What was Jesus' speed on Ascension Day ?
RVG
--
Internet is People
http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
AGG
> Like a space rocket or more like the elevator of a department store ?
***Why do we care?
--
Turban Joe Balasootoe
JC flew up, up, up, up ollie, ollie up. And den He sat down wif
Daddy and no one have seen or heard from Him since.
John Galt
> Like a space rocket or more like the elevator of a department store ?
>
JG
RVG
> RVG wrote:
>
>> Like a space rocket or more like the elevator of a department store ?
>
> ***Why do we care?
>
I do. This Ascension story has never made any sense to me.
AGG
> AGG a écrit :
> > RVG wrote:
> >
> > > Like a space rocket or more like the elevator of a department
> > > store ?
> >
> > ***Why do we care?
> >
>
> I do. This Ascension story has never made any sense to me.
***So, it's the story rather than the speed. So, again I ask, why do we
care about the speed?
--
AGG
***Another dumb statement.
--
Turban Joe Balasootoe
The one thing we know about internet Christians is they have
no 'sense of tumor'.
RVG
> RVG wrote:
>
>> AGG a �crit :
Just to get an idea.
AGG
> AGG a écrit :
> > RVG wrote:
> >
> > > AGG a écrit :
> > > > RVG wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Like a space rocket or more like the elevator of a department
> > > > > store ?
> > > >
> > > > ***Why do we care?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I do. This Ascension story has never made any sense to me.
> >
> > ***So, it's the story rather than the speed. So, again I ask, why
> > do we care about the speed?
> >
>
> Just to get an idea.
***Okay...since no speed was ever recorded, Jesus ascended as quickly
or as slowly as you beieve it to be.
RVG
> RVG wrote:
>
>> AGG a �crit :
>>> RVG wrote:
>>>
>>>>> RVG wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Like a space rocket or more like the elevator of a department
>>>>>> store ?
>>>>>
>>>>> ***Why do we care?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do. This Ascension story has never made any sense to me.
>>>
>>> ***So, it's the story rather than the speed. So, again I ask, why
>>> do we care about the speed?
>>>
>>
>> Just to get an idea.
>
>
>
> ***Okay...since no speed was ever recorded, Jesus ascended as quickly
> or as slowly as you beieve it to be.
>
Well, I believe it to be a hoax.
RVG
> RVG wrote:
>> Like a space rocket or more like the elevator of a department store ?
>>
> Go watch "Matrix Reloaded".
Until finally:
http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-08-01/1249091680477.jpg
leushino
Which is your prerogative, Vassili. Many of us choose to believe which
is our prerogative.
RVG
> On Apr 19, 9:19 pm, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>> AGG a crit :
>>
>>
>>
>>> RVG wrote:
>>
>>>> AGG a crit :
>>>>> RVG wrote:
>>
>>>>>> AGG a crit :
>>>>>>> RVG wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Like a space rocket or more like the elevator of a department
>>>>>>>> store ?
>>
>>>>>>> ***Why do we care?
>>
>>>>>> I do. This Ascension story has never made any sense to me.
>>
>>>>> ***So, it's the story rather than the speed. So, again I ask, why
>>>>> do we care about the speed?
>>
>>>> Just to get an idea.
>>
>>> ***Okay...since no speed was ever recorded, Jesus ascended as quickly
>>> or as slowly as you beieve it to be.
>>
>> Well, I believe it to be a hoax.
>>
>
> is our prerogative.
Belief implies suspension of disbelief. The story of the Ascension just
goes one step too far. Kinda jumped the shark after the resurrection if
you want my opinion, and even then I always bumped and halted on Holy
Friday.
You see, I've never believed in the crap called original sin. Becoming
is innocent. So is dying. So is giving birth (= sexuality).
I didn't come to christianity from the Old Testament, but from the Veda,
especially the doctrine of Advaita-Vedanta (non-duality) as taught by
Shankaracharya 30 centuries ago and revived by Ramana Maharshi during
the XXth century.
The original sin is the ego, ie the belief that "I am this body",
although the body and the ego attached to it is just a network of needs
and desires based on the illusion of being separated from the rest of
the cosmos. Death puts a difinitive end to this illusion.
The reality is that there's no clear boundaries between the body and the
universe, and it's clear at quantum level.
As for the "immortal soul", well, it doesn't exist during sleep, does it ?
leushino
I'm a simple man, Vassili. I believe what the bible teaches and what
the Church teaches. I believe in the efficacy of the Eucharist. I
believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that some day I will live
with Him. Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.
RVG
> the Church teaches.
There's a difference between between simple and being gullible. The
latter's close to being a retard.
> I believe in the efficacy of the Eucharist. I
> believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that some day I will live
> with Him. Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.
No, you're not a sinner! Original sin is a *lie*, plain and simple,
invented by the priests to make you obediant to them and dependant on them.
John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this
man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that
the works of God should be made manifest in him.
Our 16bn year old universe, in perpetual evolution, is absolutely
innocent and so are we, just popping into life for a few decades of
solar revolutions and meant to rejoice and wonder at the very fact of
*being*.
That's were simplicity lies: the wonder of existence in a world of
perpetual transformation. I believe that I was born to laugh at the
thought: "Why is there being instead of nothing ? Well, because nothing
is not!"
And Jesus of Nazareth called this source of bliss "Father", seing his
presence in all the beings, awaking this bliss in every person who would
come to him and follow his simple teaching and example. No need for
mythology: the priests invented a false Christ who was like the fruit of
the breeding of Osiris and Dyonisos more than the child of Yossef and
Myriam of Bethlehem.
Jesus didn't die for our "sins": he simply walked his way to the end,
freely and joyfully giving his life to those who hated and cursed him,
as he had taught to his disciples. Then after his death, of course those
who had known him and received of his love discovered this same love
within themselves when they met because of him.
They called this love Holy Spirit and upon it they founded the Ekklesia,
the Church.
Then again, no need for cheap fantasy and crass mythology: just love
those who hate you, bless those who curse you, feed the poor, give up
your life as a present for whoever claims it. Then you will be a true
child of the Father, worthy of the Kingdom, eternally blissful beyond
your individuality, providing joy and inspiration in the heart of those
who will remember you.
leushino
Vassili. Believe what you like. I wish you well.
RVG
> On Apr 21, 8:54 am, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> Vassili. Believe what you like. I wish you well.
Do you believe in talking snakes and pregnant virgins ?
Do you believe that less than six days passed between dinosaurs and men ?
If *not* then you're not a christian, period!
leushino
RVG
> On Apr 22, 3:43 am, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>> leushino a écrit :
>>
>>> On Apr 21, 8:54 am, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Vassili. Believe what you like. I wish you well.
>>
>> Do you believe in talking snakes and pregnant virgins ?
>> Do you believe that less than six days passed between dinosaurs and men ?
>>
>> If *not* then you're not a christian, period!
>>
>
>
So, the dinosaurs lived three days before Adam ?
leushino
There's nothing in Church teaching to constrain me to believe this. I
follow the Church's teachings and the Church's interpretation of the
Holy bible.
James
>Re: What was Jesus' speed on Ascension Day ?
> Like a space rocket or more like the elevator of a department store ?
Hello,
According to the Bible, more like the latter. Ac 1:9-11,
" 9. And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they
were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
10. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was
departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them;
11. and they also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking
into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven,
will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into
heaven."" (NASB)
Also an interesting thing is revealed here about Jesus' return. He
will come back in "the same way" as they watched him go into Heaven.
But they didn't visually see him go into Heaven because a cloud
blocked them. Thus Jesus' return would also be INVISIBLE to literal
human eyes.
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Have Jehovah's Witnesses' questions?
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
**please note I cannot follow all ng threads
v1_0
>
> You see, I've never believed in the crap called original sin. Becoming
> is innocent. So is dying. So is giving birth (= sexuality).
> I didn't come to christianity from the Old Testament, but from the Veda,
> especially the doctrine of Advaita-Vedanta (non-duality) as taught by
> Shankaracharya 30 centuries ago and revived by Ramana Maharshi during
> the XXth century.
Which doctrine of original sin gives you trouble? If it has to do
with transferrence of guilt, then you may wish to speak with the Roman
Catholic church. The Orthodox do not teach this transferrence.
Just that we are born with the effects (imperfection caused) of the
original sin. (But do not inherit any guilt).
>
> The original sin is the ego, ie the belief that "I am this body",
> although the body and the ego attached to it is just a network of needs
> and desires based on the illusion of being separated from the rest of
> the cosmos. Death puts a difinitive end to this illusion.
> The reality is that there's no clear boundaries between the body and the
> universe, and it's clear at quantum level.
I'm sorry, this sounds profound and all but really doesn't make a
point. You are just saying that the body is a part of the universe.
I think we pretty much accept that.
> As for the "immortal soul", well, it doesn't exist during sleep, does it ?
What are you basing this on? We know that our brain is still
functioning, our body still moves (in addition to the normal breathing/
etc. we turn now and again). Certain stimuli - such as sounds/
movements - will wake us. This means that at some level we are aware
of what is going on around us and make a decision to react or not to
react.
The issue that I have with this whole Atman/jivatmen (analogous to
"soul") concept is: (1) I cannot see how the whole should be punished
for the misdeeds of the individuals. (2) "Salvation" is something to
be avoided as I cannot experience it. (I am no longer me).
The whole reason for having the world in that theology is rather
convoluted. Our souls are sort of a reflection of the Brahman on
ignorance - but from whence did the ignorance come? From the Brahman
through the Maya, which itself is a power of the Brahman. Once this
ignorance is removed, the soul becomes one with the Brahman. Which
is what it was to begin with, except for the Maya, which is from the
Brahman, because the Brahman can't be understood except by the
Brahman, which our souls were, except they have been put into
ignorance by the Maya, which is a power of the Brahman. But we don't
know that because... well, you get the point.
v1_0
> On >Fri, 16 Apr 2010 05:51:36 +0200, RVG wrote:
>
> >Re: What was Jesus' speed on Ascension Day ?
> > Like a space rocket or more like the elevator of a department store ?
>
> Hello,
>
> According to the Bible, more like the latter. Ac 1:9-11,
>
> " 9. And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they
> were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
> 10. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was
> departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them;
> 11. and they also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking
> into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven,
> will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into
> heaven."" (NASB)
>
> Also an interesting thing is revealed here about Jesus' return. He
> will come back in "the same way" as they watched him go into Heaven.
> But they didn't visually see him go into Heaven because a cloud
> blocked them. Thus Jesus' return would also be INVISIBLE to literal
> human eyes.
Did you misread vs 9? "He was lifed up while they were looking on"
Seems they saw him lifed up. "and a cloud received Him out of their
sight". I do not think we are talking about fog here, so the could
would be in the sky. These things are a description of what they SAW
(watched him go) - ie: it was visible.
So, if we reverse this sequence we would have something like:
A cloud (in the sky) delivering him to their sight, he is lowered down
while they are looking on.
Turban Joe Balasootoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
JC: "Daddy, I wanna go back down. I'm bored."
Jehovah: "Is your parachute up to standards?"
JC: " Yeah, I think so."
Jehovah: "Go ahead. Break a leg."
v1_0
> AGG a crit :
>
>
>
>
>
> > RVG wrote:
>
> >> AGG a crit :
> >>> RVG wrote:
>
> >>>> AGG a crit :
> >>>>> RVG wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Like a space rocket or more like the elevator of a department
> >>>>>> store ?
>
> >>>>> ***Why do we care?
>
> >>>> I do. This Ascension story has never made any sense to me.
>
> >>> ***So, it's the story rather than the speed. So, again I ask, why
> >>> do we care about the speed?
>
> >> Just to get an idea.
>
> > ***Okay...since no speed was ever recorded, Jesus ascended as quickly
> > or as slowly as you beieve it to be.
>
> Well, I believe it to be a hoax.
Well, why did you not just say this to begin with?
If you are, as you have stated in another post, of the opinion that:
"the body and the ego attached to it is just a network of needs and
desires based on the illusion of being separated from the rest of the
cosmos."
Then you would probably be better off contemplating your "internal
workings" (ie: needs and desires) to see the truth of what lies behind
them. [Do not the practices associated with Advaita-Vedanta drive to
this very thing?]
So, if it truth that you seek, then asking frivolous questions is at
best case inefficient, and at worst case distracting you from your
search.
Returning to your question, AGG has pointed out that the direct answer
to the question itself does not yield any crucial information.
Knowing if it were 18 m/s*s or 10 m/s*s or 100 m/s*s does not really
make a difference, especially as the event is supernatural to begin
with.
-V
v1_0
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 9:19 pm, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
> >> AGG a crit :
>
> >>> RVG wrote:
>
> >>>> AGG a crit :
> >>>>> RVG wrote:
>
> >>>>>> AGG a crit :
> >>>>>>> RVG wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Like a space rocket or more like the elevator of a department
> >>>>>>>> store ?
>
> >>>>>>> ***Why do we care?
>
> >>>>>> I do. This Ascension story has never made any sense to me.
>
> >>>>> ***So, it's the story rather than the speed. So, again I ask, why
> >>>>> do we care about the speed?
>
> >>>> Just to get an idea.
>
> >>> ***Okay...since no speed was ever recorded, Jesus ascended as quickly
> >>> or as slowly as you beieve it to be.
>
> >> Well, I believe it to be a hoax.
>
> > Which is your prerogative, Vassili. Many of us choose to believe which
> > is our prerogative.
>
> Belief implies suspension of disbelief.
Well, they are actually the same thing if you think about it. Both
operate where there is no definitive proof of truth one way or the
other. It's the whole "is the glass half empty or half full"
thing.
> The story of the Ascension just
> goes one step too far. Kinda jumped the shark after the resurrection if
> you want my opinion, and even then I always bumped and halted on Holy
> Friday.
You are not thinking of things as a whole. Jesus, having been
resurrected, is no longer subject to death. That has a lot of
implications in terms of an earthly life. One of those is the
removal of faith - having Jesus, still living on earth, for 2000+
years would seriously impact the ability to believe (in other things,
such as the Advaita-Vedanta doctrine). To frame this into an example,
I don't *believe* that Alicia Keys exists, *I know it* - even though I
haven't met her: I do see pictures, and people speak of her. (I picked
her because she was listed as one of the yahoo top searches).
-V
RVG
> On Apr 22, 10:30 am, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 3:43 am, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 21, 8:54 am, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Vassili. Believe what you like. I wish you well.
>>
>>>> Do you believe in talking snakes and pregnant virgins ?
>>>> Do you believe that less than six days passed between dinosaurs and men ?
>>
>>>> If *not* then you're not a christian, period!
>>
>>> I believe in God in Whom all things are possible.
>>
>> So, the dinosaurs lived three days before Adam ?
>>
The church teaches you to beleive that what the Bible says are facts.
D'you know that the church doesn't constain you to believe that Jesus
was *not* a raptor ?
> I
> follow the Church's teachings and the Church's interpretation of the
> Holy bible.
Interpretations that change whenever science shows the biblical
inconsistencies. It's comfortable, but it's going the way of the wild
ass's skin.
leushino
> leushino a écrit :
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 10:30 am, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 22, 3:43 am, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 21, 8:54 am, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Vassili. Believe what you like. I wish you well.
>
> >>>> Do you believe in talking snakes and pregnant virgins ?
> >>>> Do you believe that less than six days passed between dinosaurs and men ?
>
> >>>> If *not* then you're not a christian, period!
>
> >>> I believe in God in Whom all things are possible.
>
> >> So, the dinosaurs lived three days before Adam ?
>
> > There's nothing in Church teaching to constrain me to believe this.
>
> The church teaches you to beleive that what the Bible says are facts.
>
> D'you know that the church doesn't constain you to believe that Jesus
> was *not* a raptor ?
>
> > I
> > follow the Church's teachings and the Church's interpretation of the
> > Holy bible.
>
> Interpretations that change whenever science shows the biblical
> inconsistencies. It's comfortable, but it's going the way of the wild
> ass's skin.
>
> --
> Internet is People
>
> http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
You put me in mind of a man named Charles Templeton, Vassili. You
might want to Google him. He was at one time a Christian and then he
lost his faith. A very sad individual.
RVG
> On Apr 21, 4:16 am, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> You see, I've never believed in the crap called original sin. Becoming
>> is innocent. So is dying. So is giving birth (= sexuality).
>> I didn't come to christianity from the Old Testament, but from the Veda,
>> especially the doctrine of Advaita-Vedanta (non-duality) as taught by
>> Shankaracharya 30 centuries ago and revived by Ramana Maharshi during
>> the XXth century.
>
> Which doctrine of original sin gives you trouble? If it has to do
> with transferrence of guilt, then you may wish to speak with the Roman
> Catholic church. The Orthodox do not teach this transferrence.
> Just that we are born with the effects (imperfection caused) of the
> original sin. (But do not inherit any guilt).
>
Still, this original sin never happened, since Adam never existed.
Or we must believe that the thousands of generations of men (of
different species, mind you) who lived before this character Adam were
immortal...
All individuals die, even species get extinct, that's the way of
evolution. Man is no different and Jesus descended from apes like you
and me.
>>
>> The original sin is the ego, ie the belief that "I am this body",
>> although the body and the ego attached to it is just a network of needs
>> and desires based on the illusion of being separated from the rest of
>> the cosmos. Death puts a difinitive end to this illusion.
>
>> The reality is that there's no clear boundaries between the body and the
>> universe, and it's clear at quantum level.
>
> I'm sorry, this sounds profound and all but really doesn't make a
> point. You are just saying that the body is a part of the universe.
> I think we pretty much accept that.
>
>> As for the "immortal soul", well, it doesn't exist during sleep, does it ?
>
> What are you basing this on? We know that our brain is still
> functioning, our body still moves (in addition to the normal breathing/
> etc. we turn now and again). Certain stimuli - such as sounds/
> movements - will wake us. This means that at some level we are aware
> of what is going on around us and make a decision to react or not to
> react.
>
Do you have this experience ? Or is your sole recollection: "I slept" ?
The fact is that there's no mind in deep sleep, just the DNA instructing
the body to survive and regenerate partially by only performing vital
functions.
> The issue that I have with this whole Atman/jivatmen (analogous to
> "soul") concept is: (1) I cannot see how the whole should be punished
> for the misdeeds of the individuals. (2) "Salvation" is something to
> be avoided as I cannot experience it. (I am no longer me).
>
Whatever is put after "I am" is illusion.
I terminal Alzheimer, are you still "me" ?
"I am" is the reality, all the rest is maya, including births and deaths.
> The whole reason for having the world in that theology is rather
> convoluted. Our souls are sort of a reflection of the Brahman on
> ignorance - but from whence did the ignorance come? From the Brahman
> through the Maya, which itself is a power of the Brahman. Once this
> ignorance is removed, the soul becomes one with the Brahman.
Except it's not becoming, but realizing. There's no transformation, just
the realization of what was always "here".
> Which
> is what it was to begin with, except for the Maya, which is from the
> Brahman, because the Brahman can't be understood except by the
> Brahman, which our souls were, except they have been put into
> ignorance by the Maya, which is a power of the Brahman. But we don't
> know that because... well, you get the point.
You should read Levinas' latest works, when he came back to Bible study
and discovered a state of consciousness that he called, in philosophical
words, non-intentional.
Read Henry Le Saux too, this benedictine missionary sent to India who
met Ramana Maharshi and became an advaitin sadhu under the name
Abhishikt�nanda (he who finds bliss in God's anointed one).
RVG
>
> You put me in mind of a man named Charles Templeton, Vassili. You
> might want to Google him. He was at one time a Christian and then he
> lost his faith.
He seems an interesting read.
> A very sad individual.
Not necessarily.
Then he could have been a happy moron, and that would have been worse.
:)
RVG
I hope the internets will catch the vid!
RVG
OK, now the checklist:
- 4 nails, checked.
- two timbers, about 2m each, checked.
- one pair of pincers, checked
- one large hammer, ah! Must go to the hardware store... Buy some
peanuts for the show too...
RVG
> Have Jehovah's Witnesses' questions?
Yes, actually: I'm Jehovah, how are we doing ?
v1_0
> v1_0 a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 4:16 am, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> You see, I've never believed in the crap called original sin. Becoming
> >> is innocent. So is dying. So is giving birth (= sexuality).
> >> I didn't come to christianity from the Old Testament, but from the Veda,
> >> especially the doctrine of Advaita-Vedanta (non-duality) as taught by
> >> Shankaracharya 30 centuries ago and revived by Ramana Maharshi during
> >> the XXth century.
>
> > Which doctrine of original sin gives you trouble? If it has to do
> > with transferrence of guilt, then you may wish to speak with the Roman
> > Catholic church. The Orthodox do not teach this transferrence.
> > Just that we are born with the effects (imperfection caused) of the
> > original sin. (But do not inherit any guilt).
>
> Still, this original sin never happened, since Adam never existed.
> Or we must believe that the thousands of generations of men (of
> different species, mind you) who lived before this character Adam were
> immortal...
Once again I would say you are being obtuse. Your issue isn't with
the original sin, but with the Biblical creation story. You are
basically 'starting in the middle' (well, at least not at the
begining). This is like trying to build the second story of a house
before the foundation has been layed. I suppose it can be done, but
it isn't the most efficient way - and would be much more work than
doing it in order.
If you have an issue with the creation story, then start there. I
suspect you may need to back up a bit further and clarify what you
believe about God. (Or Brahman, or whatever).
>
> All individuals die, even species get extinct, that's the way of
> evolution. Man is no different and Jesus descended from apes like you
> and me.
This would seem to indicate that you believe in no God at all. And
would seem to exclude Brahman, as the whole theory of evolution is
hinged upon not having a (concious) directing force. Oh, and on the
"big bang" theory of the creation of the universe.
>
> > What are you basing this on? We know that our brain is still
> > functioning, our body still moves (in addition to the normal breathing/
> > etc. we turn now and again). Certain stimuli - such as sounds/
> > movements - will wake us. This means that at some level we are aware
> > of what is going on around us and make a decision to react or not to
> > react.
>
> Do you have this experience ? Or is your sole recollection: "I slept" ?
Yes, no. To your first question, Yes. I was in the military for a
bit. During that time I found that certain noises would wake me,
while other noises would not. Things like someone patrolling the
hallway/camp area nearby would not wake me. However, someone running
would.
As a parent, I would sleep through the regular 'baby noises' that my
children would make (down the hall). Yet, I would wake on irregular
noises. (hunger, fear, getting into things, etc). It is my impression
that this sort of thing is pretty common.
Studies have found that children will wake up faster to their parent's
voice than to a fire alarm. Which is why there are fire alarms on the
market that have the parent speak into them - record their voice - so
that if there is a fire, it is the parent's voice telling the children
to wake up and get out of the house. As opposed to a loud, high-
pitched, shrill beep / screaming that would seem to be capable of
waking the dead when heard while awake.
There is quite clearly some processing going on while we are asleep.
We do not "shut off", disconnecting from the world during our sleeping
time.
To your second question, I would answer that I have no *memory* of the
"non important" things that happened while I slept. However, I do
have a sense of time. That is, that some time has passed - and
generally how long. For example, an hour 'nap' (on the very rare
ocassions that I can do this on a weekend or so) is different than a
nights sleep (6+ hours or so).
>
> The fact is that there's no mind in deep sleep, just the DNA instructing
> the body to survive and regenerate partially by only performing vital
> functions.
>
> > The issue that I have with this whole Atman/jivatmen (analogous to
> > "soul") concept is: (1) I cannot see how the whole should be punished
> > for the misdeeds of the individuals. (2) "Salvation" is something to
> > be avoided as I cannot experience it. (I am no longer me).
>
> Whatever is put after "I am" is illusion.
> I terminal Alzheimer, are you still "me" ?
If you extend this, you will find that you are saying you willl be
rewarded/punished for deeds you (as someone else) performed. You are
being rewarded/punished/affected - whatever you choose to consider it
- by actions that you are not accountable for.
Even fallen and imperfect as we are, we have a sense that this sort of
thing isn't fair.
>
> "I am" is the reality, all the rest is maya, including births and deaths.
Only if you believe that the other births/deaths do not correspond to
conciousnesses. Each birth/death would be "real" in that it is
another conciousness entering/exiting this illusion. Likewise, all
of the actions that those conciousnesses perform would be real - not
the artifact - but in that it is a manifestation of the
conciousnesses' desires/will. So, every tree that you see is the
manifestation of some conciousness' desire (to see/feel/have,
whatever, a tree). That desire is real as it is 'desired' by the
conciousness, even though the tree is not.
Now, if you understand what I have just written, you are on the path
to understanding why the whole "brahman" concept 'collapses' in upon
itself.
>
> > The whole reason for having the world in that theology is rather
> > convoluted. Our souls are sort of a reflection of the Brahman on
> > ignorance - but from whence did the ignorance come? From the Brahman
> > through the Maya, which itself is a power of the Brahman. Once this
> > ignorance is removed, the soul becomes one with the Brahman.
>
> Except it's not becoming, but realizing. There's no transformation, just
> the realization of what was always "here".
A clarifiaction - I should have stated "one and the same" with the
brahman. The phrase "self inflicted" comes to mind here.
>
> > Which
> > is what it was to begin with, except for the Maya, which is from the
> > Brahman, because the Brahman can't be understood except by the
> > Brahman, which our souls were, except they have been put into
> > ignorance by the Maya, which is a power of the Brahman. But we don't
> > know that because... well, you get the point.
>
> You should read Levinas' latest works, when he came back to Bible study
> and discovered a state of consciousness that he called, in philosophical
> words, non-intentional.
Are you referring to "Alterity and Transcendence"? Is that one book
representative enough, or do you have a short list?
>
> Read Henry Le Saux too, this benedictine missionary sent to India who
> met Ramana Maharshi and became an advaitin sadhu under the name
> Abhishiktãnanda (he who finds bliss in God's anointed one).
Ah, I am not suprised with his story. Western culture, places much
emphasis on the 'intellect', to the point where Christianity becomes
an intellectual exercise. ("The more knowledge we can gather, the
closer we are to God"). Unfortunately this has reduced the amount of
information/effort expended upon the "spiritual", and overemphasised
the role of the intellect in a person. People feel a need, but can't
rationalize why this is. Some leave Christianity, some attempt to
fuse doctrines into it to address that (spiritual/whole person)
need.
It doesn't look like Henri le Saux himself wrote anything.
-V
v1_0
> v1_0 a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
Ha! Two problems with that. Won't have to. Won't be there to
distribute it.
-V
leushino
Vassili might benefit from reading some of Ravi Zacharias' books
(available through Amazon). Three that are quite interesting are:
New Birth or Rebirth? Jesus Talks with Krishna
The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha
Can Man Live Without God?
