Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6543Re: Religion, Belief, God and Such

Expand Messages
  • iam999freedom
    Dec 21, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes, when expressing God in a finite way there are so many preconceptions and connotations. It's almost as we are trying to analyse It (I say It because in my experience God has no gender) in part because that's what our learning bias is and perhaps so we can have It do something for us.ie., the way we would with applied science and technology.

      As a sidenote, the priestcraft has projected their own fears and "knowledge" to enslave the masses until supposedly they become saved upon death. Meanwhile the priestcraft enjoy their delusional sense of power and "exclusive knowledge" of God and their followers for the most part become spiritually stunted.

      From a infinite point point of view if God is to be known imo God has to be "directly experienced" (as you say in some spiritual sense) which from the Normal human state is impossible to comprehend.

      Just some thoughts. Thanks for yours.

      Freedom

      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "Non" <eckchains@...> wrote:
      >
      > I think it has to do with the finite and the infinite. If God or All That Is or Whatever is infinite then there is no absolute Knowing, imo, except possibly in some spiritual sense of essence. Often it is expressed that to conceptualize and freeze this in time is to lose it. Even saying God may bring up all kinds of preconceptions and projections. It could be that not knowing is a paradoxical way of knowing.
      >
      > The Earth is finite, and yet we are limited in what we can know about it at any given time and no one person can know it all at once. We can only know in process, imo, and that depends on how open and honest we are at any given moment, and what kind of "knowing" we are talking about as well.
      >
      > Non ;)
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "iam999freedom" wrote:
      >
      > Hi Prometheus, you wrote:
      >
      > However, I don't think that
      > the seeker needs to have
      > a religion. We are our own
      > religion! We know that there
      > is a connection but it doesn't
      > require the worship or the
      > following of others.
      >
      > I think this is a very good synopsis. I have had "spirtitual experiences" before, during, and after being involved with a religion. I don't claim to know "all the answers". While I still treasure these experiences (so-called mystical and everday life are spiritual experiences)I don't need religion to appreciate life and evolve in my own way.
      >
      > Thanks for your thoughts.
      >
      > Freedom
      >
      >
      > Hello IAM and All,
      > I was going to say
      > that while it's normal
      > and honest to admit
      > that we don't "know"
      > about God that we
      > can still have had
      > what we would call
      > "spiritual" experiences
      > and revelations.
      >
      > It's such a private
      > and personal matter,
      > but religion isn't based
      > upon what the individual
      > believer experiences.
      >
      > Religions are based
      > upon: clerical (expert)
      > interpretation of handed
      > down and revised scripture;
      > reenforcement of the
      > hierarchical structure;
      > the approved stories
      > of others supporting
      > the dogma; the founders'
      > positions on issues of
      > the day which helped
      > to create that religion.
      >
      > However, even though
      > true seekers can admit
      > that they don't know
      > even if "God," per se,
      > exists at least we don't
      > limit ourselves to the
      > religious versions that
      > are forced, more often,
      > upon the rest of the
      > world. Actually, I'm
      > not sure that religions
      > have been forcing
      > their views "more often"
      > upon others. It's been
      > with about the same
      > fervor as it has always
      > been.
      >
      > Yes, it seems that religions
      > just can't allow God to be
      > God or "unknown." There
      > have to be explanations
      > and stories and we're
      > supposed to take their
      > word that what they were
      > told came from the high
      > and mighty himself!
      >
      > There's no way that these
      > spiritual experiences
      > of the religious founders
      > were untrue or distorted
      > in any way and for any
      > other reason right? The
      > person who told these
      > "truths" to others had
      > no ulterior motives and
      > was of sound mind. BTW-
      > I've got a bridge to sell you!
      >
      > And, that's not even covering
      > all the tweaking, rewrites and
      > fill-ins by the scribes who
      > transcribed of all of this "history."
      >
      > But, it seems that people
      > need to grab onto something
      > solid when faced with hard
      > times, doubts, stress, disease
      > or impending death. This
      > is why religion works as
      > well as it does. It gives people
      > beliefs that they can cling
      > to by reassuring them that
      > they are not alone and
      > are loved by at least One
      > person or entity... God!
      >
      > However, I don't think that
      > the seeker needs to have
      > a religion. We are our own
      > religion! We know that there
      > is a connection but it doesn't
      > require the worship or the
      > following of others.
      >
      > We have learned and
      > experienced enough
      > to know more than those
      > who have limited their
      > visions by programming
      > their minds to see only
      > the beliefs from limited
      > religious groups of
      > thought.
      >
      > Yes, all religions have
      > their own distortions
      > and limited mindsets.
      > Religion is a private
      > club but wants everyone
      > else to join because it
      > gives their spin more
      > validation and it brings
      > in more money and
      > makes people easier
      > to control via power.
      >
      > The "spiritual" is just
      > a hook and is kept
      > mysterious because
      > religions have no real
      > idea about what God
      > really is. They've created
      > their own version as
      > it suits their leaders.
      > Religions speak in
      > generalities and use
      > their scripture (mostly
      > out-of-context) to
      > share what all people
      > think and feel about
      > life and death. Plus,
      > the dogma is an appeal
      > to ego by making it
      > seem that their followers
      > are more enlightened
      > and have access to
      > the only valid truth.
      > The older the better!
      >
      > BTW- Sorry for the rant.
      >
      >
      > Prometheus
      >
      >
      > iam999freedom wrote:
      >
      > Hi Prometheus, Thanks for your insights/comments about this subject.
      >
      > A few weeks or so ago somebody (can't remember who, I think it may have been
      > Post Eck-Con) posted on this site that he/she doesn't feel threatened anymore
      > about admitting that God, Spirit, etc is unknown. That essentially saying that
      > we don't know is not at all to be seen as ignorant or negative but rather as
      > truthfull.
      >
      > I had this same insight as a kid but over the years more or less allowed myself
      > to be brainwashed by others who claimed to have "all the answers". Not that I
      > totally believed all of their claims but that I allowed some of what they said
      > to influence my thinking. ie., Eckankar.
      >
      > Now I'm back to saying that I don't know and that's okay. Thanks again.
      >
      > Freedom
      >
      >
      > "prometheus_973" wrote:
      >
      > Hello All,
      > The truth is we don't
      > know what the Truth
      > is.
      >
      > That's why religions
      > have created their
      > version of lies using
      > embellished and
      > highly edited stories.
      >
      > At first it was based
      > upon a pre-science
      > explanation of the
      > cosmos using myth
      > and superstition, yet,
      > similar mythology
      > is still being used
      > today as though it's
      > still valid. Even Eckankar
      > has a Garden of Eden
      > myth with an Adom
      > and Ede (see Polarians).
      >
      > Whatever the Truth
      > is it's subjective and
      > can be experienced
      > (somewhat) only via
      > what seems to be the
      > individual's consciousness.
      > No one really knows
      > for certain and that's
      > why there are so
      > many religions and
      > so many con men.
      >
      > Basically, God, Spirit,
      > Angels, etc. is still
      > speculation.
      >
      > Perhaps humankind
      > will be capable of
      > learning more as
      > the mind evolves.
      > Maybe we, via our
      > overall actions, are
      > heading toward that
      > evolution where we
      > will naturally become
      > enlightened... in
      > spite of ourselves.
      >
      > prometheus
      >
      > etznab@ wrote:
      >
      > Here's an other thought. Maybe there is no distinction between God and
      > Soul. That there are no Souls and no Gods. And that everything that
      > exists, all individuals, are inherently nothing but the same ONE thing
      > which, for some, is something they sacrifice by living under the
      > illusion of being something less. In this case it is no less than "God"
      > responsible for all good things and all evil things as a matter of
      > individual choice.
      >
      > Is it really beyond the ONE existent reality to "limit itself"? Nature
      > would seem to indicate otherwise.
      >
      > Yes this sounds like far out talk, but that is only the result of
      > looking at it a particular way. What I am saying is that God can limit
      > itself and not limit itself at the same time, because God - the true
      > realization of it - exists as part of a realm devoid of time as we know
      > it.
      >
      > Take human thoughts as an example of what I'm trying to get at. People
      > can imagine limitation and even imagine being killed and being reborn.
      > But when those are only thoughts it doesn't change the constitution and
      > the makeup of the person having those thoughts. Like, I could imagine
      > myself as an ant but that would only be an imagination and would not
      > change the fact that I am human just having a thought of being an ant.
      > So what is to say that God can't also imagine, or think, and in no way
      > is God, or the ONE, changed by having thoughts.
      >
      > And then again, what is to say that people (in the greater scheme) are
      > not really God identifying with creation to such an extent as to
      > identify with the creation as opposed to the creator? After
      > identification with creation is severed upon physical death, perhaps
      > the realization of God increases and there might be something to the
      > belief in various inner bodies and inner planes. If the individual
      > believes and identifies with the creations there, as here.
      >
      > iam999freedom wrote:
      >
      > Hi, there is an issue that keeps cropping up and troubles me when I
      > think of the Newton shootings and all the other tragedies in this world.
      >
      > When God,(if there is such a being) created this world, It obviously
      > knew of the negative choices that people would make like the Newtown
      > shootings, murder, rape, incest, child prostitution, the list goes on
      > and on. Human free choice and perhaps subsequent karma has been used to
      > explain away God's responsibilty for these hideous events.
      >
      > However, if the director of a play (God) creates characters in the play
      > (humans) that It knows will make negative choices (because that's one
      > of the main ways a human learns) does that not make God at least
      > indirectly responsible for these tragedies? Just a thought that leads
      > me to thinks:
      >
      > 1. Maybe God is not as Loving as we are lead to believe.
      > 2. I have trouble believing in or wanting to follow such a Being.
      >
      > Any thoughts from others?
      >
      > Sincerely,
      > Freedom
      >
      >
      > Janice Pfeiffer wrote:
      >
      > Well I guess I can say one positive thing and I would think
      > religious leaders would focus on that angle.
      >
      > There were teachers and school officials who died shielding
      > children from the gunman and some even met him face to face unarmed
      > trying to deter him from killing those children.
      >
      > To me that is supreme love. They put their own safety aside to
      > save the lives of the more frail little children. No one could
      > demonstrate more love than they in those terrifying conditions.
      >
      > Bless all those who has to face this tragedy and may they all one
      > day find peace concerning it
      >
      >
      >
      > prometheus wrote:
      > Hello All,
      > I've been watching the
      > TV coverage of this tragedy
      > for a few days now. It
      > makes one wonder how
      > a mentally deranged
      > young man can do such
      > evil and to such innocent
      > children... face-to-face!
      >
      > However, I found the
      > religious take on all
      > of it to be quite strange.
      > Some of the comments
      > in the prayers of the
      > ministers were odd.
      >
      > One cleric said that
      > it happened in order
      > to have people to
      > question life and to
      > be able to go through
      > their own transformation.
      > Thus, it's a test!
      >
      > One guy mentioned that
      > the children would not
      > have to experience sin.
      >
      > "After passion comes
      > compassion."
      >
      > I'm not sure why people
      > were praying to God and
      > talking to or beseeching
      > God when he didn't offer
      > up any protection to these
      > innocent children. But,
      > are innocent children in
      > other countries protected
      > from harm? It's like how
      > Klemp protects his eckists.
      >
      > The Governor of CT. sounded
      > like Peter Sellers in "Being There"
      > when talking about after Winter
      > there will be Spring and growth.
      >
      > There is belief that a grander
      > plan is afoot and that it won't
      > be revealed until you can no
      > longer speak and share and
      > this gives those left hope that
      > the promises will be fulfilled.
      >
      > I'm thinking that Eckists
      > are probably sad, too, but
      > also think that they see it
      > as karma being karma and
      > that there is no death.
      >
      > "What is seen is temporary
      > but what is unseen is eternal."
      >
      > Do clerics merely repeat what
      > we already know or is it merely
      > a pep talk while reminding
      > us of what we are supposed
      > to believe? Or, do they see
      > themselves as the experts
      > who have memorized scripture,
      > dress up in special garments,
      > while we regular people are
      > the ignorant sheep meant to
      > blindly follow?
      >
      > It is interesting to see a
      > commonality of sorts, but
      > individual choice seems to
      > take precedence as it always
      > will.
      >
      > prometheus
      >
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic