Traditional Christianity

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums

Postby Webwanderer » Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:34 pm

That is so true about Scientology Ives, but they don’t have the corner on the guilt market. The whole idea of pushing the concept of being a sinner is to solidify the wrongness of our lives. Most of the world’s religions exploit this same “road to hell” cure methodology. It’s an effective sales tool. Prey on people’s ignorance and guilt, convert them to your solution and the religion thrives.

We must remember, however, that that the converters generally believe in their own conversion. That is why they so readily share it. And to see others adopt this same possition gives renewed support to their own beliefs. It truly is the blind leading the blind.
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Postby kiki » Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:47 pm

Webwanderer wrote:The problem here is that one can have deeply moving experiences that masquerade as direct experience of Truth. Take one in an emotional quagmire of guilt and fear, offer them an apparent solution by repentance through a specific religious tenet, and the emotional cleansing creates a conceptual attachment to that religion. They're saved and now believe to think otherwise is to deny God.

You are right. Your keen perception spotted the "hole" in my post. Your clarifying statements are appreciated.
User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Postby Webwanderer » Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:38 pm

Kiki Wrote:
You are right. Your keen perception spotted the "hole" in my post. Your clarifying statements are appreciated.


It's hardly a hole. More likely "the rest of the story". Of course that is the nature of attachment to identity concepts. There is always more to the story.

My thanks to you as always, for your consistantly insightful offerings.
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Postby YUDoodat » Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:31 am

I'm still here, I just haven't had the time to do much posting. But I have been reading along, and (kiki, Webwanderer, and eseward especially) your (I was about to write "arguments", but I will modify that to) "perspective" is most compelling.

I have had to slow down the "train" so to speak, and catch my breath a little. A few weeks ago I was feeling rather "swept away" by many of these new-ish perspectives and considerations. I say 'new-ish' because I have been aware of many of these in the past, but have not hitherto connected with them in the way in which I am now perceiving them.

The most compelling (and frankly alarming) concept that I have had to most recently contend with is just the one that kiki described when she wrote:

Am I willing to question everything I've ever believed about myself, others, and what I've come to believe because of religious, family, and cultural influence? Am I willing let go of cherished beliefs if it means actually waking up, or would I rather remain feeling "safe" with what's familiar? Am I really interested in waking up or in debating and defending cherished beliefs?


What a radically dangerous, and yet entirely probable requirement for ultimate spiritual freedom! We can claim to have given up everything: family, reputation, physical security, etc.; but until we give up that last scrabbling fingerhold of the mind, we are still immovably anchored to its attachments. I'm starting to see that it must ALL die: all of me, not just the part which I am comfortable letting go of. It would be just a cheaply gained phantom awakening if it weren't preceded by a thorough relinquishment of all that I see myself as being to the very core. Safety is what the mind craves above all else. My fingerhold is slowly loosening. One day I will have to put it all to the ultimate test and let go. For me, it is not the freefall that is the harder, but the letting go of the cliff edge.
YUDoodat
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:41 pm

Postby kiki » Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:11 am

One day I will have to put it all to the ultimate test and let go.

Yes, if there is to be awakening.
For me, it is not the freefall that is the harder, but the letting go of the cliff edge.

I came across this illustration once, and I like it very much. Ego fears letting go of its beliefs much like someone fears letting go of a rope that they are tightly clinging to, believing that to do so will plummet them into complete oblivion. What is discovered, however, is that when the rope is released one is found to have been standing on the ground all along, only they didn't know it. This ground that you are standing on is awareness itself.

It is one's beliefs that prevent one from realizing this. It is egoic fear that keeps one clinging to the rope/cliff. That fear is a phantom; it is nothing but the mind performing a sort of morbid dance that keeps ego tightly held as its dance partner.
User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Postby summer » Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:57 am

I have really enjoyed reading everyone's contributions to this thread. Lots of genuine food for the soul.

At the beginning of our personal journey, we are quite willing to give up our suffering, and the things that seem to bother us. Our resentments, our fears, and all of the other hang ups that seem to get in our way.

Then at some point, we realise that we also have to give up all of the things that we truly like about ourselves. Our attachment to our loved ones, and our favorite spiritual teachers, or practices.

This is when it all gets really, really tough. I am still struggling with my attachments to my loved ones, so I honestly don't know what is over the cliff.

Still, it is very comforting to hear kiki say that my feet will still be on the ground. I kind of already know that, but I still get tangled up with my children and grandchildren.
User avatar
summer
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:42 am
Location: California

Postby eseward » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:43 am

Right. Great post, kiki.

And it's funny how right we think we must be in assuming the worst, but how could the experience of the truth of our nature ever be anything but all good?

Raynor Johnson, in The Imprisoned Splendor, wrote:How utterly satisfying it is to know that, in spite of all appearances in the familiar world, nevertheless when this light shines it is all seen to be good... When the veils are withdrawn in a moment of insight, the mystics, with no dissentient voice, speak of the omnipresent overflowing Joy at the heart of things, of "unbounded glorious Love."
eseward
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: New York

Traditional Christianity

Postby NoordZee » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:48 am

Webwanderer wrote:
They're saved and now believe to think otherwise is to deny God.

The particular religion doesn't matter in the least. What matters is the person's acceptance of the authority of the source material. Throw in some public pomp and circumstance and you trade the emotional quagmire or guilt and fear for the emotional quagmire of religious attachment.


I am with you there, Webwanderer. I wrote earlier that there is an emerging Paradigm, which seriously questions many aspects of Christianity in its traditional form. It just does not make sense to say to somebody: "Believe or otherwise you will not be saved". How can you make a person believe by using (implied) threats. Does this mean that some hidden tribe in the heart of Papua New Guinea, who have never heard of Jesus or Christianity, and thus do not (and cannot) believe what traditional Christians want you to believe, is invariably headed for 'hell'? Of course not!! IMO One should never assume a belief for fear of future punishment.

Webwanderer further wrote:
Most of the world’s religions exploit this same “road to hell” cure methodology. It’s an effective sales tool. Prey on people’s ignorance and guilt, convert them to your solution and the religion thrives.


Yes, absolutely! This methodology has been a very effective tool for keeping large numbers of people in check. Don't forget that even thousands of years ago, many societies were very oppressive with the majority of the wealth held by only a few individuals. (What is different today:( ?) Landlords, all that time ago, extracted large contributions from the farmers, most of whom lead a subsistence existence. What easier way than to tell them to contribute much to the landlords, because God wants that. In these modern times, people are finally beginning to wake up that a literal interpretation of the Bible does not make much sense. Yes, I know that there are still many people out there, such as the Creationists who think differently and would like to take issue with me on this subject :shock:

Having said the above, I am still under the impression that Eckhart Tolle does not deny God's existence. He simply says that the word 'God' is only a signpost. He further states that the word 'God' may not necessarily be the correct alternative to the 'Unmanifested' or the 'Source', the latter words not being subject to such wildly different interpretations.

Regards to all forum members
Frits
"Veritas vos liberabit"
User avatar
NoordZee
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:18 am
Location: Dandenongs, Australia

Re: Traditional Christianity

Postby logan65 » Tue May 09, 2017 12:38 pm

enjoyed this thread very much. thanks
logan65
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:48 am

Re: Traditional Christianity

Postby Webwanderer » Tue May 09, 2017 5:49 pm

Thanks for digging out this fine old thread.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Traditional Christianity

Postby logan65 » Wed May 10, 2017 12:17 am

ww,i started at the 1st thread from back in 04 I think and have checked all of em out. I live in a part of the country (ky) where if you have the nerve to say that a human being cannot walk on water,you are an outcast and demon from hell...lol..I've got a sister who ran me off from her house because I said all that walkin on water stuff was bs..not that there is anything wrong with walkin on water.just sayin..
logan65
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:48 am

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests