis of life. I do not believe in an anthropomorphic god; except where those dieties are used as attributes of the whole, experientially... I also have, not quite as in depth as I would like to, been intrigued by aspects of quantum physics, theoretical physics...chaos theory, holographic theory, string theory, etc... My conclusion so far is that there is no seperation...the smaller and smaller you break things down the more you find nothing. Literally. You cannot observe and know where electrons are, cellular structures taken down are almost nothingness, with bit of matter; when you touch something atoms are passing between objects, you don't actually touch but there is tension, inability of different vibrations not being able to contact. One of My most recent quesions is how in all this vibration anything remembers the form it has...with matter apparently flashing in and out of this realm, we are in a constant condition of creation, re-creation, remembering. Then when you hit some of the theoretical scientific mental masturbation about parallel universes, other universes folding in on themselves, etc...it takes me back to everything is one... Still, even glimpsing the scientific, the theoretical, spiritual, etc...it does not liberate anyone from the fact that there is no external source for our morality, our faith, our prayers, needs, wants...none of it has any external meaning, purpose. There is no Platonic ideals which we strive towrds, it is all our own creation, literally all in our mind (where you perceive 'external' reality is with in the brain...). Just a few threads of thought, expressing a touch of what I recognize... None of it is mandatory, reincarnation, heaven, hell, karma, life lessons...it all is chosen, decided... Some other time I might get into the illusionary nature of emotions...:-) Namaste, C (love you lotus, you're a good girl, wonderful partner...)

dorsaisgirl1 -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 8:50:50 PM)
we believe that there is a conection between all liveing things that you should never say never that time does not always travel in a strait line .we beleive in forever ,,,,,we live ,,,,we love ,,,,and we grow.

TheGentleDomme -> RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... (4/12/2006 9:54:45 PM)
quote: I'm not sure whether I should kindle this fire, but what you're stating follows no actual line of reasoning; it's just a spew of broken logic meant to be sold as snake oil. Firstly, we cannot define a God as infinite, even in the very classic Christian sense (I'm actually Taoist, but I've done an extensive amount of research in Christian theology). He claims to be the Alpha and the Omega, but never claims to be the Infinity. Roughly parallel to that would be to say that the Infinity is close to the Tao, but not even that is completely accurate. And there is no logic in saying that the infinite cannot become the finite. To say so is the mark of a man uneducated in higher physics (in particular, General Relativity and Quantum Theory; even superstring theory and ZPE theory make similar claims). I strongly urge you to do more than just speed read a few tattered books of the Bible before claiming to have some fundamental grasp of theological paradoxes. Jesus, as one would understand if one were better versed in actual Christian theology, is not Elohim, but Jesus Elohim, a facet of the one elohim. That alone makes it possible. And, from the nothing became the infinity. That is the Big Bang Theory. It requires a better grasp of temporal and quantum mathematics to understand the mechanics behind it, but it's a well established scientific theory that the cosmos came into everything from nothing. True faith does require logic; we in the scholarly fields call it 'philosophy'. The well rounded man has faith while the fool has blind faith. And only the idiot spouts utterances without understandings. 1. I began my reading into your writings with respect. But honestly, after reading this response, I have lost respect for you. There is absolutely no reason to insult a person here on a personal level... whether you disagree with them or not. 2. I am NOT a male. I am female, hence Domme and NOT Dom as my ID. 3. I AM A PHILOSOPHY major. I was paraphasing Kierkegaard when I said the infinite cannot become finite. His whole reason for believing in christianity was that it is ABSURD. I, on the other hand, think that is perfect reason not to believe in it. Of course there are plenty of other arguments for god as western religions understand it... ontological, cosmological, et cetera. But none argue for a resurrected son of god... only for perfect infinite being, or daddy god. If you are as sure that this is a poor understanding god as christians understand it... ask a Baptist if god can create a stone he cannot lift. They won't be able to resolve the paradox. They will only dance around it saying that god can do anything. 4. in philosophy, which you clearly didn't study as much as you claim to, an infinite being is one that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.... omg that happens to fit the characteristics that christians ascribe to their chief deity. Imagine that. It's not a coincidence that western philosophy in the medieval period was just virtually indistinguishable from religion. At that time christians were doing their best to defend their god logically. They, of course, failed miserably. And it seems you didn't take medieval philosophy, did u? 5. oh yah I'm uneducated cuz I didn't take the leap from philosophy nerd to super giant math/physics geek. So sorry. 6. I never said Elohim was Jesus. Elohim is plural feminine gender if I remember correctly. However, ultimately again they have to be: if Yahweh (A) is the same as Elohim (B) and Yahweh (A) is the same as Jesus (C). Then it logically follows that B = C. Christianity can't have a pantheon but its own commandments... of course, the bible is certainly known for its inconsistencies also. So whatever... the whole damn thing is inconsistent and illogical. 7. the big bang theory is not the only theory about the creation of the universe. The was recently one about parallel universes colliding and such. I honestly don't have the answer here but you really shouldn't presume to have it either. The jury still seems to be out on this one. I find something out of nothing to be a bit suspect. I admit I could be wrong. 8. Um, yah, truth does require logic. But I don't see much more than angry blatherings in this response, ad hominem attacks, and maybe one decent point about the big bang which you didn't develop enough to make a real argument. So no truth here... Ahem This scholar has a date with her bed now.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875