RVG
> On May 14, 12:55 am, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
I don't need the notion of God. As for Brahman, I use the hegative
definition given in the Upanishads:
"That which the mind cannot conceptualize, but by which the mind does
conceptualize, know that alone to be Brahman. Not the one whom people
worship here."
>>
>> All individuals die, even species get extinct, that's the way of
>> evolution. Man is no different and Jesus descended from apes like you
>> and me.
>
> This would seem to indicate that you believe in no God at all. And
> would seem to exclude Brahman, as the whole theory of evolution is
> hinged upon not having a (conscious) directing force. Oh, and on the
> "big bang" theory of the creation of the universe.
>
>
The reality may not be divine at all, although it is absolute as a flood
or a process.
Remember for example that in the Vedas Brahman is just a deity sitting
on a lotus that grows from Vishnu's navel while he's taking a nap on a
wave of the ocean.
When Vishnu wakes up, Brahman vanishes, the lotus goes back into
Vishnu's belly and only the ocean remains until another wave allows
Vishnu to sleep again, the lotus grows, Brahman appears, Brahman
meditates on his nature and a universe appears.
Most vedic tales speak about the nature of our mind, they're metaphores
about how our intelligence works, like in the story about the universe
being sustained on the back of a turtle. Question: what supports the
turtle ? Another turtle, etc.
That illustrates the way our mind works with causalities.
>>
>>> What are you basing this on? We know that our brain is still
>>> functioning, our body still moves (in addition to the normal breathing/
>>> etc. we turn now and again). Certain stimuli - such as sounds/
>>> movements - will wake us. This means that at some level we are aware
>>> of what is going on around us and make a decision to react or not to
>>> react.
>>
>> Do you have this experience ? Or is your sole recollection: "I slept" ?
>
> Yes, no. To your first question, Yes. I was in the military for a
> bit. During that time I found that certain noises would wake me,
> while other noises would not. Things like someone patrolling the
> hallway/camp area nearby would not wake me. However, someone running
> would.
>
In Algeria my father slept in a road trench while a full column of tanks
passed over him. :) He was the only soldier who didn't wake up from that
noise.
Back to the topic: where was the running soldier except in your mind ?
It's like pain: in order not to feel pain a surgeon only needs to put
you in sleep. So what causes the pain ? Still, only the mind.
> If you extend this, you will find that you are saying you will be
> rewarded/punished for deeds you (as someone else) performed. You are
> being rewarded/punished/affected - whatever you choose to consider it
> - by actions that you are not accountable for.
Well, right now I'm suffering for the simple fact of being born. There's
no guilt there, just blind necessity: everything that was ever born must
die and suffer until then. It's just the way it is, individuation
causing pain through separation. Suicide being an affirmation of the ego
is paradoxal as an act of will supposed to end the will. Extinguishing
the will by accepting necessity is a better way, actually the way of
monastic obediance. In simple words: "God is wiser."
>
> Even fallen and imperfect as we are, we have a sense that this sort of
> thing isn't fair.
>
There's no fall, there never was an Eden from which we were supposed to
fall. At genetic level though we may feel some very archaic nostalgy of
parthenogenesis, when cells were virtually immortal through their way of
reproduction by division. Such a nostalgy may be expressed in the myths
of virgin-mothers like Cybele, Isis or Mary. After all parthenogenesis
means "virginal birth" and in our psyches it may be an attractive memory
of the primal forms of life *that we have been* four billion years ago.
>>
>> "I am" is the reality, all the rest is maya, including births and deaths.
>
> Only if you believe that the other births/deaths do not correspond to
> conciousnesses. Each birth/death would be "real" in that it is
> another conciousness entering/exiting this illusion. Likewise, all
> of the actions that those conciousnesses perform would be real - not
> the artifact - but in that it is a manifestation of the
> conciousnesses' desires/will. So, every tree that you see is the
> manifestation of some conciousness' desire (to see/feel/have,
> whatever, a tree). That desire is real as it is 'desired' by the
> conciousness, even though the tree is not.
>
Yes, the ego/mind was born from desire after the individuation process
was complete at birth.
> Now, if you understand what I have just written, you are on the path
> to understanding why the whole "brahman" concept 'collapses' in upon
> itself.
>
"Brahman" is the common nature of all the beings, the ego and the
universe alike. But even Brahman has a beginning and an end, although in
our conditioned state we cannot go further than realizing the nature of
Brahman (or becoming children of the heavenly Father).
>>
>>> The whole reason for having the world in that theology is rather
>>> convoluted. Our souls are sort of a reflection of the Brahman on
>>> ignorance - but from whence did the ignorance come? From the Brahman
>>> through the Maya, which itself is a power of the Brahman. Once this
>>> ignorance is removed, the soul becomes one with the Brahman.
>>
>> Except it's not becoming, but realizing. There's no transformation, just
>> the realization of what was always "here".
>
> A clarifiaction - I should have stated "one and the same" with the
> brahman. The phrase "self inflicted" comes to mind here.
>
It's just part of the process of individuation. In the Christian
tradition, ascetics start approaching the Father through the memory of
death, ie the end of the ego. Complete blind obedience to the spiritual
father is of the essence. Read Elder Porphyrios' years as a novice on
Mount Athos to see how he got rid of egoticism through total obedience.
Later on, he could perform wonders because having no separate sense of
the ego he would feel his neighbour like himself and make them feel like
him, one person in two or more individualities. Similarly he had the
gift of bilocation, like Ramana Maharshi. This only happens to saints
who have separated their true self from the ego and the body.
