^^ Of course one can't legitimately deny anyone their personal experiences.

But the moment one uses the term "christian," one MUST be talking about what some guy said, or was claimed to have done, 2000 years ago--there is simply no escaping that. And once you go that route, there's no possible way to avoid the FACTUAL issues and problems inherent in it.

I recall once being "courted" by a mormon friend who thought he could bring me into the fold (having sensed my "spirituality," he said). I told him I believed in personal revelation--and OH BOY, he thought he had a live one then; so he told me he had a personal revelation that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. And then...I had to disappoint him when I told him that I didn't believe in THAT kind of revelation: One can have direct TRUTH revealed to him--but not the information that some OTHER GUY had the truth revealed to HIM. It just doesn't work that way.

I find claims of revelations that emanate from the use of psychedelics which reveal information about ANCIENT INDIVIDUALS (as written about in ancient books) to be suspect. You can see the divine, you can BE the divine, you can see that everything is divine...but I'm doubting big time someone's report of a revelation about some historical figure's UNIQUE divinity. Anybody trying to sell me that one is in for a discussion that might draw some blood...

And so...I don't imagine reports of revelations couched in one person's theology would be...informative (except to inform and verify that revelations are often the revealing of personal/subconscious ideas and emotions).

Enoon, once more you're more eloquent than I can be. You make many good points here. I use these terms and the Judeo-Christian context because that's the language I was given to express something that is entirely internal and ineffable. It goes past mere words, this is something I've experienced since I was a child. SWIMfriend, I think you're getting too caught up on my terminology and missing the essence. I can see a lot of good things in the bible and christianity. I use those. I also see an overwhelming amount of hypocricy and atrocity. I ignore this whenever I can. Most organised religion is bullshit. The problem with using these terms is that people like you, SWIMfriend have so many negative connotations that, like with the christians, the main essence of what the faith is all about (love your neighbour, be kind to those who hurt you; in other words: try not to be a dick) is lost. People can believe whatever they like. The only time it becomes a problem for me is when people start trying to put their version of "faith" on me.

Trust me, I know more about this than most. My father is an "evangelical" christian. The most judgemental and closed minded of them all. I know intimately the bad side of christianity, and I hate it. I highly dislike most christians. They're judgemental, two faced and hypocritical. They project their faith upon everyone else while neglecting it in their own lives. They have it backwards. It's wrong and it's why I stay away from organised religion of any stripe.

You seem to have a lot of hate for the bible, SWIMfriend, but have you actually read it? Or are you just interpreting what's been preached at you by "christians"? There's a big difference. I'm not trying to preach at you, but there is a lot of good stuff in there, that if taken away from the modern context, you can still get a whole lot out of. I find worth and information I can use anywhere I can. I'm also smart enough not to believe everything I read, even if it comes from a "divine" book.

I don't mind having a bit of religious discussion with you, SWIMfriend, it's good to be able to have rational, friendly discussion about these things. Thankyou very much for not just flaming me and saying all my ideas are bullshit; like many do when I start talking about this. I have never put my "faith" into words online like this before, for that exact reason. So thankyou very much for allowing me to do so.

I admit I'm particular about what people write. I'm only able to try to UNDERSTAND them through what they have written. I do find it personally unwise to ignore hypocrisy and atrocity--sometimes it's actually physically dangerous to do so.

I admit I'm not big on ignoring things.



I eagerly admit my sensitivity to the negative connotations of christian doctrines. They're so glaring and interminable they're impossible to ignore--even for those who like to ignore things. But I am endlessly puzzled by those who 1) Wish to create their OWN faith (such as thinking that the New Testament promotes "loving thy neighbor" while ignoring that it also promotes ETERNAL TORTURE for any and all not confessing permanent obeisance to the boss), 2) Then CALLING themselves christian, and then 3) COMPLAINING when others misunderstand them, or put upon them the common version of christianity when they call themselves christians.

Really. Come on now. If your moral and ethical goal is really "trying not to be a dick" is it REALLY NECESSARY to label yourself in christian terms? Would you be surprised to hear that there are probably BILLIONS OF PEOPLE, from ALL RELIGIONS and from NO RELIGION who are basically "trying not to be a dick" as their ethical ideal?



See, I actually have a soft spot for such people: people who are deeply deluded because they've been raised to BE fools, BY fools. They can't help the state they're in; they're trapped. The people I'm wary of are those who try to take the same general IDEAS, and transmogrify them into something...palatable.



Like most atheists, and UNLIKE most christians, I actually HAVE read the bible. And anyone who HAS read it seriously will see it precisely for what it is: The superstitions, oppressions, and brutal social constructs of bronze age people, in their fawning to their wargod Yahweh. The really offensive part is to point out the very few positive things (which are mostly banal, and commonly known and practiced even by primitive people who have never heard of a bible) while TOTALLY IGNORING the huge volume of REALLY nasty stuff. It's like praising Stalin because he, I don't know, was kind to his dog or something. SURE, it IS praiseworthy to be kind to animals, but it is NOT ACCURATE OR USEFUL to bring up Stalin as an object of praise or worthiness. See what I mean? Is there REALLY meaning, value, and utility in noticing something GOOD from the bible, if one has to ignore so much truly BAD stuff? You do realize (just to give a very MINOR example) that ALL the worst things that people say about current bad actors in the middle east are actions that are PERFECTLY IN HARMONY with biblical principles? (like stoning adulterous women, killing non-believers, etc., etc.)



I'm not sure we've had much of a discussion; and I don't really think you've put your faith "into words" just yet. I only noted in your original statement your intention of discussing your beliefs and making "regular references" to them--and if you plan on doing that, I suggest you not use terms like "christian" when what you mean is "love your neighbor."

From your OP:

OK. It appears that I have offended you. You're not quite understanding what I'm saying. You seem to be getting a bit emotional about this, and I was simply trying to put my thoughts into words. I've said all along that my beliefs and views are intensely personal and are related to my background and how I was brought up. This is extremely complex and I seem to have failed to explain it sufficiently, so I'll avoid using 'christian' terms.

I DO NOT call myself a chistian. And when I say I ignore the atrocity and hypocricy, I mean that there were positive and negative elements that I was exposed to from a very young age. During the personal evaluation that I've experienced during my psychedelic experiences, I've managed to sift out the lies and manipulations and other dross and form a core of beliefs that I am comfortable with. This was a very cathartic experience because I had very ambivalent feelings towards my experiences with religion and cults throughout my childhood and teenage years. I have come to terms with the abuse and twisted words and have managed to find a few peices of goodness, a few 'diamonds in the rough' that I can use to make my life and the lives of those around me better. It's not so much that I'm ignoring the bad, but I'm not allowing them to influence me. There is a pretty big difference I guess, sorry if my words lead you astray. It is a way of living, not a philosophy or religion. I lack the words to explain properly.

All I am trying to do is figure out my place in the universe, and to understand as much of it as possible. It's mainly the reason why I undertake psychedelic journeys, and why I'm so interested in DMT. I have experienced the divine in many ways, and I seek to find it in every place. Sometimes you have to look deeply into something to find it; but I feel you can find benefit and make yourself a better person no matter what. A lot of this is fundamental stuff that I try and put into practice every day of my life. It's what helps me sleep at night.

I will repeat something I said earlier: "I like your Christ but not your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Ghandi.

No. You haven't offended me in any way (how could you do that?). Nor am I emotional. My personal "cross to bear" is that I can't abide contradiction--things that don't make sense--and I can't be settled until I resolve things.

Your last post resolves it quite well for me--and to my reading it's MUCH different from your OP. Psychedelic experiences expressed in terms of jesus (in any real and meaningful way) don't make sense to me. Now that you say your experiences help you sift through lies, your psychedelic story makes more sense.

I'm just like you...trying to find my way in the universe. But unlike you (and Gandhi), I don't mind deluded people so much (so far, I haven't met any other kind)--but I certainly don't like christ: a person who (if we believe the stories) assigned for himself a UNIQUE divinity forever separate from all others--with the promise to torture those who didn't believe it. There's nothing to like about that, for any sane person.

hmmmm where in the bible does Christ directly himself say any of those thing?. his whacky extremist followers and church leaders talk that bullshit but ive read the bible and dont re-call anything like that coming from the man known as Christ.

if anything he does repeatedly speak of all mankind being able to achieve and do all his works and miracles.

also swimfreind, i dont see why anything merryprankster has written has stirred so much in you. why should he have to be more careful in his choice of words as you suggested? ive found nothing in his posts that warrants that notion. shouldn't he be free to express his feelings in any way he sees fit as long as it is in line with the nexus attitude?

MerryPrankster,

this is why it is important to think long and hard on how we communicate with one another. Sometimes using certain words will overshadow the rest of a paragraph because of what it evokes in the reader. The question is - is it more important that I use and emphasise these words that I associate with these things, or that I communicate the thing that is behind these words, and thus either use different ones instead or try to make my point as clear and unambiguous as possible.

Personally I don't see what you two are arguing about - it seems to be a matter of how the therm 'Christian' was used and whether it is 'useful' to use concepts out of the Bible for one's self development and spiritual quest. Frankly, if I found something interesting that I believed could be of positive impact on me if investigated or used, I would even use concepts from the 'Satanic Bible', 'Spider Man', 'Teletubbies' or 'Scientology'. I believe I have the mental capacity to be able to separate positive things from negative things and use them regardless of the context they were taken from.
Would I go around telling people I was now going to use Satanist-comic-book-children's-Dianetics terminology to explain myself? probably not. I just incorporate whatever I can learn from whatever source I can get my hands on, and if a quote or a citation is necessary I will give it, but I won't necessarily emphasise it (unless it has to do with integral theory lol).

I understand what you tried to say in the beginning with how you would use this kind of terminology and for me this is no problem. It seems however it might be easier to emphasise it less and maybe even try to find alternatives when possible. Doing this might also be an interesting exercise in itself for altering or making more flexible the habitual concept-formation-processes in your mind. Again personally I have no problem with using whatever terminology you please, just so long as you are actively communicating in a progressive way; so far I have no complaints

SWIMfriend, why are you so hung up on this word?
also, you don't think expressing or communicating an experience of divine revelation is worthwhile?
I guess if the idea would be to give objective information then I would agree, but there is more to communication than just that. A group I meditate with and engage in communication with has this interesting idea that communication is a form of consciousness itself. Communicating your divine revelation while still somehow connected to this state, to another being, can open very interesting forms of communication - where you are directly in touch with your own and the inter-subjective consciousness. By talking about consciousness, about the ineffable you can create resonances in others, bring about revelations in others or simply find a way to connect to deeper levels of the people you are talking to. In that sense I find talking about these things very worthwhile and it's also just interesting to hear what other people have experienced IMO.

anyway
cheers & love
Enoon

Enoon, I completely understand what you are saying, and I will consider my words and attempt to put my point across in a more understandable format. I haven't really tried explaining this sort of thing to anybody before; I've never found an internet forum where discussion of these ineffable, "esoteric" ideas are promoted.



I hear you. This is what I'm trying to say, but I just need to think about how I can evoke my intent in the reader, instead of allowing ambiguous words to evoke a reaction that will hinder accurate communication. It's a learning process.


SWIMfriend, it is essential to engage in critical thinking; and I appreciate your input in this thread. I can see us having a lot in common, no matter what terminology we use.

Peace!

He says those things in many places. What bible have you been reading?

Read Jesus' explanation for the parable of the weeds in Matthew 13: 36-43

To read explicitly how he will sit on his throne and send people to hell for eternity, have a look at Matthew 25: 31-46

In John 12: 45 Jesus quite explicitly says he's god, and in 46 he says he's, ya know, the light of the world--a pretty UNIQUELY DIVINE status, it seems to me.

That's the way I read it, and (from a brief look around right now) it appears that's how christians ALSO read it.

I'm interested in hearing honest reports of people's experiences. We've had reports mentioning Hindu/Buddhist/Tibetan deities/symbols in experiences. But those are...reasonably seen as being....metaphorical, often by the reporter themselves, and usually by other posters as well, it seems to me (although I certainly can't claim to know the minds of every reader of every report). Still, reports here have not been COUCHED in religion, they have been couched in states of consciousness.

Is communicating divine revelation worthwhile? "Divine revelation" can mean almost anything (and there's part of the problem). I have no idea what someone means if they tell me they have a "divine revelation."

I DO know that jesus quite seriously recommended CASTRATING ONESELF to those searching for his "kingdom of heaven." Have a look at Matthew 19: 12. Would that be divine revelation, I wonder?

Do people REALLY read the bible, I wonder? Sometimes I think that ONLY studious atheists read the bible. It really is a NIGHTMARE, lemme tell ya.

SWIMfriend, well you know how edited the bible is, mistranslated, full of allegories and metaphors and so on, right?

Did you also check the apocryphal gospels? They paint a very different picture of jesus. I mean, who knows what is really true and what is not, all I can talk about are my personal impressions, but I dont agree with your outlook on him.

Even though as you may have noticed in not at all a religious person and Im very critical of all the organized religion's history, reading the Bible and apocryphal texts gives me the impression that if jesus really existed he was a really awesome and very developed person, and the problem is with the followers.

Welcome to the Nexus btw, Merry

You know, I've heard things like that said before. It's a common sort of outlook. I wonder about it, though.

Is collecting ideas really the best we can do?

I know it's very "new age," that's for sure. Taking ideas from here and there, bundling them together, and you've got your own little "religion" almost...creed.

Let me tell you what happens after a certain point in life (I'm nearing 60, btw). After you've spent a LIFETIME sorting through ideas (and let me tell you, I've been very energetic and ardent in that regard), you come to see, first, that such a process is ENDLESS. IT IS ENDLESS. There's no end to it. And that being the case you have to ask what it can ever get you (except ideas that seem to APPEAL to you--i.e., you become a "collector" of "nice looking ideas"--like pottery). It's then that it dawns on you that it's YOUR LIFE, and the only way it can have REAL meaning is if you generate YOUR OWN IDEAS--do your own thinking.

I'll tell you, it's rare for people to do that. I mean it's really rare. People will TELL YOU they think for themselves, but what they REALLY MEAN is that they give themselves freedom to (arbitrarily, mostly) LIKE some ideas they come across, and reject others. But it's not the same thing...

I only know that I've been working VERY HARD for at least a decade, to ACTUALLY think for myself. It's VERY STRANGE! One of the first things you come to see is that people talk (and write) in STRINGS of cliches, putting together the SAME OLD IDEAS in the same way, again and again. You really do in fact see that people...honest to goodness....very rarely sit down and GENERATE their own thinking: taking what they know, considering it, exploring the ramifications, hatching a conclusion, following up on it, sharpening perception...

People are actually shockingly inept at that. We have no PRACTICE (because, for one, most schooling commonly available thwarts all thinking). I see people as roller-coasters, who just go up and down, round and round, on their "thought routes" continuously. Hey, I'VE DONE IT for most of my life, just like everyone else!

Instead of following ideas around in circles, endlessly, and chasing their tails, I recommend that people STOP! And get off the hamster wheel, and OWN THEMSELVES and their minds (instead of being owned by the thoughts they have been exposed to, and the ones they've come to like for happenstance), and then THINK!

That's MY experience report.

Right. Not only is the bible ONLY some primitive ideas hashed over by brutal people, it's ALSO something that has been RELENTLESSLY edited for FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS. It's only value is a study in itself--the historical analysis of its writing and editing as a cultural/anthropological study of how religion is created.

I agree with most of what you said except "primitive ideas". While I agree there is a lot of BS in the bible due to misconceptions, early world views (patriarchal, not scientific, etc), I still think that there are many advanced thoughts and ideas, for example what I make of jesus' words. I think he was spot on, on so many things that are still completely valid today (e.g. "You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye. When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye", thats an absolutely evolved and fantastic quote imo)

So all I mean is, while I agree we cant take the bible as an accurate historical description, and recognizing the catholic church's mistakes, as well as the issues of edited bible, i still think a reasonable person could open that book up and take good messages from it, as with most religious texts. Its been years since I did read the bible or other such texts but some parts stuck with me and I def dont think it was lost time, it helped me see even better how similar a lot of aspects of main religions are, how they seem to arise from similar experiences of non-ordinary states of consciousness and certain revelations about existence that appear to be pretty persistent across the epochs and places

Yes. There are a few things like that. But are they really that PRICELESS?

In fact all cultures have collections of such aphorisms, and it's a kick to come across new ones in new cultures--even knowing they've probably been saying the same things for a few thousand years. Is it really worth having to read about how god made bears kill forty-two children because they teased some guy for being bald, in order to come across a nifty aphorism here and there? Have a look a 2 Kings 2: 23-24

Not to belabor this, but, IMO, VERY FEW PEOPLE actually sit down and read the bible with an OPEN, INNOCENT mind. Do that, and you will find that it is HIDEOUS and BRUTAL, and filled with very UGLY ideas about a PETTY and SPITEFUL god**.

But...I don't actually recommend you DO that. Why torture yourself.

**Edit: But one who is, apparently, completely helpless against those new-fangled iron chariots! Read Judges 1:19

LOL nice quote you found there 42 nomnoms for that lucky bear, with the personal help of lord almighty haha

I do see your point SWIMfriend, and I agree there is a lot of BS.. There are certain absurd parts that show our dear vengeful god, as well as the useless boring family-tree parts and what not. I guess its up to each one to decide if they feel its worth it or not. Some people might skip parts, go directly to what interests them, others might feel its worth to read all the way through with the incoherencies/absurds included, and so on. I guess as long as you have a critical sense when doing so, right?

Again, I feel it was interesting for myself when I read it years ago, same with other religious texts even though many had some totally absurd parts (for example bhagavad gita). Dont take it literally, dont take it as a historical accurate description , have critical sense on, make best out of the life-affirming and inspirational parts (maybe skim read the uninteresting parts), and all should be good

Thanks for the welcome, endlessness. You basically explain some of what I've been trying to get across. There are a lot of things you can take from the bible and many other things that I can apply to your life for the betterment of myself and others. It's a constant renewing of your mind, reviewing old paradigms and keeping the good essence of what is left. It's an essential thing to do.



I'm glad you could get that off your chest. A lot of people need to hear it. I agree with you here. My upbringing has made it easy for me to notice all of the petty lies and manipulations, and even the bigger patterns of thought people who wish to control you will try and trap you in. This can take the guise of a government telling you it's taking away your rights for your own good to organised religion to consumerism to communism. I try and break free from any of these moulds and find my own way. My understanding may be different to yours but it doesn't make my point of view any less valid. Consensus reality is subjective anyway. There is no black and white, only shades of grey. I need to find my place in it, and that is all I'm trying to do.

I can see I've hit a sore spot, though. I really can't be bothered arguing religion or the bible with you. It's not why I'm here.

the gospel of Thomas. it wasnt a selected gospel to make the text known today as the bible but its words are more in line with my previous statements. im guessing you've read it.

you mentioned that people tend to pick and choose what they like to believe from various sources to help them form an opinion or faith and that this isn't free thinking or thinking for themselves. i mostly agree with that but i also feel that reading and hearing different points of view is a way to access your own thinking. it can unlock doors as well as spark new ideas that come entirely from your self. i will attest that has happened in my own life. i mean seriously, unless your going to stare at a white wall in silence from infancy till now our beliefs and thoughts stem from some type of previously pondered topics that includes your own. you had to get here from somewhere. you cant possibly tell me that no readings or speakers have never helped form your current views. i do not see that as not thinking for yourself.

also for what its worth i have read the bible and to be honest other than the gospel of Thomas i really dont feel its that great or helpful of a text. most of it clearly sounds like human bullshit to me the rest is a bunch of wordy riddles.

my biggest gripe with most Christians is that they dont seem understand nor follow their own prophets words. they follow the church more than the teachings of their own proclaimed savoir. like i said im not a fan of Christianity one bit.