Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 1:42:34 GMT -5
Indeed, these writings are closer to what Jesus likely believed. It's worth noting that both Paul and Mark were unaware of the concept of virgin birth. Paul wrote in Romans On what basis do you consider it more likely? Is it because Paul and Mark were there...or thereabouts...at the time, so you trust their representation of Jesus' words? The reason why Paul had reliable information is that he was a contemporary author of Jesus' time and had the opportunity to meet James, Jesus' brother, thereby receiving first-hand information. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 14, 2023 2:05:29 GMT -5
Struggling a bit to understand you here, and I think ChatBot is helping you, so I should understand. Okay, so what you call 'original doctrine' is what you consider to be Jesus actual words and what actually happened? And you take the first century literature to be an accurate representation of the 'original doctrine', yes? And do you believe it to be true? These are not the exact words of Jesus but rather what he might have taught. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an original doctrine. Okay, so 'might have taught' means that you don't fully trust the teachings of Paul/Mark? But you trust them more than the 2nd wave of teachings? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 14, 2023 2:08:00 GMT -5
On what basis do you consider it more likely? Is it because Paul and Mark were there...or thereabouts...at the time, so you trust their representation of Jesus' words? The reason why Paul had reliable information is that he was a contemporary author of Jesus' time and had the opportunity to meet James, Jesus' brother, thereby receiving first-hand information. I see, well that makes sense why you trust Paul's representation accuracy. And do you trust what Jesus said? Are there some aspects you accept as true, and some you don't? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 3:55:38 GMT -5
The reason why Paul had reliable information is that he was a contemporary author of Jesus' time and had the opportunity to meet James, Jesus' brother, thereby receiving first-hand information. I see, well that makes sense why you trust Paul's representation accuracy. And do you trust what Jesus said? Are there some aspects you accept as true, and some you don't? Both Jesus and Paul are authentic individuals who stay true to themselves, so paul's writings somewhat trustable. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 14, 2023 4:19:24 GMT -5
I see, well that makes sense why you trust Paul's representation accuracy. And do you trust what Jesus said? Are there some aspects you accept as true, and some you don't? Both Jesus and Paul are authentic individuals who stay true to themselves, so paul's writings somewhat trustable. It's funny talking to you on this subject. It's different from normal so it's like there are 2 Gopals (plus a third Gopal-Chatbot combination  ). I never talk to you about this, so it's very fresh for me. And I am learning in a bit about Bible history. Logically, you only know Jesus and Paul are authentic, because of how Paul expresses himself. You read Paul, and his expression and story sounds authentic, and Jesus sounds authentic in Paul's writing. Right? Or wrong? How much do you accept as true about the story of Jesus? If you accept a lot of it, then I'm naturally very curious about how it fits with the other Gopal I know. I assume that the jigsaw pieces do fit together for you. But first I'm curious about what you accept as true about Jesus. Could you tell us please what you accept as true? There's no value for me in discrediting Jesus to be clear. I am interested in you, not Jesus. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 4:46:39 GMT -5
Both Jesus and Paul are authentic individuals who stay true to themselves, so paul's writings somewhat trustable. It's funny talking to you on this subject. It's different from normal so it's like there are 2 Gopals (plus a third Gopal-Chatbot combination ). I never talk to you about this, so it's very fresh for me. And I am learning in a bit about Bible history. Logically, you only know Jesus and Paul are authentic, because of how Paul expresses himself. You read Paul, and his expression and story sounds authentic, and Jesus sounds authentic in Paul's writing. Right? Or wrong? How much do you accept as true about the story of Jesus? If you accept a lot of it, then I'm naturally very curious about how it fits with the other Gopal I know. I assume that the jigsaw pieces do fit together for you. But first I'm curious about what you accept as true about Jesus. Could you tell us please what you accept as true? There's no value for me in discrediting Jesus to be clear. I am interested in you, not Jesus. What I beleive is not important so I won't tell you |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 14, 2023 4:55:36 GMT -5
It's funny talking to you on this subject. It's different from normal so it's like there are 2 Gopals (plus a third Gopal-Chatbot combination ). I never talk to you about this, so it's very fresh for me. And I am learning in a bit about Bible history. Logically, you only know Jesus and Paul are authentic, because of how Paul expresses himself. You read Paul, and his expression and story sounds authentic, and Jesus sounds authentic in Paul's writing. Right? Or wrong? How much do you accept as true about the story of Jesus? If you accept a lot of it, then I'm naturally very curious about how it fits with the other Gopal I know. I assume that the jigsaw pieces do fit together for you. But first I'm curious about what you accept as true about Jesus. Could you tell us please what you accept as true? There's no value for me in discrediting Jesus to be clear. I am interested in you, not Jesus. What I beleive is not important so I won't tell you Okay, I respect you being clear with me on that. So then the crux of your debate/argument around Christianity here isn't that ''Jesus was telling the truth'', it's simply that Paul/Mark are a more accurate representation of what Jesus may have said/done, than the literature that followed them. Have I got that right! Does anyone disagree with you on that by the way? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 4:59:48 GMT -5
What I beleive is not important so I won't tell you Okay, I respect you being clear with me on that. So then the crux of your debate/argument around Christianity here isn't that ''Jesus was telling the truth'', it's simply that Paul/Mark are a more accurate representation of what Jesus may have said/done, than the literature that followed them. Have I got that right! Does anyone disagree with you on that by the way? That's perfectly right ! You got me correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 14, 2023 6:15:31 GMT -5
If you don't mind me saying, it often strikes me that the faith you put in the people you speak to, to give an honest evaluation of themselves, sometimes appears to border on the naïve. What I mean is, the answers many folks will give to questions about the level of their sense of selfhood may somewhat ironically be driven by ego. Especially in that sort of setting where it's already on their radar that selflessness is some sort of perceived goal. We often see folks on the forums claiming to have seen through selfhood and have no ego who are then acting highly reactively at any sense of challenge or slight and it doesn't add up. Mostly, getting a clear idea of someone's psyche is a process of evaluation of their behaviour over time, rather than taking what they tell you about themselves at face value. If it's the call that I'm thinking it might be, I've listened in a few times. Self-honesty is quite prized in this group. So naive? .. heh heh .. perhaps it's an LOA thingy ... Yeah, to be fair I did think afterwards that it depends on how well he knows these people. But also that it depends on 'how conscious someone is being' as to how well they would even be able to answer such questions. And to answer accurately one would at least have to be operating pretty consciously and prize self-honesty and be prepared to express it openly. Which would undoubtedly get skewed in the case of the more egoic. It would also apply to the one asking the question including whether they have the requisite insight to be able to codify both the question and answer. And all that is before even get to the fact that the first cut is the deepest …. Point is, you can't just survey folks you meet on the street and expect to get an accurate portrayal. That said, I do agree some folks are more self-orientated than others and that zd is nobody's fool.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 14, 2023 6:58:08 GMT -5
If it's the call that I'm thinking it might be, I've listened in a few times. Self-honesty is quite prized in this group. So naive? .. heh heh .. perhaps it's an LOA thingy ... Yeah, to be fair I did think afterwards that it depends on how well he knows these people. But also that it depends on 'how conscious someone is being' as to how well they would even be able to answer such questions. And to answer accurately one would at least have to be operating pretty consciously and prize self-honesty and be prepared to express it openly. Which would undoubtedly get skewed in the case of the more egoic. It would also apply to the one asking the question including whether they have the requisite insight to be able to codify both the question and answer. And all that is before even get to the fact that the first cut is the deepest …. Point is, you can't just survey folks you meet on the street and expect to get an accurate portrayal. That said, I do agree some folks are more self-orientated than others and that zd is nobody's fool. I was only referring to people I know well, all of whom are long-time seekers. I became curious about this issue many years ago when I discovered that my daughter knew exactly what I was referring to by the term "hard-core sense of selfhood" and my wife did not. I've related this before, but my wife only understood what I was describing after watching the movie "Men In Black." In that science fiction movie there is a scene where an alien in a human body is lying on a gurney. Will Smith touches an odd button on the side of the human's head and the head opens up and reveals the tiny alien sitting at a set of controls that apparently operates the body. My wife turned to me during that scene and said, "Oh, that's the sense of selfhood that you've been talking about!" Afterwards, I began asking other people I know well and people on ND zoom meetings about this, and the responses have been quite surprising. I can't think of any reason that any of them would lie about something that isn't threatening in any way. It's a fairly simple question, and one that might be worth exploring here. Most of the answers fall into three categories: 1. Yes, I know exactly what you're talking about, and my sense of selfhood is exactly like that. I have an extremely strong sense of self identity, and it's like being a small entity inside the body's head looking out at an external world and directing what the body will do. 2. No, my sense of selfhood is rather indefinable, but something like a vague cloud of "me-ness" located either behind my head or around the body. 3. No, I have absolutely no fixed sense of selfhood, and have no idea who I am in any way. I look at other people, watch their actions and responses, and try to feel how I should act in response to what I see. Zen Master Stung Sahn used to say that some people have a strong center, and some don't. He was probably pointing to the same sort of thing. He would often poke particular students (who he thought had a weak center) lightly in the stomach with his Zen stick and say, "Must make center stronger, stronger." He was implying that meditation could help "ground" people and increase clarity via realizations that function as a way of getting people out of their heads and into their bodies, so to speak. As a scientifically-oriented character, I find this difference in how people think and feel about selfhood to be rather fascinating. Out of curiosity, how would you describe your own sense of selfhood or sense of identity? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 14, 2023 9:00:22 GMT -5
Another issue that also might be fun to explore is how personality characteristics might play a role in the awakening process. Although the Meiers Briggs personality test is not recognized by research psychologists as having much validity, many people find it useful in helping to understand where other people are coming from. I've noticed that there seems to be a significant difference in the awakening process for people that the MB test label as "thinkers" and the process for people that the test label as "feelers." People who identify predominantly as feelers often describe a necessary aspect of the process involving suppressed feelings and emotions coming to the surface of consciousness and having to be released whereas thinkers don't. This can involve a lot of tears as past insults, grievances, and regrets are acknowledged and accepted. Thinkers rarely report anything like this. Thinkers tend to have strong breakthroughs as various beliefs are suddenly realized to have been false.
Someone once asked me to explain the difference between a thinker and a feeler as I understood those terms. I said, "If a feeler is insulted, the insult 'goes in,' and is felt internally in some way. If someone insults a thinker, the insult often will not penetrate because a thought will arise, such as, 'I wonder if there is any validity to what this person is saying?'" IOW, a thinker is sort of shielded from external influences because s/he thinks about whatever is happening before judging whatever is happening as either valid/invalid or good/bad. A thinker will internalize an insult only if s/he thinks there is validity to the insult and agrees with it. Even then, it usually gets internalized as a thought rather than a feeling. The story is much more complex than this, and every human is unique, but there does seem to be some common patterns exhibited.
The only personality test that psychologists agree has scientific validity is the OCEAN test, commonly called "The Big Five." For some reason it doesn't have anything equivalent to the intuitive/sensing spectrum of the MB test, so in that respect it is not nearly as useful IMO as the MB for understanding other people. I suspect, without any proof at all, that people who are high on the intuitive spectrum of the MB test are the people most likely to be interested in ND. My understanding of that spectrum is that people who are high on the sensing end of the spectrum accept the world just as it is, whereas people who are high on the intuitive end of the scale want to understand what's going on below the surface. Intuitives often sense that something about the consensus paradigm is fundamentally in error even if they can't figure out what it is.
Just some random thoughts on a Sunday morning.
|
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 14, 2023 9:24:54 GMT -5
Yeah, to be fair I did think afterwards that it depends on how well he knows these people. But also that it depends on 'how conscious someone is being' as to how well they would even be able to answer such questions. And to answer accurately one would at least have to be operating pretty consciously and prize self-honesty and be prepared to express it openly. Which would undoubtedly get skewed in the case of the more egoic. It would also apply to the one asking the question including whether they have the requisite insight to be able to codify both the question and answer. And all that is before even get to the fact that the first cut is the deepest …. Point is, you can't just survey folks you meet on the street and expect to get an accurate portrayal. That said, I do agree some folks are more self-orientated than others and that zd is nobody's fool. I was only referring to people I know well, all of whom are long-time seekers. I became curious about this issue many years ago when I discovered that my daughter knew exactly what I was referring to by the term "hard-core sense of selfhood" and my wife did not. I've related this before, but my wife only understood what I was describing after watching the movie "Men In Black." In that science fiction movie there is a scene where an alien in a human body is lying on a gurney. Will Smith touches an odd button on the side of the human's head and the head opens up and reveals the tiny alien sitting at a set of controls that apparently operates the body. My wife turned to me during that scene and said, "Oh, that's the sense of selfhood that you've been talking about!" That scene is a great depiction of the phenomenon! As I say, I don't think anyone would consciously lie. Just that some folks might not be conscious (or present) enough to know what's driving them a lot of the time. Especially when acting reactively which is when we tend to go more unconscious. So I mean they may have no insight into what's going on in their psyche in those instances, so effectively no recollection. Having essentially been not present, hehe. Bit of a pretzel. Anyway, the one's who I consider might ironically be swayed by ego to 'upgrade' themselves, wouldn't be doing so consciously. Interesting question. The user Q once asked me, 'are you still an ego'. My answer was something along the lines, 'yeah and it's a whopper!, but I'm highly conscious of it so it doesn't necessarily have a lot of power'. I would say I predmoninantly tend to vary between 1 and 2 on your 'scale', situationally. Then periodically there have been 'cosmic' experiences where the sense has all but disappeared, albeit temporarily. And there is realisation, which means there is insight into it's merely apparent nature, ever-presently. Along with the circumstance of it's arisal and the depth to which it runs in that capacity. So it's complicated, hehe.
I have to say I'm sceptical about number 3 on your list though. At least as relating to what I might term as enlightenment. Sounds more like Katie Byron's dissociative phase, or just operating highly unconsciously. That's the interesting one. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 14, 2023 9:49:40 GMT -5
Another issue that also might be fun to explore is how personality characteristics might play a role in the awakening process. Although the Meiers Briggs personality test is not recognized by research psychologists as having much validity, many people find it useful in helping to understand where other people are coming from. I've noticed that there seems to be a significant difference in the awakening process for people that the MB test label as "thinkers" and the process for people that the test label as "feelers." People who identify predominantly as feelers often describe a necessary aspect of the process involving suppressed feelings and emotions coming to the surface of consciousness and having to be released whereas thinkers don't. This can involve a lot of tears as past insults, grievances, and regrets are acknowledged and accepted. Thinkers rarely report anything like this. Thinkers tend to have strong breakthroughs as various beliefs are suddenly realized to have been false. Someone once asked me to explain the difference between a thinker and a feeler as I understood those terms. I said, "If a feeler is insulted, the insult 'goes in,' and is felt internally in some way. If someone insults a thinker, the insult often will not penetrate because a thought will arise, such as, 'I wonder if there is any validity to what this person is saying?'" IOW, a thinker is sort of shielded from external influences because s/he thinks about whatever is happening before judging whatever is happening as either valid/invalid or good/bad. A thinker will internalize an insult only if s/he thinks there is validity to the insult and agrees with it. Even then, it usually gets internalized as a thought rather than a feeling. The story is much more complex than this, and every human is unique, but there does seem to be some common patterns exhibited. The only personality test that psychologists agree has scientific validity is the OCEAN test, commonly called "The Big Five." For some reason it doesn't have anything equivalent to the intuitive/sensing spectrum of the MB test, so in that respect it is not nearly as useful IMO as the MB for understanding other people. I suspect, without any proof at all, that people who are high on the intuitive spectrum of the MB test are the people most likely to be interested in ND. My understanding of that spectrum is that people who are high on the sensing end of the spectrum accept the world just as it is, whereas people who are high on the intuitive end of the scale want to understand what's going on below the surface. Intuitives often sense that something about the consensus paradigm is fundamentally in error even if they can't figure out what it is. Just some random thoughts on a Sunday morning. Well I enjoyed reading along. I'll have to check out the OCEAN test, I'm not familiar with that one. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on May 14, 2023 9:51:50 GMT -5
The doctrine of original sin, right, began with Paul? So the Christians were baptising babies in the 1st century? Like I said this is Paul's interpretation of a Genesis story and Augustine's interpretation of Paul's letter. It lead to the doctrine that infants inherit sin through their father's sperm. Paul didn't originate the idea; rather, the belief that Jesus died for sins was already established. Paul expounded on this concept in great detail. What I wanted to convey to him was that this doctrine was not created by Augustine, but rather, it can be found in the Bible, as I cited from Paul's writings. You're absolutely right! The Bible doesn't mention the concept of Trinity. The writings from the first century do not support this idea. It wasn't until the second century that this new theory began to emerge. Scholars attempted to formulate a single theory by examining all the books, and Trinity was the outcome. Interestingly, even the notion of virgin birth isn't endorsed by Paul. Matthew and Luke introduced this idea to portray Jesus as a sinless lamb. However, Paul's perspective on this topic is quite different. Furthermore, the question of why Jesus is the Son of God elicits varying responses from different authors. We can agree to disagree. In my eyes the doctrine came much later than the quote from Romans which comes close but leaves room for many interpretations. But you seem to like Paul. I'm not a fan. Btw, you know him and James were at odds about Paul's claims about Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on May 14, 2023 9:57:55 GMT -5
The doctrine of original sin, right, began with Paul? So the Christians were baptising babies in the 1st century? Like I said this is Paul's interpretation of a Genesis story and Augustine's interpretation of Paul's letter. It lead to the doctrine that infants inherit sin through their father's sperm. it's like mention of God the Father and the Holy spirit are proof the Holy Trinity is in the Bible. It's not. It might be a plausible interpretation of something stated in the Bible, but it's not explicitely stated in the Bible. You might argue the Bible supports such a notiion, but you're stretching the truth saying it's IN the Bible. Are you a Christian, btw? Most philosophers consider Ludwig Wittgenstein the greatest philosopher of the first half of the 20th century. He was claimed by the Vienna Circle as one of them, they were atheistic. I'm 99% sure Wittgenstein was a closet Christian. He may not have come out of the closet because of shame, because he was in the closet in THAT way too. That's not a secret. When WWI started he left Cambridge and joined the army of his country to fight. During the war he was in a certain city and went into a bookstore there. The only book they had was Tolstoy's Gospel In Brief. Tolstoy was a great authentic Christian. Wittgenstein was later captured and remained a prisoner of war the rest of the war. There, he read over and over The Gospel In Brief. Wittgenstein also completed his first great philosophical work while a prisoner of war. He was able to send it to his teacher at Cambridge, Bertrand Russell who gave it the name Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. Almost nobody understood it. Why? Well, for one thing, in describing it Wittgenstein said the most important part was the part not written. Wittgenstein's family was rich, his Father had a made a lot of money. Wittgenstein gave all his money away, most of it to his sister. he didn't even keep enough to give himself a living the remainder of his life. he didn't say why he gave his money away. I'm about 97% sure he gave it away because: it is difficult for a rich man to enter heaven. It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. He quit philosophy because he felt he had solved all the problems of philosophy, he taught elementary school for a while, built a house, that is, was the contractor for building a house for his sister. Then after some years in talking to a friend, he decided he had found another way to do philosophy, so went back to Cambridge to teach. he had a few students and taught in his own room-housing-quarters, a small room. But he sometimes used the NT in his teaching examples. But it's surmising to say Wittgenstein was a Christian, I don't think he ever said or wrote explicitly. So, all that to say, Gopal should not be compelled or even feel compelled to say he is a Christian. Yes. I have a some books about him on my shelf. Wiigenstein. In regards to Gopal, I am visualizing him telling me he is a Christian, so I'm sure it will happen.😁🖖🖖🖖 |
|
). I never talk to you about this, so it's very fresh for me. And I am learning in a bit about Bible history.