>>
>>> Which
>>> is what it was to begin with, except for the Maya, which is from the
>>> Brahman, because the Brahman can't be understood except by the
>>> Brahman, which our souls were, except they have been put into
>>> ignorance by the Maya, which is a power of the Brahman. But we don't
>>> know that because... well, you get the point.
>>
>> You should read Levinas' latest works, when he came back to Bible study
>> and discovered a state of consciousness that he called, in philosophical
>> words, non-intentional.
>
> Are you referring to "Alterity and Transcendence"? Is that one book
> representative enough, or do you have a short list?
>
A late essay called in french: "De Dieu qui vient � l'esprit" ("On God
who comes to the mind"). Like his friend and colleague Paul Ric�ur (who
was protestant), L�vinas tried to read the Bible like it was a new,
never read before, text. The notion of God had to be emptied of all
dogmatic references, just trying to relive the experience of the first
saints/prophets who wrote these texts carrying the very first notion of
God in a world where such a notion didn't exist before.
>>
>> Read Henry Le Saux too, this benedictine missionary sent to India who
>> met Ramana Maharshi and became an advaitin sadhu under the name
>> Abhishikt�nanda (he who finds bliss in God's anointed one).
>
> Ah, I am not suprised with his story. Western culture, places much
> emphasis on the 'intellect', to the point where Christianity becomes
> an intellectual exercise. ("The more knowledge we can gather, the
> closer we are to God"). Unfortunately this has reduced the amount of
> information/effort expended upon the "spiritual", and overemphasised
> the role of the intellect in a person. People feel a need, but can't
> rationalize why this is. Some leave Christianity, some attempt to
> fuse doctrines into it to address that (spiritual/whole person)
> need.
>
> It doesn't look like Henri le Saux himself wrote anything.
>
From wiki:
Le Saux (H.) [Abhishiktananda], Sagesse hindoue, mystique chr�tienne,
Editions du Centurion, Paris, 1966.
Le Saux (H.) [Abhishiktananda], La rencontre de l�hindouisme et du
christianisme, Ed. du Seuil, Paris, 1966.
Le Saux (H.) [Abhishiktananda], La mont�e au fond du c�ur. Le journal
intime du moine chr�tien-sannyasi hindou, Oeil, Paris, 1986.
Le Saux (H.) [Abhishiktananda], Int�riorit� et r�v�lation : essais
th�ologiques, Ed. Pr�sence, Sisteron, 1982.
RVG
> On May 14, 6:52 am, v1_0<v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 14, 7:13 am, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
I already have the 1974 crossover "Superman and Spider-Man together".
> Can Man Live Without God?
Well, yeah.
Can (any) God exist when nobody believes in his existence ?
The Black Monk
> leushino a écrit :
>
>
>
> >> On May 14, 7:13 am, RVG<not.h...@themoment.org.invalid> wrote:
>
Secular birthrates (and never mind mass 20th century post-Christian
genocides) tell us that in the long-term this is a false claim (or at
best an exaggeration).
regards,
BM
RVG
>>> Can Man Live Without God?
>>
>> Well, yeah.
>
>
> Secular birthrates (and never mind mass 20th century post-Christian
> genocides)
Nah, nazism was a christian reaction against everything realized since
the Renaissance. That's why the Vatican never said a word and helped the
war criminals reach South America through their ratlines.
So was Napoleon before Hitler: he rejected science and technology
(including a revolutionary steam submarine) after Laplace had told him
that God was never a hypothesis for science (because the concept of God
predicts nothing and is therefore invalid). He even reinstated slavery!
> tell us that in the long-term this is a false claim (or at
> best an exaggeration).
>
So what, we're already too many for Earth to sustain us.
Or perhaps you want an islamic future for mankind ? These guys reproduce
like rabbits! They got their females to understand st Paul: Shut up and
serve hubbie!
MEanwhile communist China has tripled its population between 1947 and
2000. So has democratic India.
The Black Monk
> The Black Monk a écrit :
>
> >>> Can Man Live Without God?
>
> >> Well, yeah.
>
> > Secular birthrates (and never mind mass 20th century post-Christian
> > genocides)
Nothing to say about birthrates? Religion is natural, atheism
artificial. Atheists collectively die out through lower birthrates.
So, empirically, we have evidence that in the long run man cannot live
without God.
> Nah, nazism was a christian reaction against everything realized since
> the Renaissance.
Empty, irrational claim. Hess himself called Nazism "applied biology"
although paganism, vegetariansim and New Agey- stuff was popular among
Nazis.
> That's why the Vatican never said a word
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge
Mit brennender Sorge (German: "With burning anxiety") is a Catholic
Church encyclical of Pope Pius XI, published on 10 March 1937 (but
bearing a date of Passion Sunday, 14 March).[1] Written in German, not
the usual Latin, it was read from the pulpits of all German Catholic
churches on one of the Church's busiest Sundays, (Palm Sunday). It
condemned breaches of an agreement signed between the Nazi government
and the Church, and included criticism of Nazi ideology and, in the
interpretation of some scholars, of Nazism[2] and Hitler.[3][4][5][6]
> and helped the war criminals reach South America through their ratlines.
This was not good. The Church should have been better than the US
government.
> So was Napoleon before Hitler: he rejected science and technology
> (including a revolutionary steam submarine) after Laplace had told him
> that God was never a hypothesis for science (because the concept of God
> predicts nothing and is therefore invalid). He even reinstated slavery!
Napoleon a Christian reactionary? This supports what I had said
earlier - those who don't believe in God will believe in anything.
> > tell us that in the long-term this is a false claim (or at
> > best an exaggeration).
>
> So what, we're already too many for Earth to sustain us.
No, we are not even halfway there. The fact is that secular societies
have negative growth rates. As the atheists become extinct, they are
replaced by the religious. In France, this means Muslims, in America
Catholic Latin-Americans.
> Or perhaps you want an islamic future for mankind ? These guys reproduce
> like rabbits! They got their females to understand st Paul: Shut up and
> serve hubbie!
You are the one that made a statement based not on empirical evidence
but on your belief that man can live without God. He can live longer
without God than without oxygen, water or food but in the long run he
does not live without God either. It's something you just have to
deasl with.
> MEanwhile communist China has tripled its population between 1947 and
> 2000.
Peasants are communized culturally.
> So has democratic India.
Which is not atheist.
regards,
BM
v1_0
> > If you have an issue with the creation story, then start there. I
> > suspect you may need to back up a bit further and clarify what you
> > believe about God. (Or Brahman, or whatever).
>
> I don't need the notion of God. As for Brahman, I use the hegative
> definition given in the Upanishads:
>
> "That which the mind cannot conceptualize, but by which the mind does
> conceptualize, know that alone to be Brahman. Not the one whom people
> worship here."
This would define "Brahman" as either some sort of 'conceptualizing'
conduit, or facility. Paraphrasing: "That which the mind cannot see,
but by which the mind does see" - a facility/ability, eg: the eyes.
This seems to seriously diminish what I thought that the 'Brahman'
was, eg: "the uncreated truth" that creates the world by way of the
maya.
That's the problem with flowery definitions that seem to be profound.
When you parse them for meaning, you find that they are less than they
seem.
>
>
>
> >> All individuals die, even species get extinct, that's the way of
> >> evolution. Man is no different and Jesus descended from apes like you
> >> and me.
>
> > This would seem to indicate that you believe in no God at all. And
> > would seem to exclude Brahman, as the whole theory of evolution is
> > hinged upon not having a (conscious) directing force. Oh, and on the
> > "big bang" theory of the creation of the universe.
>
> The reality may not be divine at all, although it is absolute as a flood
> or a process.
> Remember for example that in the Vedas Brahman is just a deity sitting
> on a lotus that grows from Vishnu's navel while he's taking a nap on a
> wave of the ocean.
> When Vishnu wakes up, Brahman vanishes, the lotus goes back into
> Vishnu's belly and only the ocean remains until another wave allows
> Vishnu to sleep again, the lotus grows, Brahman appears, Brahman
> meditates on his nature and a universe appears.
Ah.. mutually exclusive.
>
> Most vedic tales speak about the nature of our mind, they're metaphores
> about how our intelligence works, like in the story about the universe
> being sustained on the back of a turtle. Question: what supports the
> turtle ? Another turtle, etc.
> That illustrates the way our mind works with causalities.
And, for good reason - it is one of the most reliable patterns.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> What are you basing this on? We know that our brain is still
> >>> functioning, our body still moves (in addition to the normal breathing/
> >>> etc. we turn now and again). Certain stimuli - such as sounds/
> >>> movements - will wake us. This means that at some level we are aware
> >>> of what is going on around us and make a decision to react or not to
> >>> react.
>
> >> Do you have this experience ? Or is your sole recollection: "I slept" ?
>
> > Yes, no. To your first question, Yes. I was in the military for a
> > bit. During that time I found that certain noises would wake me,
> > while other noises would not. Things like someone patrolling the
> > hallway/camp area nearby would not wake me. However, someone running
> > would.
>
> In Algeria my father slept in a road trench while a full column of tanks
> passed over him. :) He was the only soldier who didn't wake up from that
> noise.
Ok, being that he was the only one - he is the exception, right?
>
> Back to the topic: where was the running soldier except in your mind ?
> It's like pain: in order not to feel pain a surgeon only needs to put
> you in sleep. So what causes the pain ? Still, only the mind.
Fitting this into your framework: onlly if we consider that the
'other' doesn't exist and that we create the world around us. As soon
as that other has a real concious of thier own - independent from us -
we are now sharing a common experience.
There are many sorts of anesthesia. In most cases the surgeon puts
you to sleep AND uses anesthesia. They put you to sleep so you don't
move while they are working. The anesthesia works to block the
messages of pain in your body. So, your causality is a little off -
the sleep alone isn't blocking the pain. People wake up from a sleep
- such as when someone gets stung by a bee while sleeping in the back
yard on a hammock.
>
> > If you extend this, you will find that you are saying you will be
> > rewarded/punished for deeds you (as someone else) performed. You are
> > being rewarded/punished/affected - whatever you choose to consider it
> > - by actions that you are not accountable for.
>
> Well, right now I'm suffering for the simple fact of being born. There's
> no guilt there, just blind necessity: everything that was ever born must
> die and suffer until then. It's just the way it is, individuation
> causing pain through separation. Suicide being an affirmation of the ego
> is paradoxal as an act of will supposed to end the will. Extinguishing
> the will by accepting necessity is a better way, actually the way of
> monastic obediance. In simple words: "God is wiser."
This would be correct in a Christian sense. In other doctrines there
is a tendency towards pride - we have 'the power' to will things to
change, if only we can find it.
> gift of bilocation, like Ramana Maharshi. This only ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -